Why Big Poker Tournaments are Bad for the Poker Economy

It seems that every few weeks you hear about some young whizz kid winning a 6 figure sum on some multi-table tournament after beating a field of 3000+. Why someone would decide to pay $10k for such a tiny chance to win the WSOP is another matter...

Its quite inspirational and you hear about the kid’s rise up from micro limits until the glorious day when he’s won a life-changing amount of money. Good for him, I have nothing against him. What I dislike is what normally happens to big winners, after they have won one of these  tournaments.

They withdraw most of their winnings and thus remove money from the poker economy and spend it on luxuries etc. Only a few of them actually use it to build up their poker bankroll.

You may argue that the poker economy is big enough to absorb these fluctuations but just remember that for every $1 that is withdrawn, another $1 needs to be deposited to balance things out without even mentioning the effect of the rake. I am not the first to say that games are becoming tougher and tougher as less fish are depositing.

Cash game and smaller to medium tournament players, on the other hand,  usually grind out for consistent wins, build up their bankrolls and move up limits.

If I had my way it would be to spread out the winnings in large tournaments away from the ‘top heavy’ structure (and the final table blinds are a joke anyway making the game a crap-shoot) that is currently in place and more evenly spread towards the top 30% finishers.

Food for thought.

Alex