One Player's Observations on the 2005 World Series of Poker – Opinions on a variety of elements of the

I have attended the World Series of Poker (WSOP) every year since 1996, and many of my fondest memories in poker center around the happenings in Downtown Las Vegas at tournament time. Although I knew this year would be quite unlike the past, due to both the change in venue and the explosion in poker's popularity, I was still looking forward to the event immensely. In this column, I would like to share some of my opinions about this year's landmark edition of the World Series of Poker.

The tournaments: Overall, I think one of the biggest positives to come out of this year's event was the performance of Tournament Director Johnny Grooms. Grooms performed well while under tremendous pressure, managing to efficiently run tournaments with unprecedented field sizes. Also, there were days in which three or four tournaments were being conducted simultaneously, and mostly went off without a hitch. Other tournament staff deserve credit for this, as well, in particular, the extremely competent and experienced trio of Jody Ivener, Jimmy Sommerfeld, and Dave Lamb. I was worried that it was a recipe for disaster to double the size of the WSOP and take away the presence of outstanding tournament directors Matt Savage and Jim Miller, but overall, I was very pleasantly surprised with how smoothly the events ran.

Some other positives at the tournament included, of course, the hangarlike room that housed the event. Rio management certainly provided ample space for the tournament, demonstrating that they understood the scale of what they were hosting. Also, I thought the structures of the events were outstanding, providing for plenty of play and not reducing events played for hundreds of thousands of dollars into "crapshoots" at pivotal moments. There was so much play, in fact, that some events scheduled for two days lasted three, and at least one single-day event took two long days to complete.

The only suggestions I could offer pertained to the $5,000 buy-in event structures. I thought that it was an improvement over past years to lengthen the rounds from 60 minutes to 75 minutes in these events. However, this created a minor problem, in that playing two entire levels between breaks was too long, but playing only one level was too short. I would suggest playing 80-minute levels, with breaks every one and a half rounds. This would be consistent with the two hours of play between breaks that the smaller buy-in events use. Also, starting the $5,000 limit events with $25-$25 blinds rendered the first level essentially meaningless. However, in the $5,000 no-limit events, the blinds began at $25-$50. In these events, starting with $25-$25 blinds would be appropriate.

Finally, I was impressed with the quality of the chips used in the events. The colors of each denomination were distinct, preventing any confusion among the players. The chips also seemed to be well-manufactured.

There were a few other things I would have done differently, given the power to do so. Although there were two huge screens at opposite ends of the room that displayed tournament information, such as the time remaining in a level, I didn't think the amount of information available to the players was adequate or convenient. For one thing, these two screens were not visible to a large portion of the room. Specifically, it was difficult to see the screens from the section of the room that housed the last 15 or 20 tournament tables. Perhaps a screen could have been located in that part of the room, as well. Also, since most events lasted multiple days, and the no-limit events tended to come back on day two with more than 50 players, it would have been helpful to have a visible clock for those players. Instead, the big screens displayed information only for the event that had started that day, leaving the remaining players from the previous day's event without a clock to refer to. In my opinion, that is something that should be fixed next year. I also would like to see the return of the mixed-games event (H.O.R.S.E.). Sure, the field sizes are small, but they could still be held, perhaps with a 2 p.m. starting time on the same day as another event.

Player amenities: Although I was very impressed with the way the tournaments were run, I was less enthusiastic about other issues at the WSOP. Obviously, with as big as the event has grown, players can't really expect the same level of treatment that was bestowed upon them by Benny and Jack Binion in the early days of the tournament. However, there are a few areas in which I would hope to see improvement next year.

Food: In my opinion, receiving a $10 buffet comp to a $25 buffet when you've forked over thousands of dollars to enter a tournament seems rather paltry. Needless to say, I ate most of my meals elsewhere. Having food vendors in the hallway was an excellent idea, but I was left with a sour taste by the "captive audience" pricing there. It wasn't all bad, though. In one of the events, I won a large pot from a player who was on tilt because he had purchased a $2 banana on the previous break.

Security: As is customary at poker tournaments, the Rio offered safe-deposit boxes to its tournament guests. However, I was informed that there was a $25 fee in addition to the standard deposit. In 10 years of using temporary safe-deposit boxes at tournaments, this was a first for me. I decided to pay the charge, though, as I hate carrying money with me.

I also had a security issue with the parking situation. Valet parking was located a good half-day's hike from the poker tournament area, so this wasn't really an option. The back parking lot was the most convenient place to park. However, there was a conspicuous lack of security there. I found that odd, as hundreds of poker players carrying large sums of cash (on their way in, at least) parked there every day. I would think that setting up a temporary back valet lot could be done easily, which would help alleviate safety concerns and provide a much appreciated service to players.

Lines: These were going to be unavoidable this year, given the size of the tournaments. Restroom lines on tournament breaks were predictably brutal, and short of having more restroom facilities (hmm … not a bad idea), there isn't much that can be done. Perhaps in the ultralarge-field events, break times can be juggled so that half the field breaks first, then the other half breaks upon the return to play of the first. The lines I found most inconvenient were those at the cage. Using the same lines for buying chips, accessing safe-deposit boxes, cashing out, and signing up for tournaments presented some problems for players. I played a fair amount of live action at the Rio when I wasn't in an event, and if registration for the evening event was under way when I wanted to quit, I had to wait for a half-hour or so just to cash out my chips. Perhaps having at least one line open solely for live-game players would help alleviate this problem.

Overall, I was extremely impressed with the quality of the tournament experience this year. With a few minor touch-ups, I am hopeful that next year will be even better. It should be even bigger, too, as the growth of poker is showing no signs of slowing down.