Ivey...

[akatz17 0]

Hey, Is it just me, or does anyone else think Phil Ivey must get really lucky throughout these big tourneys? First of all, let me state that Phil Ivey is one of my favorite pros and from what I've seen on TV (which isnt saying much, i know) seems to be one of the best players on the circuit. I've read all the posts/articles about how Ivey dominates the big game and so on, but I just cannot fathom how he consistently makes the final table of these HUGE tournaments. Even though he is more skilled and has more experience than the vast majority of the field, I just don't see how he dodges all of the bad beats and such that most other players face. The most impressive aspect is that he usually makes the final table with the MASSIVE chip lead and rarely starts a table shortstacked (of course, this is because of his aggressive style, but still very impressive). I mean this guy just doesnt stop--you name it.....Five-Star World Poker Classic, WSOP Circuit-Lake Tahoe, WSOP Pot-limit Omaha, Deep in WSOP main event, Monte Carlo Millions. And thats all in like that past 6 months. Pros themselves state that tournaments are mostly luck and the guy with the most skill usually doesnt win (or even make the final table). Is Ivey really THAT good to the point of invincibility. Feel free to state your opinions on this. Peace.Katz

[KowboyKoop 0]

Hey, Is it just me, or does anyone else think Phil Ivey must get really lucky throughout these big tourneys? First of all, let me state that Phil Ivey is one of my favorite pros and from what I've seen on TV (which isnt saying much, i know) seems to be one of the best players on the circuit. I've read all the posts/articles about how Ivey dominates the big game and so on, but I just cannot fathom how he consistently makes the final table of these HUGE tournaments. Even though he is more skilled and has more experience than the vast majority of the field, I just don't see how he dodges all of the bad beats and such that most other players face. The most impressive aspect is that he usually makes the final table with the MASSIVE chip lead and rarely starts a table shortstacked (of course, this is because of his aggressive style, but still very impressive). I mean this guy just doesnt stop--you name it.....Five-Star World Poker Classic, WSOP Circuit-Lake Tahoe, WSOP Pot-limit Omaha, Deep in WSOP main event, Monte Carlo Millions. And thats all in like that past 6 months. Pros themselves state that tournaments are mostly luck and the guy with the most skill usually doesnt win (or even make the final table). Is Ivey really THAT good to the point of invincibility. Feel free to state your opinions on this. Peace.Katz

A combo. of being VERY good, arguably the best tournament pro....arguably, and running well. It isn't like he final tables 66% of tourneys or anything, so he isn't extraordinarily successful, but he has been pretty hot lately. Also, pros don't state that tournaments are "mostly luck." They are a combo of luck and skill and the best players, IN THE LONG RUN, will do better than the mediocre and average players. Everyone that wins one of the major tournaments is at least a competent player. Even a person like Doug Lee, who looked like a complete donk at times on TV, is still probably a somewhat decent player, so it isn't like someone can win SOLELY by getting lucky.

[cjcjcj 0]

I think it is a little of both. He is one of the top 3 players in the world and he gets lucky like the rest of us do once in a while. Luck will always play a small part in a tourney but more times than not skill will win.

[akatz17 0]

I can't name a specific instance, but I know I have heard players state something along the lines of "you HAVE to get very lucky to win a tournament" or "you have to win most, if not all, of your coinflips." A big part of me believes that Ivey is incredibly lucky because he outlasts these big fields (300+ players) and there is no way that he does that without getting into a coinflip situation or going in as the underdog once in a while. I mean I can say truthfully that ~70% of the time I get knocked out of a tournament when I am a favorite and just dont see how Ivey avoids falling into this same trap. You can say its because he picks up sooo many blinds or because he plays smaller pots, but there are many other top pros that do these things as well. I dont know, maybe he is really THAT good where luck plays very little part, even in a short-run situation such as a tournament. I just know recently, it seems like everytime I look at the live updates on cardplayer.com i see Phil Ivey with a massive chipstack and I just shake my head in disbelief.

[KowboyKoop 0]

I can't name a specific instance, but I know I have heard players state something along the lines of "you HAVE to get very lucky to win a tournament" or "you have to win most, if not all, of your coinflips." A big part of me believes that Ivey is incredibly lucky because he outlasts these big fields (300+ players) and there is no way that he does that without getting into a coinflip situation or going in as the underdog once in a while. I mean I can say truthfully that ~70% of the time I get knocked out of a tournament when I am a favorite and just dont see how Ivey avoids falling into this same trap. You can say its because he picks up sooo many blinds or because he plays smaller pots, but there are many other top pros that do these things as well. I dont know, maybe he is really THAT good where luck plays very little part, even in a short-run situation such as a tournament. I just know recently, it seems like everytime I look at the live updates on cardplayer.com i see Phil Ivey with a massive chipstack and I just shake my head in disbelief.

you do have to get lucky to win ONE tournament, but long term success is 99.9 percent skill, and Ivey is definitely in the "long term success" category. You don't have to win ALL of your coinflips, but definitely a majority. Ivey does get lucky AT TIMES, but it is probably 90 percent due to skill EACH time he makes a final table. I can guarantee that Ivey gets his money in with the best of it ALOT more often than the average player.

[bigknight 0]

he made it to 6 wpt final tables (top six).. hasn't won one yet

[Sushiman 0]

Sometimes a player just runs well over a period of time. DN tore up the tournaments last year but couldn't get anything going this year. Ivey's performance is a combination of skill, which nobody denies, but also a good amount of luck. Nobody can keep up this kind of performance.

[Longshanks 0]

he needs to just pass the shuggah

[Cory 0]

Is Ivey really THAT good to the point of invincibility.Katz

Yes

[PrtyPSux 0]

Ivey is a machine

[Pokerghost2 0]

Sometimes a player just runs well over a period of time. DN tore up the tournaments last year but couldn't get anything going this year. Ivey's performance is a combination of skill, which nobody denies, but also a good amount of luck. Nobody can keep up this kind of performance.

also just as true when a good tourn player is running bad. he is never as bad as his bad run looks either.

[Python49 0]

so he isn't extraordinarily successful

If he's not.... please tell me someone who is. He's at the very least in the top 3 of most successful poker players.

[KowboyKoop 0]

so he isn't extraordinarily successful

If he's not.... please tell me someone who is. He's at the very least in the top 3 of most successful poker players.

noone is extraordinarily successful. You took this quote WAY out of context. I said it isn't like he is final tabling 66% of all major tourneys, so it isn't like he is doing something which would seem mathematically improbable or something. Nothing was said about Ivey not being one of the best tournament pros. Read and comprehend my entire post before trying to pick out one random part of one random sentence and trying to criticize/question me. Wanker.

[Spademan 94]

noone is extraordinarily successful. You took this quote WAY out of context. I said it isn't like he is final tabling 66% of all major tourneys, so it isn't like he is doing something which would seem mathematically improbable or something. Nothing was said about Ivey not being one of the best tournament pros. Read and comprehend my entire post before trying to pick out one random part of one random sentence and trying to criticize/question me. Wanker.

What the hell are you talking about?"No-one is extraordinarily successful?"What?So, Ivey is an ordinary player?'What? Look at the word, EXTRA-ORDINARY.He doesn't do anything mathematically improbable?So... all players are as mathematically probable to win tournaments as Ivey, or win as much as he does in cash games?I'm taking everything you've said in context, so, you can't escape in that way.Write your entire post with a degree of comprehension of the subject, and I won't criticize/question you.Wanksta.

[KowboyKoop 0]

noone is extraordinarily successful. You took this quote WAY out of context. I said it isn't like he is final tabling 66% of all major tourneys, so it isn't like he is doing something which would seem mathematically improbable or something. Nothing was said about Ivey not being one of the best tournament pros. Read and comprehend my entire post before trying to pick out one random part of one random sentence and trying to criticize/question me. Wanker.

What the hell are you talking about?"No-one is extraordinarily successful?"What?So, Ivey is an ordinary player?'What? Look at the word, EXTRA-ORDINARY.He doesn't do anything mathematically improbable?So... all players are as mathematically probable to win tournaments as Ivey, or win as much as he does in cash games?I'm taking everything you've said in context, so, you can't escape in that way.Write your entire post with a degree of comprehension of the subject, and I won't criticize/question you.Wanksta.

Phil Ivey has been running well. But he hasn't done anything extraordinary, no. He has won some tournaments and done well in others, but he hasn't done something that noone else will ever do or that hardly anyone else will ever do. He isn't having as good of a year that DN had last year, I don't believe, so he isn't doing something extraordinary. Winning six bracelets at one WSOP would be extraordinary, having the year that Ivey is having isn't "extraordinary." It has been done before and will be done plenty of times again. In fact, it is probably done alot of years by someone who is running pretty hot. Phil Ivey is having a great year, that is not the issue. And no, it isn't mathematically improbable for someone to do what he has done. He has played well and run well, and thus has had some good results. If he made a final table in 66 % of his tournaments, which is exactly what I said, THAT would be mathematically improbable. But having a pretty good year isn't "mathematically improbable," it happens pretty much every year. Something being mathematically probable doesn't mean every player is going to do it. It means, that given certain conditions, which in this case is Ivey's skill, then the consequent results are possible and fairly likely. If Allen Cunningham plays with the EXACT same skill level as Ivey, then it is pretty likely that his results would be pretty similar, with luck being the only reason for any differences. Thus, if Cunningham and Ivey play with the exact same skill level and both have "good" luck, but nothing freakishly good (like winning 95 percent of coin flips for a whole year...), then they would both have the results which Ivey is having right now. Thus, the results that Ivey is having aren't "mathematically improbable" or "extraordinary." They would be so, if he were playing this well AND having extremely freakishly good luck, in which case he would post some ridiculous results, such as making the final table 66% of the time. He isn't doing anything that extraordinary, however. That doesn't mean he is having an "ordinary" year. Those aren't the only two options, there is an entire spectrum ranging from HORRIBLE to ORDINARY to EXTRAORDINARY, or whatever other synonym you want to put in there. Ivey is having a great year, but he isn't doing anything extraordinary that would make it some kind of mathematical freak of nature. It is clear that this is what my point was in my original post on this subject, it is too bad that you aren't able to gather this based on my entire post.Is this "comprehensive" enough for you, Spademan??

[Spademan 94]

Phil Ivey has been running well. But he hasn't done anything extraordinary, no.

I stopped reading here, sorry.Aside from the awkard nature of the statement, or whatever it is, "But he hasn't done anything extraordinary, no.", there is a pitiable lack of understanding as to the words you use, and a pitiable inability to admit when you're wrong.I pointed it out clearly, and you still ignorantly try defend your use of the phrase "not extraordinary."The word itself simply means more than ordinary, above ordinary, that is to say, above average, or above the norm.To say Ivey isn't extraordinary when it comes to poker once, is stupid.To defend it a second time, is untardable.

[KowboyKoop 0]

Phil Ivey has been running well. But he hasn't done anything extraordinary, no.

I stopped reading here, sorry.Aside from the awkard nature of the statement, or whatever it is, "But he hasn't done anything extraordinary, no.", there is a pitiable lack of understanding as to the words you use, and a pitiable inability to admit when you're wrong.I pointed it out clearly, and you still ignorantly try defend your use of the phrase "not extraordinary."The word itself simple means more than ordinary, above ordinary, that is to say, above average, or above the norm.To say Ivey isn't extraordinary when it comes to poker once, is stupid.To defend it a second time, is untardable.

all this, coming from the person who just admitted that you didn't read my entire post. Good one. Don't worry, I wouldn't try and come up with a way to logically argue against me either, going with the random insult and "you're wrong" statement might be a better way to save face. However, I do feel you should read where I explain to your apparently feeble mind that there is a spectrum with ORDINARY being the middle within the extremes of HORRIBLE and EXTRAORDINARY. Something extraordinary to me means something that is mathematically improbable and something which is extremely rare and will hardly ever be done. Phil Ivey is having a great year and is one of the best players, but his results are ordinary FOR SOMEONE OF HIS SKILL. HIS SKILL IS EXTRAORDINARY, BUT WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT HIS SKILL, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HIS RESULTS, AND BASED ON IVEY'S VERY HIGH SKILL LEVEL, HIS RESULTS CAN BE VIEWED AS RATHER PREDICTABLE....HIGH SKILL WILL INEVITABLEY LEAD TO VERY GOOD RESULTS....THUS HIS RESULTS ARE ORDINARY FOR SOMEONE WITH AS HIGH OF A SKILL LEVEL AS IVEY. IF I WENT OUT WITH MY SKILL LEVEL, WHICH IS NOWHERE NEAR IVEY'S, AND WON 2 WSOP BRACELETS, AND WON FOUR OTHER TOURNAMENTS IN THE SAME YEAR, THAT WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE TO BE EXTREMELY LUCKY TO DO SO. FOR IVEY, HOWEVER, THOSE RESULTS WOUDN'T BE EXTRAORDINARY, BECAUSE HIS HIGH SKILL LEVEL WILL INEVITABLY LEAD HIM TO THOSE GREAT RESULTS IN THE LONG RUN. IF IVEY MADE A FINAL TABLE 66% OF THE TIME, THAT WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY B/C IT WOULD REQUIRE SOME PRETTY FREAKISHLY GOOD LUCK. THAT ISN'T THE CASE, HOWEVER, AND THUS, IVEY ISN'T DOING ANYTHING EXTRAORDINARY GIVEN HIS SKILL LEVEL. Indeed, no poker player's results are something "extraordinary." All poker players have results which are a result of their skill levels and, thus, are not "extraordinary." This concept the way I have presented it is correct, trust me. Don't try to challenge my intelligence, I am not saying you are not smart, but I, even though I am sure you won't believe it and will think I am just making sh*t up, am extremely intelligent in matters such as these, so don't think that I just randomly spew information out on here just for the sake of getting some opinion out there. All of what I seriously say is very well thought out and carefully worded.Wanker.

[Spademan 94]

*drool*

You must have missed the part where I stamped you untardable.That means you are beyond redemption.It means you are so vastly ignorant, have such an inability to learn, are so comfortable and exuberant in your folly, that you are unworthy of communication.I'm sure you think you are a genius though, that delusion usually goes hand and hand with untardism.

[KowboyKoop 0]

*drool*

You must have missed the part where I stamped you untardable.That means you are beyond redemption.It means you are so vastly ignorant, have such an inability to learn, are so comfortable and exuberant in your folly, that you are unworthy of communication.I'm sure you think you are a genius though, that delusion usually goes hand and hand with untardism.

oh, yeah, I did miss that part where you, one person who means, well, nothing to me....stamped me as....untardable. I guess I will go away now...yeah, I am soooooo vastly ignorant....you got me. Guess that 35 on my ACT was a fluke, and my 3.9 college GPA and my published history writings are all flukes, yeah, boy, I'm pretty stupid. Trust me, I ain't the only one who thinks I am a genius, it is pretty much a given.Seriously though, you should read my posts sometime, would probably help you and teneight practice your reading and comprehension abilities. I know you won't read it though, so...your loss. There is some pretty good stuff in my posts, too bad you don't have the mental capacity to handle them. oh well, maybe in your next life.also, the phrase goes "hand IN hand", not hand and hand. If you are going to try and insult my intelligence, with a BIG emphasis on the word 'try,' then at least try and use the correct phrases, seriously....good luck next time. Wanker.

[Spademan 94]

I'm going to have to see if DNA, the master of pictures, will whip me up an "Untardable" stamp jpeg.

[lifelessimp 0]

Phil Ivey is having a great year and is one of the best players, but his results are ordinary FOR SOMEONE OF HIS SKILL. HIS SKILL IS EXTRAORDINARY, BUT WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT HIS SKILL, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HIS RESULTS, AND BASED ON IVEY'S VERY HIGH SKILL LEVEL, HIS RESULTS CAN BE VIEWED AS RATHER PREDICTABLE

See, this is the part of your argument that falls apart. Your saying Ivey isn't having amazing luck. Who cares? The point is he is having very good results, to the point where some would call it extraordinary. You can't say "If they were all on the same skill level..." because that would be stupid, like saying "if the Tide were as good as the Trojans, then only luck/strength of schedule would determine a national champion." That's obvious and trivial, and a totally specious argument.

[jojo 0]

Here is how he ( and the rest of the big time pros) do it.Relentless agression based on position and reads.IE: Show pre flop strength by raising pre flop....with position.Then bet the flop... in position.Then scoop the pot, fold or reraise(3/4 of the pot,standard relentless,inevitable raise) based on your read and the other players action.Sound easy?well yes it does.But we have no hope of pulling this off as successfully as Ivey... as he can read people and situations and calculate variables objectivley better than any one,so he can make the correct raise or fold.....thats why he plays the 4-8 k game and we dont.What this achieves is.....you may build a big chip stack by stealing pots,even if you dont you are advertising your self as a super agressive player,which means you will get paid when you have a hand.Ivey gets paid with Aces more than most people....why? because people have him pegged as an bluffing/agressive mofo.my thoughts

[badasmybreath 0]

I can't name a specific instance, but I know I have heard players state something along the lines of "you HAVE to get very lucky to win a tournament" or "you have to win most, if not all,  of your coinflips."  A big part of me believes that Ivey is incredibly lucky because he outlasts these big fields (300+ players) and there is no way that he does that without getting into a coinflip situation or going in as the underdog once in a while.  I mean I can say truthfully that ~70% of the time I get knocked out of a tournament when I am a favorite and just dont see how Ivey avoids falling into this same trap.  You can say its because he picks up sooo many blinds or because he plays smaller pots, but there are many other top pros that do these things as well.  I dont know, maybe he is really THAT good where luck plays very little part, even in a short-run situation such as a tournament.  I just know recently, it seems like everytime I look at the live updates  on cardplayer.com i see Phil Ivey with a massive chipstack and I just shake my head in disbelief.

Avoiding getting your money in is key to lasting long in large field events. Dutch Boyd in '03 stated he was never all-in before his run in with Moneymaker near the final table. Im sure you kno that if you go all in with aces, sooner or later you will go bust, law of averages. But if you avoid being all in as much as possible it serves a huge advantage. Ivey also plays a very aggressive game that allows him to outchip most players around him, or go bust. I mean, shit, 10k buyin is two big blinds in his cash game most nights lol, you gotta believe hes playing to ft or go hit the side games early.

[Jadaki 0]

oh, yeah, I did miss that part where you, one person who means, well, nothing to me....stamped me as....untardable. I guess I will go away now...yeah, I am soooooo vastly ignorant....you got me. Guess that 35 on my ACT was a fluke, and my 3.9 college GPA and my published history writings are all flukes, yeah, boy, I'm pretty stupid. Trust me, I ain't the only one who thinks I am a genius, it is pretty much a given.Seriously though, you should read my posts sometime, would probably help you and teneight practice your reading and comprehension abilities. I know you won't read it though, so...your loss. There is some pretty good stuff in my posts, too bad you don't have the mental capacity to handle them. oh well, maybe in your next life.also, the phrase goes "hand IN hand", not hand and hand. If you are going to try and insult my intelligence, with a BIG emphasis on the word 'try,' then at least try and use the correct phrases, seriously....good luck next time.  Wanker.

Amusing thread...To the bolded statement. Are you telling me that mr "I TYPE IN CAPS TO GET MY POINT ACROSS" who likes to toss out comments like "wanker" in a pathetic attempt to insult people is a highly educated respected author. This is so funny that I am having trouble controlling my laughter while typing this.

[antethief 0]

*drool*

Trust me' date=' I ain't the only one who thinks I am a genius' date=' it is pretty much a given.[/b'']

LOL....how come nobody has quoted this little gem in bold yet?! Hmmm, I wonder how many genuine geniuses would choose to proclaim their superiority on an internet poker forum.