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

[Jam-Fly 8]

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

By ESPN and the general consensus was that Raymer was another unknown guy that got lucky in the Main Event.

[PMJackson21 0]

By ESPN and the general consensus was that Raymer was another unknown guy that got lucky in the Main Event.

Oh.Well, if ESPN said so.The general consensus of the online poker community at the time was a bit different.

[Ouch-8s 4]

By ESPN and the general consensus was that Raymer was another unknown guy that got lucky in the Main Event.

so is this thread an example of gen-poker regressing to the mean?i have no idea what that meant but it sounds cool, which fits in nicely in this thread i think. few people seem to have any idea what they're talking about. (no, i won't name names - argue amongst yourselves)

[Gallo 1]

By ESPN and the general consensus was that Raymer was another unknown guy that got lucky in the Main Event.

ESPN knew nothing about poker. But by labelling him that it makes seem to the common person (people who don't play poker or visit forums/websites like these) that anyone can win.

[pippisan 0]

I'll put Chris Ferguson on the lucky list, even though he has had some success.However, he flopped a set of sixes against Jeff Shulman's 77 when he was all in during the final table as well as the famous suckout on TJ Cloutier. A9 > AJ (I think TJ had) on the final hand after being a huge chipleader and TJ would've pulled even on the hand.

[dapokerbum 0]

This is gold.

No it was Raymer

[PMJackson21 0]

In regards to the 800 vs 8000 debate, I would say that it takes more skill to win the 800 player/pro heavy tournament then it does to win a tournament with 8000 players, maybe 3/4 of them being dead money. However, I think it is 'harder' to win an 8000 player MTT, mainly because of how many times you would have to be all in and at risk to navigate a field that large.If that makes any sense at all. :)The only analogy I can come up with off the top of my head would be that in track/running, it would take more talent to win the 200m at the Olympics, but it would be more difficult to run a marathon...In my mind at least (I'm trying to cut back on IMOs in case Loosh yells at me again).

[uncooper 1]

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,

edit: agree, imo.

[OVERKILL 0]

In regards to the 800 vs 8000 debate, I would say that it takes more skill to win the 800 player/pro heavy tournament then it does to win a tournament with 8000 players, maybe 3/4 of them being dead money. However, I think it is 'harder' to win an 8000 player MTT, mainly because of how many times you would have to be all in and at risk to navigate a field that large.If that makes any sense at all. :)The only analogy I can come up with off the top of my head would be that in track/running, it would take more talent to win the 200m at the Olympics, but it would be more difficult to run a marathon...In my mind at least (I'm trying to cut back on IMOs in case Loosh yells at me again).

I was pretty much going to just write the same thing. Also with fields as large as 8000+ you could literally play the whole tourney without ever seeing any true competition. IE Gold.I dont know who he actually had to tangle with to get to the FT, but by the time he reach it and had AC at his table his chip lead was so massive, I dont even think I would have worried about him. (and I suck) On the other hand CM had an onslaught of pros ALL through that tourney in 03. Definately his path to the ME championship was much tougher than JG or JY. "IMO"

[Snamuh 0]

By ESPN and the general consensus was that Raymer was another unknown guy that got lucky in the Main Event.

Well obviously the general consensus thinks what ESPN thinks. The people that make up this general consensus are the donks that think they are the shit because they watch poker on ESPN and break even in their home games. Most who are decent poker would look at the play of said individuals to determine whether they were a fluke or not.Raymer/Hachem weren't flukes and they didn't appear like donks in their broadcasts. Moneymaker made some very questionable moves (like the 33 vs Dutch Boyd) and a few other things but he at least did not play like scared money under pressure. Gold wasn't as bad in the 2006 ME broadcast, though he made a few really fishy/donkish plays. But Gold absolutely has played like a total donk with no sense of image since his ME win. He looked pretty awful on HSP, PAD, and the 2007 ME. Yang is yet to be determined but I feel that he's going to be seen as a pretty big donk in the upcoming years. He played aggressive but did a bunch of questionable things and really overrated the strength of some of his hands. Again though, we haven't seen enough of him.

[Snamuh 0]

In regards to the 800 vs 8000 debate, I would say that it takes more skill to win the 800 player/pro heavy tournament then it does to win a tournament with 8000 players, maybe 3/4 of them being dead money. However, I think it is 'harder' to win an 8000 player MTT, mainly because of how many times you would have to be all in and at risk to navigate a field that large.If that makes any sense at all. :)The only analogy I can come up with off the top of my head would be that in track/running, it would take more talent to win the 200m at the Olympics, but it would be more difficult to run a marathon...In my mind at least (I'm trying to cut back on IMOs in case Loosh yells at me again).

Makes perfect sense and I wholeheartedly agree.

[Gallo 1]

Well obviously the general consensus thinks what ESPN thinks. The people that make up this general consensus are the donks that think they are the shit because they watch poker on ESPN and break even in their home games. Most who are decent poker would look at the play of said individuals to determine whether they were a fluke or not.Raymer/Hachem weren't flukes and they didn't appear like donks in their broadcasts. Moneymaker made some very questionable moves (like the 33 vs Dutch Boyd) and a few other things but he at least did not play like scared money under pressure. Gold wasn't as bad in the 2006 ME broadcast, though he made a few really fishy/donkish plays. But Gold absolutely has played like a total donk with no sense of image since his ME win. He looked pretty awful on HSP, PAD, and the 2007 ME. Yang is yet to be determined but I feel that he's going to be seen as a pretty big donk in the upcoming years. He played aggressive but did a bunch of questionable things and really overrated the strength of some of his hands. Again though, we haven't seen enough of him.

IDK if I would call it questionable, i think he went with his read/gut and made the call. I don't really remember the hand completely.

[CaptainQuint88 0]

I can't believe no one mentioned Stu Unger yet. I mean seriously, he hasn't done anything since he won in '97

[fatman 1]

I can't believe no one mentioned Stu Unger yet. I mean seriously, he hasn't done anything since he won in '97

clever fellow you are

[Jam-Fly 8]

Oh.Well, if ESPN said so.The general consensus of the online poker community at the time was a bit different.

lol, I'm not saying Raymer was a fluck (in my OP I even state clearly that it is evident he was a strong player), I'm saying that the majority of people bought into the perception that he was a fluke.

[PMJackson21 0]

lol, I'm not saying Raymer was a fluck (in my OP I even state clearly that it is evident he was a strong player), I'm saying that the majority of people bought into the perception that he was a fluke.

Who called him a fluck? That's just rude. :)I misread your OP then, but my point was most people in poker, online via RGP and 2+2, and live because of his presence at Foxwoods, BARGE, etc didn't label him as a fluke.I guess I'm looking at it from the perception of a majority of poker players, rather then a majority of casual poker fans.

[Jam-Fly 8]

Who called him a fluck? That's just rude. I misread your OP then, but my point was most people in poker, online via RGP and 2+2, and live because of his presence at Foxwoods, BARGE, etc didn't label him as a fluke.I guess I'm looking at it from the perception of a majority of poker players, rather then a majority of casual poker fans.

Yeah, my point was that, immediately after he won it, most people called him a fluke, when he obviously wasn't (and has since proofed that). I know that people who knew him respected him, but I was talking with regards to the general publics perception of world champs

[drcossack 0]

I could have sworn he was one of the big losers in the 500k game after the KK vs AA hand.

I CALL I CALL I CALL I CALL I CALL I CALL I CALL I CALL I CALLSorry. Had to.

[Nimue1995 1]

So with the new format what do you all think are the chances that a known pro will win it over another unknown? Also who would you say was the most underrated WSOP winner? Just trying to get an idea of who to watch for this year.

[MyPlayIsRAB 0]

2007: Jerry Yang2006: Jamie Gold2003: Chris Moneymaker2002: Robert Varkonyi1999: J. J. "Noel" Furlong1994: Russ Hamilton

[copernicus 0]

I'll put Chris Ferguson on the lucky list, even though he has had some success.However, he flopped a set of sixes against Jeff Shulman's 77 when he was all in during the final table as well as the famous suckout on TJ Cloutier. A9 > AJ (I think TJ had) on the final hand after being a huge chipleader and TJ would've pulled even on the hand.

Hes obviously great on the math side, but he does suck out a lot. Ive watched him the last 3 years and he gets it in with the worst of it a lot. He's also a dick personality wise.

[Swiftfish 0]

I signed up to this forum ages ago but I haven't really ever got round to posting, but this thread is interesting so I'll dive in. Please don't flame me for having an opinion even though I haven't posted before So here goes with (brief) thoughts on the last 15 winners:1993 - Jim Bechtel: I think he was an amateur at the time but he made the final table in '88 as well and he's pretty respected. Making the $50k HORSE final table in 2006 would suggest to me that he wasn't a fluke!1994 - Russ Hamilton: Other people have already made pretty accurate remarks about Russ. I would say though, that he doesn't play as much as some other winners and he cashed in both the 2004 and 2005 MEs.1995 - Dan Harrington: Evidently a legend and a brilliant player (evidenced by his back-to-back final tables in '03 and '04 and his WPT title last year) but I think in the years after his win he didn't do an awful lot. Maybe good evidence of someone proving their worth years after winning.1996 - Huck Seed: Just a good player; I don't know anyone that would claim Huck was a fluke. I really enjoyed watching his deep run last year.1997 - Stu Ungar: What more can be said about Ungar? Tremendous player although he got very lucky on the final hand in '97. I guess that's proof that even the best need a bit of luck.1998 - Scotty Nguyen: Incredible amount of tournament cashes (although, to be fair, he plays almost every tournament going). He's won other titles and has 4 bracelets - if you think Scotty's a fluke you must be joking, baby.1999 - Noel Furlong: The first of what I would consider the donkey contingent. Bit of a shover and really hasn't justified his win.2000 - Chris Ferguson: While I can understand the people who've said he got lucky the year he actually won it, surely Ferguson's proved that he's a good player? He seems to get deep in the majority of tournaments he plays and has bracelets in a variety of events to show that he's not a one-trick pony. His personality could use some work though. He actually has a worse sense of humour than Greg "I used to be a stand-up comic" Raymer.2001 - Carlos Mortensen: Good, solid tournament player. Tends to avoid the limelight a bit more than some more recent champions but he followed up his win with some impressive results.2002 - Robert Varkonyi: Yeah, he's crap, but to be fair to him he never claimed to be any good. Unlike people like Moneymaker and Gold at least Varkonyi always seemed to realise he was a lucky donk and was grateful for everything he got.2003 - Chris Moneymaker: His play in 2003 was truely awful but I honestly think he's improved since then. I can't remember what year it was (maybe 2005) but ESPN showed his 1st day and I was impressed with some of his plays. He's still only slightly better than the average WSOP entrant but at least he's showing signs of improvement.2004 - Greg Raymer: Played well in '04 (gotta love his composure against Matusow) but his run in '05 was what impressed me. He seemed completely unruffled by the pressure and actually thrived on it. I don't recall seeing him get lucky even once (although he did avoid getting unlucky a lot). If Aaron "biggest donkey ever" Kanter hadn't crippled him with that horrible play Raymer may very well have defended. He hasn't done loads since and his all-in in last year's WSOP Europe was atrocious but 2005's ME alone means Raymer avoids the "fluke" category.2005 - Joe Hachem: Probably the most impressive since Ferguson. The year after winning it he final tabled twice at the WSOP and went deep in the ME, outlasting more players than Raymer did the year before. He got it all in with AA preflop to be outdrawn - respectable way to exit. He's also had deep runs in the Aussie Millions and, more recently, the EPT Grand Final in Monte Carlo. Hachem's also won a WPT title. One of the best deep stacked tournament players in the world.2006 - Jamie Gold: He thinks he's a lot better than he is, but equally is nowhere near as bad as people make him out to be. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. He played the big stack brilliantly in 2006 and anyone who leads for that long can't have done it entirely on luck alone. Granted, he got a good run of cards but he played them well. Having said all that, I'd much rather Cunningham or Wasicka had won (Wasicka's bluff against Cunningham on that final table was classic). Gold's another one who I think has shown significant improvement after winning and will eventually be a consistent tournament player. He needs a haircut though.2007 - Jerry Yang: Easily the worst play I've seen from anyone to win a ME. If Kravchenko or Kalmar had had a few more chips he would have been in deep trouble. His massive overbets were... let's be kind... brave. There were one or two occasions where if someone hadn't done something daft there's no way he would have won. Lee Childs laying down QQ to him despite seeing how loose he'd been playing is the prime example. Time will tell with Yang obviously but I can't see a particularly bright future for him.

[Jam-Fly 8]

I signed up to this forum ages ago but I haven't really ever got round to posting, but this thread is interesting so I'll dive in. Please don't flame me for having an opinion even though I haven't posted before So here goes with (brief) thoughts on the last 15 winners:1993 - Jim Bechtel: I think he was an amateur at the time but he made the final table in '88 as well and he's pretty respected. Making the $50k HORSE final table in 2006 would suggest to me that he wasn't a fluke!1994 - Russ Hamilton: Other people have already made pretty accurate remarks about Russ. I would say though, that he doesn't play as much as some other winners and he cashed in both the 2004 and 2005 MEs.1995 - Dan Harrington: Evidently a legend and a brilliant player (evidenced by his back-to-back final tables in '03 and '04 and his WPT title last year) but I think in the years after his win he didn't do an awful lot. Maybe good evidence of someone proving their worth years after winning.1996 - Huck Seed: Just a good player; I don't know anyone that would claim Huck was a fluke. I really enjoyed watching his deep run last year.1997 - Stu Ungar: What more can be said about Ungar? Tremendous player although he got very lucky on the final hand in '97. I guess that's proof that even the best need a bit of luck.1998 - Scotty Nguyen: Incredible amount of tournament cashes (although, to be fair, he plays almost every tournament going). He's won other titles and has 4 bracelets - if you think Scotty's a fluke you must be joking, baby.1999 - Noel Furlong: The first of what I would consider the donkey contingent. Bit of a shover and really hasn't justified his win.2000 - Chris Ferguson: While I can understand the people who've said he got lucky the year he actually won it, surely Ferguson's proved that he's a good player? He seems to get deep in the majority of tournaments he plays and has bracelets in a variety of events to show that he's not a one-trick pony. His personality could use some work though. He actually has a worse sense of humour than Greg "I used to be a stand-up comic" Raymer.2001 - Carlos Mortensen: Good, solid tournament player. Tends to avoid the limelight a bit more than some more recent champions but he followed up his win with some impressive results.2002 - Robert Varkonyi: Yeah, he's crap, but to be fair to him he never claimed to be any good. Unlike people like Moneymaker and Gold at least Varkonyi always seemed to realise he was a lucky donk and was grateful for everything he got.2003 - Chris Moneymaker: His play in 2003 was truely awful but I honestly think he's improved since then. I can't remember what year it was (maybe 2005) but ESPN showed his 1st day and I was impressed with some of his plays. He's still only slightly better than the average WSOP entrant but at least he's showing signs of improvement.2004 - Greg Raymer: Played well in '04 (gotta love his composure against Matusow) but his run in '05 was what impressed me. He seemed completely unruffled by the pressure and actually thrived on it. I don't recall seeing him get lucky even once (although he did avoid getting unlucky a lot). If Aaron "biggest donkey ever" Kanter hadn't crippled him with that horrible play Raymer may very well have defended. He hasn't done loads since and his all-in in last year's WSOP Europe was atrocious but 2005's ME alone means Raymer avoids the "fluke" category.2005 - Joe Hachem: Probably the most impressive since Ferguson. The year after winning it he final tabled twice at the WSOP and went deep in the ME, outlasting more players than Raymer did the year before. He got it all in with AA preflop to be outdrawn - respectable way to exit. He's also had deep runs in the Aussie Millions and, more recently, the EPT Grand Final in Monte Carlo. Hachem's also won a WPT title. One of the best deep stacked tournament players in the world.2006 - Jamie Gold: He thinks he's a lot better than he is, but equally is nowhere near as bad as people make him out to be. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. He played the big stack brilliantly in 2006 and anyone who leads for that long can't have done it entirely on luck alone. Granted, he got a good run of cards but he played them well. Having said all that, I'd much rather Cunningham or Wasicka had won (Wasicka's bluff against Cunningham on that final table was classic). Gold's another one who I think has shown significant improvement after winning and will eventually be a consistent tournament player. He needs a haircut though.2007 - Jerry Yang: Easily the worst play I've seen from anyone to win a ME. If Kravchenko or Kalmar had had a few more chips he would have been in deep trouble. His massive overbets were... let's be kind... brave. There were one or two occasions where if someone hadn't done something daft there's no way he would have won. Lee Childs laying down QQ to him despite seeing how loose he'd been playing is the prime example. Time will tell with Yang obviously but I can't see a particularly bright future for him.

Good post, stick around.Out of interest, who would everyone say is the best champ (ie best deep stacked NLHE MTT player) of the last 15 yrs? For me the decision would be pretty easy and I'd say Carlos Mortensen. Amazing player, one of the best [iMO!]

[fatman 1]

That is one heck of a long first post.

[Jam-Fly 8]

That is one heck of a long first post.

That is one heck of a short 3380th post