Canuckickstan 2 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 From PokerpagesWSOP ALL-TIME MONEY LIST1. Joe Hachem $7,670,339 2. Gregory P. Raymer $5,433,450 3. Steven Dannenmann $4,250,000 4. Johnny Chan $3,786,939 5. T.J. Cloutier $3,775,071 6. Phil Hellmuth Jr $3,717,220 7. David Williams $3,507,705 8. Dan Harrington $3,472,858 9. Josh Arieh $3,188,590 10. Erik Seidel $3,166,076 Link to post Share on other sites
crocd99 0 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 From PokerpagesWSOP ALL-TIME MONEY LIST1. Joe Hachem $7,670,339 2. Gregory P. Raymer $5,433,450 3. Steven Dannenmann $4,250,000 4. Johnny Chan $3,786,939 5. T.J. Cloutier $3,775,071 6. Phil Hellmuth Jr $3,717,220 7. David Williams $3,507,705 8. Dan Harrington $3,472,858 9. Josh Arieh $3,188,590 10. Erik Seidel $3,166,076i think 11-100 is missing Link to post Share on other sites
natan106 0 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 The all time money list is going to be basically irrellevant. From now on if you finish in the top 10 at the WSOP ME you will make the top 25. The prize pool is huge and is only going to get bigger. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Needs to be a curve. Link to post Share on other sites
grocery_mony 8 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 a real list should only include people who have cashed at least 5 events or so. danneman 3rd all time!!! Link to post Share on other sites
EStormOk 0 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Needs to be a curve.I agree. I was looking this information up last night for the wsop pool. The information can't even be used because it is weighted to the last few years so heavily. Link to post Share on other sites
HangukMiguk 8 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 No. of cashes is more revelant information for the pool.No. of bracelets also being taken into effect. Link to post Share on other sites
Incubus77546 0 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 If you're talking about the pool then I'd say that Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer are always solid choices for doing well in the WSOP. Ferguson has had at least 1 top 16 finish since 1995 most of the years he has 2 top 16 finishes. Link to post Share on other sites
CobaltBlue 662 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 "God Bless" Chris Moneymaker? Link to post Share on other sites
EStormOk 0 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 No. of cashes is more revelant information for the pool.No. of bracelets also being taken into effect.I agree. I was just looking at all the info I could find. Link to post Share on other sites
bleacherbum3 9 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Definitely number of cashes. Link to post Share on other sites
Canuckickstan 2 Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 "God Bless" Chris Moneymaker? Finally, Where is he ? Link to post Share on other sites
InertGrudge 0 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Finally, Where is he ?Moneymaker won 2.5 million for winning the Main Event. Notice how that doesn't put him on the list. Link to post Share on other sites
sirch1 0 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 cloutier winning 3.7 mil without winning the main event is a lot of money Link to post Share on other sites
No_Neck 0 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 what about DN? Link to post Share on other sites
Incubus77546 0 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 what about DN?According to Hendon Mob hes ranked 54th with earnings of $1,027,620 in the WSOP Link to post Share on other sites
fleung22 1 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Totally sucks to only count by dollars but I think it has to be that way.Sure, there are players with more cashes and bracelets but it was also easier to win and cash when there were only fields of 100 or a few hundred.What's more impressive? 3 cashes in tournaments with 500 entrants or 1 cash in a field of 3000?Kinda hard and the debate could go on for quite some time.The law of poker has been and always will be who won the most money. It's the only way to keep score. Link to post Share on other sites
semaj550 0 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Totally sucks to only count by dollars but I think it has to be that way.Sure, there are players with more cashes and bracelets but it was also easier to win and cash when there were only fields of 100 or a few hundred.What's more impressive? 3 cashes in tournaments with 500 entrants or 1 cash in a field of 3000?Kinda hard and the debate could go on for quite some time.The law of poker has been and always will be who won the most money. It's the only way to keep score.The 3 cashes in 500 entrant tournaments is monumentally more impressive. If you assume every participant has an equal chance to win any given tournament then winning 3 tournaments with 500 entrants each gives you a 1 in 125,000,000 probability of winning all 3. In the 3000 entrant tournament you have a 1 in 3000 chance to win. Link to post Share on other sites
DaBruins 0 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 The 3 cashes in 500 entrant tournaments is monumentally more impressive. If you assume every participant has an equal chance to win any given tournament then winning 3 tournaments with 500 entrants each gives you a 1 in 125,000,000 probability of winning all 3. In the 3000 entrant tournament you have a 1 in 3000 chance to win.obviously 3 wins is more impressive, but he said cashes not wins Link to post Share on other sites
Canuckickstan 2 Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 I thought Moneymaker was closer to 4 or 5 Mil. I didn't do this for the pool, but pokerpages has all the info I should have looked at before making my team. Link to post Share on other sites
blueodum 0 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 The 3 cashes in 500 entrant tournaments is monumentally more impressive. If you assume every participant has an equal chance to win any given tournament then winning 3 tournaments with 500 entrants each gives you a 1 in 125,000,000 probability of winning all 3. In the 3000 entrant tournament you have a 1 in 3000 chance to win.Your calculations are applicable only if one plays in only three tournaments. Link to post Share on other sites
semaj550 0 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 The 3 cashes in 500 entrant tournaments is monumentally more impressive. If you assume every participant has an equal chance to win any given tournament then winning 3 tournaments with 500 entrants each gives you a 1 in 125,000,000 probability of winning all 3. In the 3000 entrant tournament you have a 1 in 3000 chance to win.Your calculations are applicable only if one plays in only three tournaments.They assume that the individual plays only 1 3000 person tournament as well. They still prove, however, that winning any given 3 tournaments with 500 entrants is far more difficult that winning any given 1 tournament with 3000 entrants. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now