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

[mooncons 0]

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

No, I am not wrong.Variance against bad plays can be good. But in the span of 1, Count It! 1, tournament playing a lot of bad players is not necessarily good. If you were to play a whole series of tournaments, it would be a benefit, but since you have to play SO many hands with 8000 in the ring, then it just means more bullets you have to dodge. This isn't to say that that players in the 8000 field were bad. I won't give you that! Just a side point.Also, I don't think you have any proof that most of the entrants came from freerolls. I doubt that 10% percent freerolled their way in.

[CobaltBlue 662]

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.... Link

Seriously...was wondering the same.Wow...for whatever reason, I didn't realize or forgot that Goehring got second that year. To show my nerdery...a couple of years ago, I memorized all of the WSOP ME champions in order.Also, Russ Hamilton really never won anything major after his victory.

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..

So you're saying that you respect people more that dodged negative variance longer?

[Metternich 0]

copernicus is 100% right here, just give up.I don't have an exact percentage, but in the years after Raymer a huge number of sites and casinos started running WSOP freerolls and satellites. A person who gets in after winning a $50 satty is going to be a way worse player than someone who buys in for $10k. Just think about it, its the difference between the person who plays 1/2 stakes and a person in the bigger leagues. There were donks in the 90s WSOP, but those guys were successful businessmen who played a little poker also, they played well enough to feel like taking a ten grand shot.A donk now can be some 21 year old college "bro" with a backwards cap and some natty ice who sattelited in. There are still semi-competent businessmen, but now there are hundreds more bros.

[Ouch-8s 4]

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?

if we're talking poker ability, varkoni for sure. but a close second is definately yang, esp with the added chance to crush his faith. metagame, people...

[uncooper 1]

a bunch of stuff to mooncons.

Wait I gotta be reading this wrong, are you seriously trying to argue that beating 8000 people in 2006 was easier than beating 800 people in 2003?

[Cappy37 0]

Seriously...was wondering the same.Wow...for whatever reason, I didn't realize or forgot that Goehring got second that year. To show my nerdery...a couple of years ago, I memorized all of the WSOP ME champions in order.Also, Russ Hamilton really never won anything major after his victory.

Yeah, Alan did make a fantastic run that year. You can even argue Alan would have been regarded as a solid winner, too, with all those strong WPT showings.. Of course, we all know Alan best for hitting the miracle case-5 on JC Tran, so meh...Russ won his weight in silver in addition to the cash prize, a wacky promotion for that year's anniversary recognition. Oh.. to be a fly on the wall in Binion's corporate office when they realized the two guys playing HU for the title weighed 160 and 375..... lol.Hamilton later admitted he lied about his weight (like 325). so Binion's still technically owes him 50 pounds of silver, if he was a$$holish enough to collect it.I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who browses profiles on Cardplayer for fun.. One of the biggest bummers in poker was Dewey Tomko coming up short, he's an amazing character, and one of the greatest degen gamblers of all time. There's a great section on Tomko in Rick Reily's book Who's your Caddy?, where Reily played caddy 18 holes for a bunch of different people in sports and media, and wrote an article on each. Awesome book, and an excellent stocking stuffer/gift for a buddy who's into golf or sports at all.

[Cappy37 0]

Wait I gotta be reading this wrong, are you seriously trying to argue that beating 8000 people in 2006 was easier than beating 800 people in 2003?

You need to take in account the actual talent level of the final table, too....Moneymaker had to contend with some *really good* players who had solid chip stacks..1.) Sammy Farha2.) Dan Harrington3.) Amir Vahedi4.) Jason Lesterjust to name a few... Those are solid, aggresssive players (even Harrington is aggressive as tables get shorter) who could have easily chopped down Moneymaker's lead/tourney chances if he sat back and played it safe. No one's arguing that doding a 8k person minefield is easy.. The majority is just saying that the tables Moneymaker had to survive and thrive against as the tourney wore on were significantly tougher than the softer fields of today.

[mooncons 0]

You need to take in account the actual talent level of the final table, too....Moneymaker had to contend with some *really good* players who had solid chip stacks..1.) Sammy Farha2.) Dan Harrington3.) Amir Vahedi4.) Jason Lesterjust to name a few... Those are solid, aggresssive players (even Harrington is aggressive as tables get shorter) who could have easily chopped down Moneymaker's lead/tourney chances if he sat back and played it safe. No one's arguing that doding a 8k person minefield is easy.. The majority is just saying that the tables Moneymaker had to survive and thrive against as the tourney wore on were significantly tougher than the softer fields of today.

I still say an 8000+ field with pros, internet pros, and donks is harder to beat than an 800 field of pros, internet pros, and donks.Which is really what we are arguing. I think any poker pro will tell you there is a lot of dead money in today's game, but there are also way more sharks. Kids that have played poker 2-3 years, itching to go to the world series (bro's if you will) that really do have a solid game. Thus making the 8000 field harder to beat, imo. I quote Kirk Morrison, "A few years ago there were only a handful of players that you could say could win any given tournament. Now there there a tons."

[FCP Bob 1,321]

Hamilton later admitted he lied about his weight (like 325). so Binion's still technically owes him 50 pounds of silver, if he was a$$holish enough to collect it.

Russ Hamilton under no circumstances would leave any money on the table. If anything he would put lead weights in his pockets, shoes, underwear etc as they were weighing him.

[Outlaw_IA 0]

Varkonyi - terrible playerYang - TERRRRRRRRRRRIBLE playerGold - his talking won him alot of pots because people didnt know what was going on. If you've watched him play HSP or Poker after Dark since you can see he is nothing more than average.Furlong - most people dont even know who this is, that should be enough said.

[aucu 3]

What about Brad Daughtery 1991 Champ, Its been said he is a very poor player and wrote a couple of poker books that sucked with the exception of the sat book.And his bubby Tom McEvoy 1983 Champ, Why does Stars keep this guy on the team?

[copernicus 0]

Wait I gotta be reading this wrong, are you seriously trying to argue that beating 8000 people in 2006 was easier than beating 800 people in 2003?

Yes, youre reading it wrong. it started with mooncons claim was that Yang and Gold are better than Moneymaker is proven because they won in fields of 6-8k, and Moneymaker only a field of 800. There are other factor, including the quality of the opponents. He then tried to claim that the overall quality of the field hasnt gone down!BTW, on the first point, Ive estimated that a 10x increase in number of players in the field only increases the number of players you actually face by 2.5-3x. So the average quality of the player you face is clearly down significantly. Add in the luck factor and its harder for any one player to win vs 8000 than 800, but that doesnt prove that the one who beats 8000 is better.

[mooncons 0]

Yes, youre reading it wrong. it started with mooncons claim was that Yang and Gold are better than Moneymaker is proven because they won in fields of 6-8k, and Moneymaker only a field of 800. There are other factor, including the quality of the opponents. He then tried to claim that the overall quality of the field hasnt gone down!BTW, on the first point, Ive estimated that a 10x increase in number of players in the field only increases the number of players you actually face by 2.5-3x. So the average quality of the player you face is clearly down significantly. Add in the luck factor and its harder for any one player to win vs 8000 than 800, but that doesnt prove that the one who beats 8000 is better.

Sigh Galileo wannabe!....you distort my words---terribly.

[acesup85 0]

Moneymaker's final table was stacked. Even the last 2 tables were pretty solid. So I wouldn't say that beating the 8000 was harder than beating the 800. Gold had to deal with Cunningham at his final table but had such a massive chip lead by the time he even saw Allen that he had a large advantage. Moneymaker by no means ever had a large chip lead in the tournament. He had to go through: Ivey, Harrington, Farha, Lester, Vahedi. That is a pretty strong group to get through, not to mention he handled having Chan on his left for an entire day and ended up busting him.

[PMJackson21 0]

Moneymaker's final table was stacked. Even the last 2 tables were pretty solid. So I wouldn't say that beating the 8000 was harder than beating the 800. Gold had to deal with Cunningham at his final table but had such a massive chip lead by the time he even saw Allen that he had a large advantage. Moneymaker by no means ever had a large chip lead in the tournament. He had to go through: Ivey, Harrington, Farha, Lester, Vahedi. That is a pretty strong group to get through, not to mention he handled having Chan on his left for an entire day and ended up busting him.

Not only the players mentioned, but also:8th - David Grey9th - David Singer11th - Minh Nguyen12th - Dutch Boyd13th - Freddy Deeb (gifafi Freddy)14th - Marcel Luske15th - Bruno Fitoussi18th - Scotty Nyguen19th -Howard Lederer23rd - Dennis Waterman25th - Men Nguyen27th - Phil Hellmuth Jr.29th - Victor RamdinPretty stacked final 3 tables or so.

[PMJackson21 0]

Not only the players mentioned, but also:11th - Minh Nguyen18th - Scotty Nyguen25th - Men Nguyen

Damn it, I was 2 for 3 on my 'Nguyens'.

[copernicus 0]

Sigh Galileo wannabe!....you distort my words---terribly.

I didnt distort anything. Go back and read what your wrote.

[Jam-Fly 8]

He has? His cash in the WSOP Europe for 58k is Golds only significant post ME hit along with some small cashes, isnt it? Moneymaker came in 2d in the Shooting Star for 200k with about the same number of small cashes.I dont see how you can say CM is more of a fluke.

I agree that Moneymaker is not more of a fluke than Gold, but to be fair, Moneymaker has had longer to "make it happen" since winning.

[CBass1724 1]

It is too small of a sample size.

[Jam-Fly 8]

how you can say it easier to win a tournament of 8,000 than win a tournament of 800 players I don't know. Obviously, if X wins tournament with 8,000, and Y wins a tournament with 800, X is not automatically better than Y, but to say that winning an 8,000 player field is easier than winning an 800 player field because of player quality is laughable. This is like the discussion "Which is harder to win, the 100k 20player tournament, or the sunday mill?".

[OVERKILL 0]

Just from a curiosty stand point, would any of you have viewed the 2006 ME differently if Allen Cunningham had won? It seems that if a pro wins a major tourney, he played the best poker anyone could play to get there, and if some average no name player wins, he luck boxed his way to victory. Don't get me wrong I think gold is just as average or below average like the consensus. I have watched him play live and above being annoying, when he isnt catching cards, his play isn't awe inspiring. That said I just wanted some opinions on how people would have reacted if a pro won the ME again.

[Jam-Fly 8]

Just from a curiosty stand point, would any of you have viewed the 2006 ME differently if Allen Cunningham had won? It seems that if a pro wins a major tourney, he played the best poker anyone could play to get there, and if some average no name player wins, he luck boxed his way to victory. Don't get me wrong I think gold is just as average or below average like the consensus. I have watched him play live and above being annoying, when he isnt catching cards, his play isn't awe inspiring. That said I just wanted some opinions on how people would have reacted if a pro won the ME again.

I think anyone needs to get very lucky to win the ME, but if a player with past proven results wins it, people automatically have more respect for him. If someone with no past history wins it, they are automatically labelled a fluke (e.g. Raymer and Hachem were labelled flukes when they won, but evidentally they are very strong players)

[Gallo 1]

how you can say it easier to win a tournament of 8,000 than win a tournament of 800 players I don't know. Obviously, if X wins tournament with 8,000, and Y wins a tournament with 800, X is not automatically better than Y, but to say that winning an 8,000 player field is easier than winning an 800 player field because of player quality is laughable. This is like the discussion "Which is harder to win, the 100k 20player tournament, or the sunday mill?".

I think what people are trying to say is that per table there were less donkeys in the 800 player tourney than there were in the 8000 player tourney. You don't play everyone, you just play your table, whether it's 100 or 10000, you're only really playing against 8 other people. But in larger fields, the better players are more spread out. Let's just say that 50 pros enter each tournament. in a 100 man tourney every table will have at least 4-5 pros. While in a 1000 man tourney, you might just have 1 pro, more than likely none.Anyway, I think that's the point they are trying to make.

[PMJackson21 0]

I think anyone needs to get very lucky to win the ME, but if a player with past proven results wins it, people automatically have more respect for him. If someone with no past history wins it, they are automatically labelled a fluke (e.g. Raymer and Hachem were labelled flukes when they won, but evidentally they are very strong players)

By whom? Certainly not by poker players familiar with Greg.

[Jam-Fly 8]

I think what people are trying to say is that per table there were less donkeys in the 800 player tourney than there were in the 8000 player tourney. You don't play everyone, you just play your table, whether it's 100 or 10000, you're only really playing against 8 other people. But in larger fields, the better players are more spread out. Let's just say that 50 pros enter each tournament. in a 100 man tourney every table will have at least 4-5 pros. While in a 1000 man tourney, you might just have 1 pro, more than likely none.Anyway, I think that's the point they are trying to make.

Yeah, I agree that each table should be less skillfull in an 8,000 player MTT, but that does that automatically translate into it being easier to win an 8,000 player tourney? No. The 8,000 player tourney may be more +EV to play (I think this is the point that is trying to be made), but it is certainly not easier to win