Jump to content

Recommended Posts

For all the great stories of 'I had AA and the idiot called me with a 72-off and he scored two pair. He shouldn't have played that against my A's.'It's never going to be the players fault that he lost. It's always going to be someone else's fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

For all the great stories of 'I had AA and the idiot called me with a 72-off and he scored two pair. He shouldn't have played that against my A's.'It's never going to be the players fault that he lost. It's always going to be someone else's fault.
What are you saying? You think it's going to be difficult for me to play for five days twelve to thirteen hours a day, in a highly stressfull situation, and not make one mistake, or take one bad beat which costs me the tournement. I don't see how you guys don't think that this will be a cakewalk.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm dreaming again? You're the one spouting off about dancing your way through a 6600 person field. Confident in your abilities is one thing, but holy crap you're censored.  Seriously, I hope you do well and get your picture up on that wall, but the fact that you're #2376 of #6600 doesn't bode well for your chances.  And anyway, my post had nothing to do with you, it had everything to do with the WSOP and how overblown it has gotten. As it is, I don't think you can judge a players greatness by one tournament over the course of one week in a players life. Look at the list of WSOP champions from the 90's and name 5 who have had a lasting impact on the game:1990 - Mansour Matloubi (who?)1991 - Brad Dougherty (who?)1992 - Hamid Dastmalchi (who?)1993 - Jim Bechtel (who?)1994 - Russ Hamilton1995 - Dan Harrington (1)1996 - Huck Seed  1997 - Stu Ungar (2)1998 - Scotty Nguyen (3)1999 - Noel Furlong (who?)Moneymaker hasn't won a tournament since the Main Event, same for Raymer, same for Varkonyi. They were proficient amatuers who happened to have the sun shining on them at the right moment, and haven't been able to duplicate the glow.  The WSOP is just one tournament, it's the same thing as claiming Shawn Micheal was the world's greatest golfer in 2003 because he had a good tournament that happened to be the PGA Championship.  I'm kinda all over the place with my criticism here, but I think you get the point (even if you disagree with it).
I'm too lazy to look it up, but Raymer has won other tournaments, and was semi-pro before playing in the WSOP last year. He's the guy that new guys to this forum always rag on, but him and MM are two completely different cats. Don't lump them. It doesn't matter if the WSOP is no longer a true test of skill, blah blah, because it's not even about that anymore. It's about face time. It's about marketing. Pros will continue to play in it for the marketing possibilities. Getting to the final table is worth easily more than twice what it pays in future product opportunities. The WSOP will never die because it makes way too much money for way too many people. ... it's really not even about poker anymore!
Link to post
Share on other sites
6600 of the greatest poker players in the world!i almost typed that without laughing
Well lets not say 6600 of the best players in the world, more like 4000, with 2000 rich people who just got done watching the WPT.
Hardly. More like 200 of the best players in the world. and 5800 rich morons.There are probably only 200 players that actually have the skill to win the whole thing (not factoring any luck into it).The rest of the 5800 will need a pant-load of luck a la Varkonyi/MM.
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the pros and regulars of the main event should have the most say in this. That does not prevent spectatators like me from commenting though!The field is getting too big - for managability reasons. There are three starting shifts now and beyond that would make too much of a delay in the game. If a pro wins this year, he will have uber bragging rights, but if another newcomer (more like Moneymaker instead of Raymer) wins, I think the emotional push will be there to limit the field by raising the entry fee. I could be wrong though because the payout structure is still good and the more dead money the better. But, honestly I think most pro players really care making it to the final table and winning than than the money.But, here's my big argument.... It makes little sense to keep the fee at the original $10K (since 1972!). The WPT Championship is a $25K buy in and had a $2.8M first prize. Regardless of limiting the field, the buy-in should be raised. This is the Main event.I wonder if this discussion is taking place anywhere else online and by anyone with influence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, the pros and regulars of the main event should have the most say in this. That does not prevent spectatators like me from commenting though!The field is getting too big - for managability reasons. There are three starting shifts now and beyond that would make too much of a delay in the game. If a pro wins this year, he will have uber bragging rights, but if another newcomer (more like Moneymaker instead of Raymer) wins, I think the emotional push will be there to limit the field by raising the entry fee. I could be wrong though because the payout structure is still good and the more dead money the better. But, honestly I think most pro players really care making it to the final table and winning than than the money.But, here's my big argument.... It makes little sense to keep the fee at the original $10K (since 1972!). The WPT Championship is a $25K buy in and had a $2.8M first prize. Regardless of limiting the field, the buy-in should be raised. This is the Main event.I wonder if this discussion is taking place anywhere else online and by anyone with influence.
I think they should have a $100,000 main event. That would be a world championship. even if there were only 100 of the best players willing to put up the cash. what do you think?
Link to post
Share on other sites

wading through a field of 6600 is much more difficult and challenging than beating a field of 2600. period.which is harder, a 40 person tourney on pstars, or a 1400 person tourney?

Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, the pros and regulars of the main event should have the most say in this. That does not prevent spectatators like me from commenting though!The field is getting too big - for managability reasons. There are three starting shifts now and beyond that would make too much of a delay in the game. If a pro wins this year, he will have uber bragging rights, but if another newcomer (more like Moneymaker instead of Raymer) wins, I think the emotional push will be there to limit the field by raising the entry fee. I could be wrong though because the payout structure is still good and the more dead money the better. But, honestly I think most pro players really care making it to the final table and winning than than the money.But, here's my big argument.... It makes little sense to keep the fee at the original $10K (since 1972!). The WPT Championship is a $25K buy in and had a $2.8M first prize. Regardless of limiting the field, the buy-in should be raised. This is the Main event.I wonder if this discussion is taking place anywhere else online and by anyone with influence.
They can just hold the event at a bigger venue for the first day if it gets bigger. We already have a 25K buyin championship. This is the world series anyone can win, I don't get the argument that the best players have to make it through a huge field, so what. Dan Harrington has somehow figured out a way to make it to the final table, proving that it is about skill not luck. Now actually winning the tournement that is about luck no matter what size the field of the field is.
Link to post
Share on other sites
For all the great stories of 'I had AA and the idiot called me with a 72-off and he scored two pair. He shouldn't have played that against my A's.'It's never going to be the players fault that he lost. It's always going to be someone else's fault.
What are you saying? You think it's going to be difficult for me to play for five days twelve to thirteen hours a day, in a highly stressfull situation, and not make one mistake, or take one bad beat which costs me the tournement. I don't see how you guys don't think that this will be a cakewalk.
Awww...12 hour days playing a 'stressful' game where all you have to do is decide 'Do I have the best cards right now?'. You make it sound like there's a challenge or skill or something. Just trust to your luck and all will be ok.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's inevitable that the fee increases. I agree. $10K (and not rising) in over 30 years is absurd.Pretty much any one of us could scrape up 10K (cash advances on credit cards) if we really wanted to be there. It's just silly.Now $25K is a different story.What I also HATE is the fact that they have to split up "Day 1" between 2 days. I don't know why but I hate that bigtime.I feel like everyone should start at the same time. Psychologically it's not good if you start on day 2 and realize that Gus Hansen is a huge chipleader already. It's just stupid.6000 people is stupid. They should cap it at 2500 so that it never gets more than 2004.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The WSOP is just one tournament, it's the same thing as claiming Shawn Micheal was the world's greatest golfer in 2003 because he had a good tournament that happened to be the PGA Championship.  
Not really since no one considers the PGA to be 'the' tournament. Out of the majors, it is by far the least prestigious, so I can't see how you could compare it to the WSOP Main Event. The WSOP ME is poker's version of the Masters; Poker's version of the PGA would be....heh, I don't know...not even the WPT Championship, whatever you would consider the fourth biggest tournament of the year.Patrick
Link to post
Share on other sites
I1990 - Mansour Matloubi (who?)1991 - Brad Dougherty (who?)1992 - Hamid Dastmalchi (who?)1993 - Jim Bechtel (who?)1994 - Russ Hamilton1995 - Dan Harrington (1)1996 - Huck Seed  1997 - Stu Ungar (2)1998 - Scotty Nguyen (3)1999 - Noel Furlong (who?)
Hmmm... you hurt yourself with this argument. Just because YOU don't know who Mansour Matloubi is doesn't mean he's not incredibly talented. He's made more than one WSOP Main Event final table! Brad Daugherty co-authored a book with Tom McEvoy about tournament strategy. Jim Bechtel still competes on the tournament circuit (I think), and has made multiple WSOP final tables. Hamid Dastmalchi's won THREE BRACELETS!I'm not exactly sure what your point is (perhaps that "just because someone wins the WSOP, it doesn't mean he's that sweet"), but the argument you make here goes more to your own ignorance than anything else.Ice
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I recall there was complaints about the staggered starting structure, but afterwards people got content and thought there were some good things about it: Getting a little break before Day 2, knowing that you're already ahead of everyone who got busted out in group A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore ajs500. he is a fool and discussing with him only helps legitimizes his point. much of what he posted so far is just rubbish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I1990 - Mansour Matloubi (who?)1991 - Brad Dougherty (who?)1992 - Hamid Dastmalchi (who?)1993 - Jim Bechtel (who?)1994 - Russ Hamilton1995 - Dan Harrington (1)1996 - Huck Seed  1997 - Stu Ungar (2)1998 - Scotty Nguyen (3)1999 - Noel Furlong (who?)
Hmmm... you hurt yourself with this argument. Just because YOU don't know who Mansour Matloubi is doesn't mean he's not incredibly talented. He's made more than one WSOP Main Event final table! Brad Daugherty co-authored a book with Tom McEvoy about tournament strategy. Jim Bechtel still competes on the tournament circuit (I think), and has made multiple WSOP final tables. Hamid Dastmalchi's won THREE BRACELETS!I'm not exactly sure what your point is (perhaps that "just because someone wins the WSOP, it doesn't mean he's that sweet"), but the argument you make here goes more to your own ignorance than anything else.Ice
The disturbing trend is for people to discount a player's abilities based on their lack of Travel Channel/ESPN exposure. With the influx of new players/fans into the game, most people aren't really aware what took place in the game prior to the pocket cams coming into play, besides what small bit of history they might pick up via groups like this and tv. Sure, you and I might know that Hamid has 3 bracelets, or that Mansour was considered a top NL player, but unless they have been on TV in the last two years, most people won't know who they are.Oh, and as far as I know, Jim Bechtel is still playing at least some events. He finished in the money in the WPT Championship a few weeks back (69th) and won $30k.Patrick
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm not very smart but I think MM and Greg Raymer are very good players. But I wouldn't lump them together either. MM hasn't won (to my knowledge) a big tourney since his ME win. But did get 2nd in a WPT event. So the man has more skill than the majority of us.When Greg won in 2004 that was his 3rd time in the ME. He's done well in tournaments since then. Most recently at the WPT championship. Although I do think they're 2 totally different poeple I think they're both great guys. I've spoken and echanged a few PM's with Greg and he's always taken the time to help me out.Do I think luck was involved in BOTH of their wins? Absolutly...but I think it takes luck for anyone to win about any tournament. From what the TV showed MM got lucky much more than Greg did.A guy I work with is good friends with Shaun Micheel and I agree doesn't appear to be the best player in the world. But he put it together when my nurts would've tightened up ROYALLY. Absolutly CLUTCH in the last hole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1999 - Noel Furlong (who?) Not sure if I have told this story here, but its funny anyway so if you have heard it please ignore.I was playing with him at the WPT super satelite. He was on the button (seat 10) and I was in the SB (Seat 1). He calls, I call, BB checks, flop 774, I check, BB Checks, he lays down a bet. I peer around the dealer and say, "Wow, you must be the greatest player in history, how did you know to call with 74 offsuit, and to think you hit a boat, wow you are lucky". I muck my cards, and the guy across the table says: "You don't know who he is". At this point I had an oh crap moment. The guy says thats the 1999 world series champion your talking to, so ya he pretty much is one of the greatest. Well a few hands later the world champ was busted on a bluff, he pushes in on the river, and when the other guy starts reaching for his chips, Noel tosses his cards in the muck, gets up and leaves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
he pushes in on the river, and when the other guy starts reaching for his chips, Noel tosses his cards in the muck, gets up and leaves.
lol. Silly, he could have been faking like he was going to call.
Link to post
Share on other sites
ignore ajs500. he is a fool and discussing with him only helps legitimizes his point. much of what he posted so far is just rubbish.
You know, it's one thing to counter my points with more valid ones and back up the new arguments with solid fact. I respect the points of view of everyone who has backed up their opinion with better facts than I brought to the table. It's another to just dismiss me as a fool who has no idea what he's talking about. D.ick moveI never claimed to be an expert on poker, my only argument in this whole thread was that winning the WSOP Main Event doesn't make you the best poker player in the world (no single accomplishment makes anyone the best at anything.) That was my whole point, if you want to come down on me and call me ignorant because it makes you feel better about yourself, it's a free Net.
Link to post
Share on other sites
ignore ajs500. he is a fool and discussing with him only helps legitimizes his point. much of what he posted so far is just rubbish.
You know, it's one thing to counter my points with more valid ones and back up the new arguments with solid fact. I respect the points of view of everyone who has backed up their opinion with better facts than I brought to the table. It's another to just dismiss me as a fool who has no idea what he's talking about. D.ick moveI never claimed to be an expert on poker, my only argument in this whole thread was that winning the WSOP Main Event doesn't make you the best poker player in the world (no single accomplishment makes anyone the best at anything.) That was my whole point, if you want to come down on me and call me ignorant because it makes you feel better about yourself, it's a free Net.
You're right, but that's just not a point worth making. The debate was about the size of the event, and what's best for the present and future of the WSOP, not, "Who is the best player in the world, and how do we determine this?" The way things stand now, the WSOP Main Event is easily the most important and prestigious championship in poker, and to argue otherwise is silly. That event, more than any other, has been the event by which greatness is measured.So all I'm saying is that the point you made is a complete non sequitur.Ice
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I agree that the WSOP is the most prestigious event. 2. I agree that to argue like this is silly. 3. I guess I'm done, since any further posting on the topic would negate #2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps there needs to be some ultra-high buy in event, like 50K or 100K, with no satellite entries. You have to wire the money from your own account. This might lock out the 6,000 online qualifiers. Then the pros can buy in and see who's best. No amateur would pony up that kind of dough.However, I don't think the WSOP should be changed. The saying associated with it is 'anyone can win', so why try to change that?Side note: what if the buy-in had been adjusted for inflation every year? What would it be now? That might've slowed down the number of entrants...

Link to post
Share on other sites

its all about the money, i don't think the pros really care that there will be 6000 people there. Thats just more money in the pot and while alot of it is luck the people that know what there doing are going to go farther and last longer than most. $$$

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be incredible when the Main Event gets down to heads up. I think the largest value chip they are using this year is $100,000 and it would take a stack of 660 of those to cover all the chips in play. $66,000,000 in chips all on one table in play at one time, it will be something to see. I wonder what the blinds will be when it gets to heads up. Check raises for $10,000,000, it's going to be entertaining.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...