Big One for One Drop: Answering the Critics

There’s been a fair amount of criticism in the lead up to, and subsequent aftermath of, the Big One for One Drop.While the chatter has come from several corners, the primary objections of those opposed to the $1 million buy in tournament are perhaps best expressed by Kim Lund in his blog post One Drop too many? over at Lund puts it:Let’s unpack each criticism and provide a rebuttal or two along the way.#1 One Drop as a “Mirage of an Event”Lund writes:So, Lund essentially brands the tournament as a “mirage” because: Many players are backed, the backing has an impact on the actions of the player, the backing is not revealed to the audience and ergo the audience is watching a different game than the players are playing.Problems with this argument:Backing doesn’t inherently have to affect a player’s decision-making.

The crux of Lund’s argument is that backing

The crux of Lund’s argument is that back is the reason for certain plays made or not made. But while Lund asserts that backing has this impact, he doesn’t go much further than that assertion; there’s no discussion of the why and the how. If he does take a position, it appears to be that players will somehow be more reckless or careless with their tournament life. As the prize money is “strictly theoretical. The truth of the matter is that there are several reasons why backing wouldn’t have had much of a material impact on the decision-making of the “professional poker players” in the One Drop field.

Just a few that immediately come to mind:
Many pros still had substantial pieces of their own action despite being backed for some of the buy in – substantial enough to cross the threshold where players are extremely motivated by their own financial interest.

Tom Marchese -who allegedly had only 15% of his own action

To suggest, as Lind does, that Tom Marchese -who allegedly had only 15% of his own action – will somehow play differently because his effective buy in is only $150,000 and his potential win is only $2.7 million seems a bit of a stretch.

Access to future backing is in and of itself a very valuable commodity for players. It’s not like selling a part of a million dollar buy in is easy. If it was, we doubt eventual winner Antonio Esfandiari would have publicly advertised his desire to sell pieces of his One Drop entry at face value via Twitter. If the argument being made is that back players don’t care about tournament outcomes as much as non-back players, the immense value of access to future backing cannot be disregard. To wit how many One Drop players would be able to sell action at same terms a second time?

The ancillary value of the tournament to players is tremendous.

TV time and the chance to win a WSOP bracelet in a field of only 48? Mainstream media coverage that rivals the Main Event of the WSOP? These are tremendous opportunities for most of the pros in the field especially with regulation creeping along in the US – and further work to mute the argument that backed players somehow have less at stake. The mainstream public doesn’t care about backing. No mirage because most poker-viewing either already knows about backing  some degree / simply wouldn’t care if they found out.

It was common knowledge that Moneymaker sold a good deal of his action when he won the WSOP – does the lack of that information in the standard narrative about his win make it a mirage as well?. There are plenty of aspects of any activity in the media spotlight – whether it be sports, politics, business.

Nefarious Reasons

Sometimes that’s for nefarious reasons, but generally it’s because that given detail isn’t appropriate or just doesn’t matter. Should Norman Chad also be talking about the sports betting debts of players in action? How about their relationship status or mental health history?No one is covering this up. Mirage suggests some sort of intentional deception, but fact that nearly every backed player One Drop about their backing publicly. It was the topic of much conversation during the streaming coverage of Day 1 and Day 2. If backing isn’t the topic of conversation in the main broadcast. Likely because backing arrangements generally private and therefore unverifiable by nature and therefore, any analysis based backing would pure speculation .

#2 The Nasty Fallout Lund’s basic position here that One Drop different sort fire that poker players are messing with. He writes:And adds:A couple of quick responses to this argument: You can’t have your cake and eat it to0. Lund first argues that backing relieves players of the responsibility of caring about the massive buy in. But now he pivots and basically claims that players care so much that they’ll be driven addiction busting One Drop.

The money genie is already out of the bottle

Which is it?The money genie is already out of the bottle. One million dollars in the context of shouldn’t sound like a lot to people who have watched The Big Game or High Stakes Poker or any of their progeny. It also shouldn’t sound like too much to someone who regularly plays any of the multiple high roller events found at major live Tournaments..

In short, these are not dosages far exceeding normal tolerance levels for many if not all players involved One Drop. It’s an interesting topic of conversation, and it’s tempting to agree with with Lund has to say after all. Critical analysis of Big One for One Drop can only result in better execution of similar events in the future. While that room for improvement likely exists, we just don’t see it in the same places as Kim. Read Kim Lund’s original post.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *