After taking my stroll through the Pavilion Room, I went to the Amazon Room, where Event #2 was underway. This is the $50,000 buy-in eight-game mix "Poker Player's Championship." (I don't know why "Player's" there is singular, but it is. Would make a lot more sense for it to be "Players'" if you ask me.)
There are no truly soft tables in this event, but suppose you got yourself freerolled into it somehow. Would you like to be seated here, against Matusow, Lindgren, Townsend, and Alaei?
How about here, with Corkins, Mercier, and Chiu?
Or maybe here, playing against Dwan, Negreanu, and Seed?
If you prefer, you could try your luck at this table, with Raymer, Harman, Minieri, and Seiver.
Or, if those spots just aren't challenging enough for you, maybe you'd like to take on Ivey, Benyamine, Nguyen, Giang, and Deeb:
Me, I think I'll stick to playing against the wannabes who bust out early from the $1000 weekend donkaments when their top pair is, to their astonishment, not good enough for stacks.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Event #2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
For someone who has never been to see the WSOP in person, could you explain what it takes to get inside the room and see the players in action?
You just walk in. It's open to the public. There are barriers and security guards ostensibly to prevent the general public (i.e., those who aren't playing or staff or with media credentials) from getting too close to the tables, but in most events they're pretty lax about enforcing that. They were being sharp for this event, with that many big names and such a small field to watch over. But even so, several of the tables are right up against the ropes, so you can stand about 3 feet away and watch for as long as you like.
I agree: "Player's" is dead wrong. I can see "Players" or "Players'" but definitely not "Player's".
I vote for Players - no need for an apostrophe. It's not really a possessive word in this case.
Post a Comment