For those who are curious, here’s how the USPC has changed over the years, in terms of the size of the main event field, and thereby payouts:

(Top 2 finishers in parentheses)

2002 — 72 players* (John Hennigan beats Erik Seidel)
2003 — 99 players (Toto Leonidas beats Erik Seidel)
2004 — 177 players (John Aglialoro beats Joe Cassidy)
2005 — 226 players (James “Capo” Caporuscio beats Ralph Pecorale)
2006 — 261 players (Alex Jacob beats Jordan Morgan)
2007 — 164 players (Winner TBD / Not Gavin Smith)

Not sure what all this says about the level of competition or the poker world in general, but the numbers are telling of something. This tourney did lose its TV contract this year, which certainly alters the field. But what becomes of it from here remains to be seen.

Click here to see the top-heavy payout structure.

And/or click here to dig into the history of this boldly named event. (Pre- and post-poker boom.) Do you think it’s possible that “struggling” tourneys like this one might change their payout structures to make them more appealing? Because while the 1st Place prize is plenty hefty, pros know how hard it is to actually win one of these things … and I gotta think if they knew a final table provided a bigger ROI it might be easier to put it on their schedule. Just a thought …

* Buy-in in 2002 was $7,500. Raised to $10,000 thereafter.