I have some comments to make about poker tournaments in general and the world championship in particular.

I like retaining the traditional $10,000 buy-in amount for the World Series of Poker main event. I do not see why this wonderful event should aim toward giving the poker elite fewer competitors or an even better chance to win. The monetary overlay for a good player is already very high now. Also, we have the prestigious $50,000 buy-in H.O.R.S.E. contest for poker's elite, in which a person who wins has some kind of legitimate claim to be considered the best all-around player. I do not think the world championship needs a higher buy-in.

Considering the various levels of antes and blinds in the world championship, there is no reason why the rate of increase should be uniform. A poker player should have to cope with varying ratios of blinds to antes, rather than have each blinds level look like the one before it. In fact, there are some points in the tournament where doubling the entire structure seems right to me, and other places where going up only about 50 percent seems more appropriate. Let's take a closer look at tournament structure.

For $10,000 in chips, I think starting out at $25-$50 blinds is perfect; each player has 200 times the big blind in starting chips. The progression I like from here is $50-$100, $75-$150, $100-$200. The game is now all black-chip and higher. Maybe we could take out the green chips here, and play with blinds only for a somewhat longer time than we do now. I suggest that we go to $200-$400, $300-$600, $400-$800, and now start to use an ante ($400-$800 with a $100 ante). For those of you who think there is somewhat more skill involved in playing with an ante, I will say two things. First, there are still several days of play ahead in which an ante will be used. Second, you can get a few more hands played in the same time period if an ante is not being used, so you do get a little something back. Isn't it helpful to get the green chips out of the game as soon as possible?

If you are looking to improve the WSOP championship event, I will tell you where to start. Do not play until 3 a.m. on the first day of play. What other mental competitive event makes its players put in that kind of hours in a multiday event? Absolutely none.

I did not play in the world championship this year, and this player-abusive schedule is the reason why. I could have had a total freeroll, with a backer for the buy-in and a free place to stay, yet decided to stay home. And you will not see me playing in this event until the scheduling is changed. Why should I have to stay up six or seven hours past my normal bedtime, putting my biorhythms out of whack for the entire trip? Entrants who are already on Pacific time get a big edge on the field. Enough said on that topic.

Here is an interesting question that I was asked about a fairly common tournament situation:

"At a six handed table, the blinds are $100-$200 and I have $2,080 in chips in the small blind. Everyone folds to the button, who raises to $600 (he has $2,700 in chips). I have a pair of deuces. I think I probably have the best hand, but cannot dominate anything, and am in bad shape against another pair. Should I fold, call, or raise all in?"

Here was my answer:

"Your stack size gives you almost no fold equity by raising; you are likely to get called by any two cards. The only plausible hand against which you have a significant overlay is an ace with a card matching your pair, a very rare hand. A pocket pair bigger than yours would not be a surprise hand to run into, though I agree that he is much more likely to have two overcards. My guesstimate is that the average opponent open-raising (not all in) from on the button is probably around 20 percent to 25 percent to have an overpair in this situation.

"With the amount of money you have, the distinct possibility of your being a big dog should deter you from playing. Your situation is not that desperate. However, there is a point in stack size when you are better off putting your money in and hoping to face two overcards than trying for a better spot. The twin dangers of catching nothing and catching a hand too late, doubling up only to get back to where you are right now, may say that you are better off taking a little the worst of it now than getting ground out without a fight or too late to win a decent amount of chips. Being in the big blind, rather than the small blind, significantly improves the math. Another disadvantage of being in the small blind is that the big blind is yet to act, and his entrance to the pot would be extremely unwelcome when you are looking at a small pair. So, you must have a much tighter standard in the small blind than in the big blind. My best guess is that when you have less than six times the big blind after posting, and are in the big blind, you should go ahead and reraise, despite the near certainty of being called. With six times the big blind or more remaining in your stack, keep your powder dry. In the small blind, maybe less than four times the big blind remaining is a decent point to feel forced to play. But the smaller your stack, the greater the chance of the big blind playing. If you are at a point in the tournament where your elimination would result in a bigger payoff to the other players, and the big blind has some chips, you are quite likely to both get that toxic second opponent and have them both check the hand throughout. So, at that point in a tournament, I would fold no matter what my stack size, as you still have some chance to move up and win more money if a major pot develops."

Lastly, a comment about my long overdue book, No-limit Holdem Poker: It is still in the process of being completed, due partly to a major computer problem last year and a lot of my time being taken up with political activity. I both hope and expect for it to be completed by Christmas of this year.