Jump to content

How Many Of Say The Last 15 Wsop Me Champions Do You Say Were Flukes?


Recommended Posts

Leave it to Pat to make a thread serious.WTF.
The op has entertained me with numerous posts in Religion, so I felt obligated to at least offer a semi serious reponse to her question. :club: A bit of a trollish subject, but I had nothing better to do at work today.
PS. and all that "imo" crap, STOP IT.
Ha, my gf would whole heartedly agree with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ha, my gf would whole heartedly agree with you.
That would be her opinion, I suppose.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, maybe I'm showing my age a little here.. But the fact that we're almost to page two and no one has mentioned Noel "The Orginal Shovebot" Furlong.... LinkJamie Gold has only had a year since his ME win.. Moneymaker has had...5...Hachem won a WPT title, Raymer has a couple of mixed game wsop FTs as well, along with some sucess in the WCOOP..So we shall see.. We'd have more informed and educated arguments about the winners in the 1990s, because we have a solid period of time after their victories to examine.It's hard to judge, say... Gold vs. Moneymaker, because we have 5 years of post-win poker from Moneymaker to look at, whereas Gold has had pretty much 0 tourney success in his year+ since, but has been all over TV thanks to PAD and HSP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed; not getting unlucky is incredibly important, especially for a nit like me. :club: The more aggressive you are, the more you need to get 'lucky', the tigher you are the more you need to avoid getting 'unlucky'.The other type of luck that is vitally important is situational luck, or at least that is what I always have referred to it as. Picking up AA and having some have KK, flopping a set vs an overpair etc. You can flop all the straights and sets you want, but if no one has a hand (or is willing to play back at you w/ out one) then you are not going to build your stack very much. The example of incredibly good situational luck I always use involves Raymer, but the year after he won when he made another deep run. IIRC, he picked up AA 4-5 times on day 2, and ran it into KK 3 times, and won big pots each time. Something like that def helps someone go deep in a MTT.
This is gold.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your opinions everyone (even the ones that somewhat flamed me,lol). I guess maybe a better question would be, who among the last 15 winners would you prefer to be heads up against at the final table of this year's WSOP? Who has shown themselves to be quality poker players?

Link to post
Share on other sites

most likely to see at the poker table heads up = Jerry YangLeast likely (out of all 15) = Stu UngerOut of alive players = Huck Seed cause he has a scary Lincoln beard and is apparently 9 foot tall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm.. He beat 800 people. Gold and Yang beat 6-8k people. ...I guess I am not on the Moneymaker band wagon.
Your logic blows. And do you know anything other than what you've seen on ESPN broadcasts?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your logic blows. And do you know anything other than what you've seen on ESPN broadcasts?
Jigga-what?It is a bit flawed. Maybe...but do you think it is easier to beat 8000 or 800? And do you think it is easier for a luckbox beat to 8000 or 800? I am just curious.Also, I am an encyclopedia! So, just test me.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jigga-what?It is a bit flawed. Maybe...but do you think it is easier to be 8000 or 800? And do you think it is easier for a luckbox to 8000 or 800? I am just curious.Also, I am an encyclopedia! So, just test me.
it depends on the abilities of the 8000 and the 800. You only play one table at a time.
Link to post
Share on other sites
it depends on the abilities of the 8000 and the 800. You only play one table at a time.
Hah. You guys are funny. Of course you play a table at a time. But I doubt few would say: just taking a random part of the WSOP field they would want to play 8000 instead of 800 assuming payouts remain the same for either group.
Link to post
Share on other sites

people tend to forget jamie gold's dad was dying after he won the wsop. sometimes there are more pressing issues than poker. he played close to 0 tournaments, cashed for 58kish in one, and played on every TV show there was, even winning on HSPi dont think it's necessarily a fluke that he won, he obv had to get insanely lucky to beat a field that large, but he had a bunch of cashes leading up to the event. i dont think anyone that wins the wsop is a 'fluke' - you've got to play well to make it to the end. you can't just watch espn and conclude someone's a donk; espn makes their image.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hah. You guys are funny. Of course you play a table at a time. But I doubt few would say: just taking a random part of the WSOP field they would want to play 8000 instead of 800 assuming payouts remain the same for either group.
payouts are irrelevant. If you are talking about relative abilities all that matters is the number of quality opponents you'll face. If the additional 7200 are internet satellite winners of limited ability then they can actually make it easier to win because they dilute the quality of players youre likely to face as you progress, and give you the ability to build a bigger stack that offsets the ability of those better players you do face.Ie would you rather play 5 tables with 1 good player and 7 donks at each, or 1 table with 5 good players and 3 donks?there is no doubt in my mind that Moneymaker>Yang>Varkonyi. Gold is still an open issue.
Link to post
Share on other sites
people tend to forget jamie gold's dad was dying after he won the wsop. sometimes there are more pressing issues than poker. he played close to 0 tournaments, cashed for 58kish in one, and played on every TV show there was, even winning on HSPi dont think it's necessarily a fluke that he won, he obv had to get insanely lucky to beat a field that large, but he had a bunch of cashes leading up to the event. i dont think anyone that wins the wsop is a 'fluke' - you've got to play well to make it to the end. you can't just watch espn and conclude someone's a donk; espn makes their image.
Sorry, Varkonyi was a fluke. If you watched him a year later after another year of his MIT coach he was horrendous. He had absolutely no ability to read hands whatsoever.
Link to post
Share on other sites
payouts are irrelevant. If you are talking about relative abilities all that matters is the number of quality opponents you'll face. If the additional 7200 are internet satellite winners of limited ability then they can actually make it easier to win because they dilute the quality of players youre likely to face as you progress, and give you the ability to build a bigger stack that offsets the ability of those better players you do face.Ie would you rather play 5 tables with 1 good player and 7 donks at each, or 1 table with 5 good players and 3 donks?there is no doubt in my mind that Moneymaker>Yang>Varkonyi. Gold is still an open issue.
Pays are irrelevant, but I threw that in case someone tried to suggest money would be a reason for playing larger tourny. I disagree with you though: There is no reason to believe the 800 players in Moneymaker's era were better than than the 8000 in Golds or that Gold's competition was worse. There is no table listing the percentage of donks in the main event. Plus, with more people, the more hands you will be forced to play, hence more variance and a greater chance of busting.
Link to post
Share on other sites
people tend to forget jamie gold's dad was dying after he won the wsop. sometimes there are more pressing issues than poker. he played close to 0 tournaments, cashed for 58kish in one, and played on every TV show there was, even winning on HSPi dont think it's necessarily a fluke that he won, he obv had to get insanely lucky to beat a field that large, but he had a bunch of cashes leading up to the event. i dont think anyone that wins the wsop is a 'fluke' - you've got to play well to make it to the end. you can't just watch espn and conclude someone's a donk; espn makes their image.
Did you watch him on HSP or in any tournament since? He's got such an amazing image yet he does not adjust to it at all! He still does the same retarded bluffs in the same retarded spots, still gives away his hand strength with his mouth, and still gets no value out of his hands (when he would have an easier time getting thin value than like anyone else in poker). Not to mention how atrocious he played on HSP. He won? I could have sworn he was one of the big losers in the 500k game after the KK vs AA hand.
Link to post
Share on other sites
people tend to forget jamie gold's dad was dying after he won the wsop. sometimes there are more pressing issues than poker. he played close to 0 tournaments, cashed for 58kish in one, and played on every TV show there was, even winning on HSPi dont think it's necessarily a fluke that he won, he obv had to get insanely lucky to beat a field that large, but he had a bunch of cashes leading up to the event. i dont think anyone that wins the wsop is a 'fluke' - you've got to play well to make it to the end. you can't just watch espn and conclude someone's a donk; espn makes their image.
you could always just watch JG play and then easily conclude hes a donk
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pays are irrelevant, but I threw that in case someone tried to suggest money would be a reason for playing larger tourny. I disagree with you though: There is no reason to believe the 800 players in Moneymaker's era were better than than the 8000 in Golds or that Gold's competition was worse. There is no table listing the percentage of donks in the main event. Plus, with more people, the more hands you will be forced to play, hence more variance and a greater chance of busting.
thats just silly if you know anything about the growth in online poker that was in large part spurred by Moneymaker. The average quality of the field went down tremendously.
Link to post
Share on other sites
thats just silly if you know anything about the growth in online poker that was in large part spurred by Moneymaker. The average quality of the field went down tremendously.
Ugh. Everyone phrases things so negatively here. "if you know anything about the growth in online poker" Of course I know about the supposed Moneymaker bump. But I am not going to say internet poker was spurred on by Moneymaker. It was more spurred on by ESPN's coverage of the event and announcing relentlessly that Moneymaker was practically freerolling the event by qualifying for 39 bucks online. But, I don't know that the quality went down a whole hell of a lot. Especially by 2007. Internet players have improved by leaps and bounds. So, I know it seems right to say intuitively that the quality of play has decreased, but I am not sure that is provable. And we are all about proof ladies and germs.Additionally: You didnt even attempt to blow down this part of the argument: Plus, with more people, the more hands you will be forced to play, hence more variance and a greater chance of busting..Cause it is brick baby!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugh. Everyone phrases things so negatively here. "if you know anything about the growth in online poker" Of course I know about the supposed Moneymaker bump. But I am not going to say internet poker was spurred on by Moneymaker. It was more spurred on by ESPN's coverage of the event and announcing relentlessly that Moneymaker was practically freerolling the event by qualifying for 39 bucks online. But, I don't know that the quality went down a whole hell of a lot. Especially by 2007. Internet players have improved by leaps and bounds. So, I know it seems right to say intuitively that the quality of play has decreased, but I am not sure that is provable. And we are all about proof ladies and germs.Additionally: You didnt even attempt to blow down this part of the argument: Plus, with more people, the more hands you will be forced to play, hence more variance and a greater chance of busting..Cause it is brick baby!
When the majority of those players came in from freerolls and .net promotions, the quality went down. It doesnt matter if it was moneymaker or coverage or whatever..the fact is that the increase in players came primarily from donkey tournaments. You have no argument in that regard, it is fact.More hands = more variance, but variance is positive as well as negative. More hands against bad players => more positive variance.Give it up. Youre wrong
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...