Why A Pro Will Never Win The Big Enchilda (again)

[jbage007 0]

Let's face it. Being "world champion" doesn't mean what it used to mean.Once upon a time, it meant being the best of the best. No more.Today, it means being the player that stayed the luckiest the longest.Why are so many unknowns advancing while the pros are going down like flies?Simple. The pros play too good of a game. The knats just get lucky. They play a modified version of hyper-poker that is dominant online and they get lucky. That's all. HEck, half of the players didn't pay their own entry fee! They have nothing to lose and millions to win--and they play like it! If any of those hot-shots played the same game at high dollar cash games, they'd lose their shirts (with the possible exception of Jamie Gold, the current chip leader, who can actually play some poker).So the winner of the Main Event should hereafter being referred to as "The Luckiest Player in the World".Discuss. B)

[HowMuchIsIt 0]

you might want to run this past allen cunningham or jeff lisandro first

[Yoda 1]

you might want to run this past allen cunningham or jeff lisandro first

QFT

[....Ian.... 0]

this topic has 'general' written all over it.

[matt21sz 0]

Mr. Cunningham agrees with you 100%. Doesn't bother him though...he'd rather win the 12 mil. He doesn't care if you think he's an internet donk. Oh wait, nevermind.

[Spademan 94]

12 million dollar first prizes, floods of donkey's and newbies at poker rooms is a terrible thing, yes.

[jbage007 0]

hey this post is NOT about Allenthe fact that Allen is the only recognizable pro left more or less solidifies my argumentit's about the inherent prestige of the title today versus what it used to be, pre-moneymakerif Allen wins it, great. he won't, but if he does, great. I'm not saying the player who wins won't be a good player, just that when you look at the big picture, there aren't *that* many goooood players in the "Main Event" that's all, and so when you win, no matter who you are, it means you had a lot of luck riding on your side--it's to the point where skill doesn't count for much

[Spademan 94]

Look, here's the problem... how is one tournament going to proclaim a "world champion" anyway? Poker is about earning money at the tables.The only proper way to have a yearly "world champion" would be to open all the books on every player, find out who made the most purely from poker, and name him such.So, let the ME have as many players as it can, get as much exposure as it can, and draw as many to the tables as it can and crown a "world champion", toward furthering all these ends. /end

[bbz_Ghost 0]

I gotta say I get sick of seeing comments related to "pros" winning, I really do. I mean, the whole idea of the WSOP has always been "Anyone can win..." so who gives a rat's petooty if a "pro" wins it?The entire history of it is laced with "pros" since in those days the only people that had $10,000 in cash laying around to play in a poker tournament in Las Vegas were... go figure... poker players. It gained notoriety over the years, sure, and absolutely exploded with Moneymaker's win in 2003 + coupled with the appearance of the WPT and hole card cams = "the poker boom" we're all experiencing.The problem is the boom is about to bust, at least as far as the WSOP itself is concerned. It can only get so big and then it's a downhill slide. It's not a poker tournament anymore, it's a corporate sponsored media event that happens to disguise itself as a poker tournament with the corporate sponsors dipping into the prize pool. That alone should have made every single player that registered and played/is playing in the main event absolutely FURIOUS knowing Harrah's basically charged them a fee to play.I know I'd be pissed. So much for the time honored $1 entry fee. Instead of ~$9,000 they'd have gained from that $1 entry fee, Harrah's lopped off a rather considerable chunk of money for free. Why isn't more being said about that? I'm actually surprised they went to $12 million for the final payout; I was fully expecting a flat $10 million this time since it's been 2.5-5-7.5 so far the past tourneys.I could care less if a name "pro" wins again, it's just not something I consider relevant. It would be cool to see it happen, especially if Doyle Brunson could do it, but it's just too big now for anyone to go into it already a winner. Everyone always picks Ivey (at least from the comments I read online and see on TV shows and hear in podcasts ad nauseum), and yet he pooches it every time. His hyper-over-aggressive play is never going to win "the big one," it just can't work.bb

[doudave 0]

Rather be lucky then good

[Canada 0]

hmmm correct me if I'm wrong, but both Raymer and Hachem were pros before they won the ME...maybe skill does count for something.Also the winner of the ME was never considered the 'best of the best', except by the uninformed

[76clubs 0]

I hate this topic.

[No_Neck 0]

Look, here's the problem... how is one tournament going to proclaim a "world champion" anyway? Poker is about earning money at the tables.The only proper way to have a yearly "world champion" would be to open all the books on every player, find out who made the most purely from poker, and name him such.So, let the ME have as many players as it can, get as much exposure as it can, and draw as many to the tables as it can and crown a "world champion", toward furthering all these ends. /end

earning 11,990,000 from poker in one year must put you pretty high on the list.

[bbz_Ghost 0]

earning 11,990,000 from poker in one year must put you pretty high on the list.

And that is if you win it and you actually paid the buy-in out of your own pocket. Can you say "Online satellite" or "Corporate sponsorship"?bb

[alexruimy 0]

hmmm correct me if I'm wrong, but both Raymer and Hachem were pros before they won the ME...

They weren't 100% pro. Hachem played 50/100NL while doing mortgage brokering (I think). Raymer was a patent attorney.

[Spademan 94]

earning 11,990,000 from poker in one year must put you pretty high on the list.

Figured I didn't need to add that tidbit.

[bbz_Ghost 0]

They both still have their respective jobs from what I can tell. Hell, PokerStars loves spamming their images in magazines nowadays with Raymer in hit fat cat suit at a desk; Hachem in his doctor's white coat doing some work on a chiropractic patient; and of course, Moneymaker visiting his old job (I doubt that's really the people he worked with, however).The thing that really pisses me off is that they always show Hachem as a "member of the PokerStars team" as though he was playing for them when he won the ME in 2005. He was not affiliated with them in any way aside from being a regular PokerStars player himself. Moneymaker and Raymer both got into their respective ME's with the sponsorship from satellite tournaments; from what I can tell, Hachem paid his own way into the 2005 ME - good for him if he did.PokerStars is flaunting Hachem around like he's their "kid" like Raymer and Moneymaker were, and it's just wrong, but the majority don't know it or even care.bb

[Spademan 94]

it's just wrong, but the majority don't know it or even care.bb

Why should anyone care?And how is it wrong?

[alexruimy 0]

I gotta say I get sick of seeing comments related to "pros" winning, I really do. I mean, the whole idea of the WSOP has always been "Anyone can win..." so who gives a rat's petooty if a "pro" wins it?The entire history of it is laced with "pros" since in those days the only people that had $10,000 in cash laying around to play in a poker tournament in Las Vegas were... go figure... poker players. It gained notoriety over the years, sure, and absolutely exploded with Moneymaker's win in 2003 + coupled with the appearance of the WPT and hole card cams = "the poker boom" we're all experiencing.The problem is the boom is about to bust, at least as far as the WSOP itself is concerned. It can only get so big and then it's a downhill slide. It's not a poker tournament anymore, it's a corporate sponsored media event that happens to disguise itself as a poker tournament with the corporate sponsors dipping into the prize pool. That alone should have made every single player that registered and played/is playing in the main event absolutely FURIOUS knowing Harrah's basically charged them a fee to play.I know I'd be pissed. So much for the time honored $1 entry fee. Instead of ~$9,000 they'd have gained from that $1 entry fee, Harrah's lopped off a rather considerable chunk of money for free. Why isn't more being said about that? I'm actually surprised they went to $12 million for the final payout; I was fully expecting a flat $10 million this time since it's been 2.5-5-7.5 so far the past tourneys.I could care less if a name "pro" wins again, it's just not something I consider relevant. It would be cool to see it happen, especially if Doyle Brunson could do it, but it's just too big now for anyone to go into it already a winner. Everyone always picks Ivey (at least from the comments I read online and see on TV shows and hear in podcasts ad nauseum), and yet he pooches it every time. His hyper-over-aggressive play is never going to win "the big one," it just can't work.bb

Personally, I love it when big name pros win events because it's a reminder that the game is not just luck. Not necessarily to me, but to my parents or whoever decides to give me a hard time for playing.And I think you're dead wrong about Ivey. His ME results are pretty good...20th in '05, 10th in '03, 23rd in '02. That compared with his results in the rest of the WSOP, despite the big fields and the fact that he entered very few events makes him quite a good pick. If I had to choose one person to pick, it would easily be Ivey. He's got the results.

[sdnuol 0]

what daniel said in a cardplayer articlewin the triple crown of poker which includes:-50k horse-wsopme-cardplayer,wpt, or wsop POY award to proits more of a lifetime big enchilada, but i think that should be what everyone strives to win rather than the wsopme

[WVUCarter 0]

The pros are certainly outnumbered but this year Cunningham and Lisandro have an excellent chance to take it. With 27 players left, my money is on one of them to pull it out.

[bbz_Ghost 0]

Personally, I love it when big name pros win events because it's a reminder that the game is not just luck. Not necessarily to me, but to my parents or whoever decides to give me a hard time for playing.And I think you're dead wrong about Ivey. His ME results are pretty good...20th in '05, 10th in '03, 23rd in '02. That compared with his results in the rest of the WSOP, despite the big fields and the fact that he entered very few events makes him quite a good pick. If I had to choose one person to pick, it would easily be Ivey. He's got the results.

Compare Ivey to someone like say, T.J. Cloutier. He's been around longer, played more poker than Ivey could dream of, won more tournaments and has more respect (I believe) of and the chops to back it up.How come no one looks at that anymore?Ivey is the "Tiger Woods" of poker, but he's yet to prove himself as far as I'm concerned. I hate using that Tiger Woods line, really, but it's how Ivey is perceived. Sure, he's a mean lean poker machine, but he's got a long way to go, as long as he doesn't burn out before he gets there.I don't want this to turn into an Ivey bash-off or comparison, I'm just stating my opinions about him. He can do it, of that I'm quite sure. The question is: will he back down when the time comes and not overplay at the crucial moment like he always seems to do?bbEdited to fix a booboo I made, I admit it.

[alexruimy 0]

Compare Ivey to someone like say, T.J. Cloutier. He's been around longer, played more poker than Ivey could dream of, won more tournaments (including THE main event once) and has more respect (I believe) of and the chops to back it up.How come no one looks at that anymore?Ivey is the "Tiger Woods" of poker, but he's yet to prove himself as far as I'm concerned. I hate using that Tiger Woods line, really, but it's how Ivey is perceived. Sure, he's a mean lean poker machine, but he's got a long way to go, as long as he doesn't burn out before he gets there.I don't want this to turn into an Ivey bash-off or comparison, I'm just stating my opinions about him. He can do it, of that I'm quite sure. The question is: will he back down when the time comes and not overplay at the crucial moment like he always seems to do?bb

TJ never won the main event.Let's give Ivey 30 more years, then we'll compare.

[sdnuol 0]

Compare Ivey to someone like say, T.J. Cloutier. He's been around longer, played more poker than Ivey could dream of, won more tournaments (including THE main event once) and has more respect (I believe) of and the chops to back it up.

i agree and know for a fact TJ has won more NLHE events with 5k+ buyin than anyone else in history, but when the hell did he win the WSOPME?edit: tj has been around much longer than phil though, and imo phil will comeout ahead in the end

[bbz_Ghost 0]

Sorry, sorry, I was thinking about Tom McEvoy when I was typing that line about the ME winning; I have three of their books they co-wrote sitting here and couldn't get T.J.'s name outta my head.Sorry for that, fixed the posting but if anyone wonders what I said, I said that T.J. Cloutier had won a ME in the past (as quoted in the postings above) and that was, obviously, incorrect.bb