2025 World Series of Poker May 27th - July 16th

I just find all the current tournament pros to be completely insufferable

It seems more fair to use a formula that accounts for both wins and buy-ins.

Like to me the POY would be the one with something like the highest average ROI (mean of the ROIs from all events they entered) divided by their total profit over their best 10 events (profit = wins- buy-ins).

So basically a formula that gives credit for both how much you're making on average per tournament as well as how much you're making total.

That way you're giving credit both for astounding results in large fields, consistent positive results over the entire series, as well as astounding results in the highest buy-ins. If someone tries to win just by firing the most that will drag their average ROI down.

It seems like with the app now tracking everything, including total bullets fired, something like this would be conceivable.

You might need to tweak my proposed formula, for example to limit the influence of outlier events, but something like this could be an improvement over the current points system.

Ahhh, that’s adorable that Deeb thinks binking a bracelet in a 121 player field with some also-rans should best a 3-bracelet winner or 2-bracelet winner ME+PPC. Keep drinking the kool-aid Shaun and have your wife write tweets for you (his words not mine).

Can someone copy and paste their full tweets?

Phil's is a video

I mentioned this in less detail above, but there's so much luck in the late stages of tournaments, especially HU at the end, that placing a super premium on winning bracelets seems to me to be unsupported. You already get a good chunk of extra points for 1st vs 2nd. WSOP has really done a good job maintaining the aura of the bracelet, given how much of a premium people seem to place on it.

But at the end of the day, who cares? POY wins a $10k main event seat and a title.

Yup the sun runners receive all glory and glaze. Live career tournament earnings!!! Omg! Give me a 5bb/100 winner at 200nl rush an cash over any mtt circuit grinder

Deeb: "I deserve POY because I always play a massive schedule and Ive earned it because I put in the hours"

The dude is absolutely insufferable. The little praise he gives to Glaser reads like it was like pulling nails for him to write it.

It seems clear with this years result that certain tournaments are heavily overvalued. Like Deeb's 100 man PLO donkament win is pushing him ahead of more suitable candidates because its a big buyin.

They should add something where you get exponential points for winning multiple bracelets to make sure that its the player with the most memorable summer who wins and not just someone who has the most money/backing to play the most events.

I basically agree with Deeb on this, but why does he need someone to help him write his tweets?

But are people just suggesting we change POY to be whoever wins the most bracelets? Otherwise, I’m not following the arguments. They already changed the formula to make 1st place twice as many points as 2nd, and limit the number of cashed, what more do you want?

The more that I think about it, the big change that the WSOP could make that might satify people is to not let online results count at all.

I hadn’t realized until I saw Deeb’s tweet that he actually has -three- 2nd place finishes. But one was in an online event, and he got almost 500 points from it. Yet no one remembers this when thinking about how these players did over the course of the Series because it’s not really covered in the poker media.

Glaser has about 300 points from his best online score, and Mizrachi had nothing.

If you don’t count online at all, Glaser wins by a few points over Mizrachi and Deeb finishes 3rd.

I think buyin amount should be virtually irrelevant as a determinant of points won. So someone binks a 121 player field but gets way more points just because buyin was $100K?? This idea has DNegs/Deebs fingerprints all over it, especially DNegs who loathes and laughs at the smaller buyin fields. Buyin amount should be irrelevant to POY points awarded.

Edit: I also agree online shouldn’t be a part of POY.

Was Deeb able to get all his pals to dump their chips to him in the online finishes, too?
Or was that only in the HR PLO bink?
(Allegedly...?)[image]kWUFmeJ.jpg[/im

..]

Apparently not. Cliffs?

Insane bluff that only Jared Bleznick thought was a good idea

...but it worked. And then the dude who should never fold in that spot hit on her for the remainder of their time at the TV Table. Lol

If he called, she was out on Day 1 (or 2, or whatever it was).

She played a good tournament after that though, it seems. 👍

was day 1

another lady later another dude was clearly flirting with and not trying vs her. This is why poker is great if these idiots have 10000 dollars to blow on this tournament... They're probably just playing you you fing moron.

regarding should not fold, this year's main event was the world series of incorrectly hero folding on the river. "this spot is underbluffed!" well not anymore

qft

qft

i noticed the railbird you're referring to and immediately thought she was that dealer

alas, the girl simply looked like that dealer (the girl on the rail wasn't the dealer)

A+ post

👍

wp sir

This fails as soon as someone plays and wins as their only event of the series the Main event - 10K buyin, 10M prize, ROI 1000%.

This has two problems:
1) You have to make players buyins public and this is something WSOP doesnt do.
2) You might create a situation where a player is incentivized to skip events to protect their current ROI.

I've worked on a ton of leaderboards in the past, and they've been refinining the WSOP POY for decades. Whatever system you come up with can create a weird scenario or incentivize the wrong behaviour; the current system is pretty good, you just had three very unique WSOP paths:

1) Consistent excellence with one very solid win
2) Three decent wins and some so so results
3) Two otherwordly wins and some so so results

From an eye test/gut reaction, I would find it hard to give it to anyone by the Grinder, but I think Deeb's got a reasonable case when you actually look at it. Glaser is the one I'd probably be thinking doesn't have the case.

So Jared Bleznick thought this bluff was a good idea. You didn’t think this bluff was a good idea. The bluff worked. Ergo…Margets got lucky?

Also, are you suggesting that a player who outlasted nearly 10,000 other runners to make the final table of the main event actually had to get lucky in a spot?

You misspelled “I was wrong every single time I insisted that Margets misplayed this spot and punted her stack. And every other poster here was correct every single time they explained to me why Margets did NOT misplay her hand in this spot and did NOT punt her stack.”

Yeah like I said, my suggested formula would take some refining to exclude something like one outstanding result skewing things.

I still would like to see ROI incorporated somehow. WSOP might not list it in a chart publicly, but with the app it is effectively publicly available. Anyone who was tracking the app closely could theoretically compile their own ROI stats.

I think the second reason you highlighted is the real reason WSOP won't incorporate ROI. They want the incentives to push people to fire as much as possible. They paid lip service to wanting to prevent this when they capped the POY total to only a player's top ten results. Ten results is still a lot though, so with the current format it's almost always going to go to someone who fires an extreme amount.

I'm surprised you think Glaser doesn't have a case though. Winning one bracelet is extremely difficult, and he won three of them. Three bracelets is worth a lot more than one or two.

Now grinder has a good case just by virtue of which two events he won, I'll give you that.

I actually think Deeb makes the worst case from an eye test perspective. The event he won was a high roller so while the field was tough, wasn't it barely over 100 entries? He also had a second place finish in an online event which is less prestigious with less runners.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to diminish what Deeb accomplished. He won fair and square under the current system and all three of these players were deserving, IMO.

I actually agree with Deeb that POY should reward consistent results, not just bracelets, which is why I would like to see ROI incorporated somehow. To me consistent results implies consistent winning in comparison to how much you're firing.

The current system is like hendon mob where someone can be a paper tiger who fires so much they rack up impressive numbers even though they're losing more than they're winning.

Real reason you won't see ROI involved is you can't know the REAL ROI. Assume Daniel is 100% staked into whatever he plays. He cashes once and his ROI is infinity. Sure you can know everyone one's rebuys but you don't know if it is their money or not.

If it isn't actually costing a player to enter, isn't he right to play as aggressively until entries close? OTOH, if a player isn't paying his own entries (which you can never atually know) should those entries count at all for POY?

I agree that most players will fire more aggressively with other peoples' money, but I still think the ROI for bullets they actually fire is what should be relevant for POY.

I'm pretty sure Mizrachi at least was playing mostly with OPM, at least for the PPC. I don't think that makes him any less deserving of the accolades he gets.

Still if it's a close race for POY like this year the player who accomplished what they did with less buyins is probably most deserving.

Why are you pretty sure that Mizrachi wasnÂ’t playing his own money?

Why are you pretty sure that Mizrachi wasn’t playing his own money?