JadeTiger 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 As far as I know, there has been at least one pro at every WSOP ME final table since its inception. Im curious as to when you guys think this will stop. When do you think big name Pros will be depleted from the final table? And furthermore, do you think there will ever be a ME FT without a pro? Pro meaning someone who's primary income comes from playing poker. I was thinking about this and I thought about the integrity of the game and the popularity of ME broadcast if its ALL amateurs. Could we see a 'reverse boom' based on the size of the events if they get to large to have anyone interesting at the FT to watch? Lets be honest we watch poker on tv because there are people we recognize and 'root' for or against. If Matusow hadnt been at last years FT I doubt the ratings would have been as high as they were and if Allen Cunningham wasnt at this years FT I doubt any of us would be refreshing every 2 min on Cardplayer, Pokerwire, etc. I think we are in a special era of poker. It is a time when the 'big names' are being immortalized and will be cemented in the Poker Pantheon, if you will. The likes of Raymer, Moneymaker, David Williams, Joe Hachem, etc are successes but seem to be more of the modern day poker player. I just see an interesting shift that will phase out the 'greats' and usher in a new era that could be depressingly diluted. Im very interested in seeing these so-called 'young guns' as they have been called, like Jeff Madsen who seems to be the Lebron James of the poker world and their ability to consistently do well. Anyway these are just some thoughts. What do you guys think? Link to post Share on other sites
Teffy 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I don't think David Williams should be lumped in with Raymer, Hashem, and Moneymaker. Further to that, i don't think Hashem and Raymer should be lumped in with Moneymaker. I think these players encompass 3 distinct levels of professional, with Williams holding the top group, Raymer and Hashem the second, with Moneymaker a distant 3rd. Link to post Share on other sites
Socrates 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I think ppl need to determine the term pro when it comes to this topic. I see a lot of uninformed posts on here about players wh oare not "big" names and ppl will call them donks, newbies and what not, but the fact is, they've all probably been playing poker a lot longer than you. Link to post Share on other sites
JadeTiger 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Author Share Posted August 9, 2006 I think ppl need to determine the term pro when it comes to this topic. I see a lot of uninformed posts on here about players wh oare not "big" names and ppl will call them donks, newbies and what not, but the fact is, they've all probably been playing poker a lot longer than you.It tried to distiguish this by saying, "Pro meaning someone who's primary income comes from playing poker."I understand that just because they arent a big name doesnt necessarily mean they are a n00b or donk. My point is it seems the pros, big or otherwise, are dissipating rapidly as the fields grow. Though it is logical that this would happen with the large numbers, I think the fact that there HAVE been big names at each final table since the WSOP began, brings me back to my original curiousity. I just wonder when or if there will ever be a FT with no pros at all. Just some poker hamster dancing really. Not trying to be philisophical or prophetical. Link to post Share on other sites
psujohn 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 If you dig deeply enough I think you'll find that there are a lot more "pros" at the FT of these events than you'd think. Sure everyone thinks of Raymer as the accountant but he was certainly playing a lot of poker too. Hachem was pretty much a pro as well before he won. Then looks at some of the "big name pros" and you'll find that many of them spend a lot of time and earn a lot of money away from the poker table - guys like Sam Farha, Eli Elezra, etc.If you set the "pro" mark as somethink like someone who earns 50K or more a year from poker I suspect we'll always have a "pro" at the FT. Link to post Share on other sites
JadeTiger 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Author Share Posted August 9, 2006 If you dig deeply enough I think you'll find that there are a lot more "pros" at the FT of these events than you'd think. Sure everyone thinks of Raymer as the accountant but he was certainly playing a lot of poker too. Hachem was pretty much a pro as well before he won. Then looks at some of the "big name pros" and you'll find that many of them spend a lot of time and earn a lot of money away from the poker table - guys like Sam Farha, Eli Elezra, etc.If you set the "pro" mark as somethink like someone who earns 50K or more a year from poker I suspect we'll always have a "pro" at the FT.This was my whole point; to generate conversation about this whole idea. We get locked into the idea that most of the 'donks' that make the final table dont deserve to be there. There are definitely those that dont (ie. Kanter) but I think if we open the discussion up we will find that pros consistently do well even though there are only about 300 or so given created to being in the field. The rest are considered amateurs. Link to post Share on other sites
jay1085 0 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 This was my whole point; to generate conversation about this whole idea. We get locked into the idea that most of the 'donks' that make the final table dont deserve to be there. There are definitely those that dont (ie. Kanter) but I think if we open the discussion up we will find that pros consistently do well even though there are only about 300 or so given created to being in the field. The rest are considered amateurs.I don't understand what u are saying. If you are asking if the FT will soon become nothing but Amateurs, isn't that basically upon us considering last year there were only 1 or 2 pro's who made the final table and this year 1 or 2? I am confused as to what u are asking? Pro's and amateurs play in the ME, if no pro's make the final table than so be it. Obviously the amateurs outweigh the pro's as far as how many of them there is. Link to post Share on other sites
JadeTiger 0 Posted August 10, 2006 Author Share Posted August 10, 2006 I don't understand what u are saying. If you are asking if the FT will soon become nothing but Amateurs, isn't that basically upon us considering last year there were only 1 or 2 pro's who made the final table and this year 1 or 2? I am confused as to what u are asking? Pro's and amateurs play in the ME, if no pro's make the final table than so be it. Obviously the amateurs outweigh the pro's as far as how many of them there is.Right, my question is when do you think this will occur. And if it does, whats the draw for ESPN viewers? I mean how many people will tune in to watch the WSOP ME FT if its a bunch of nobodys? As COOL as the Mansionpoker.net PokerDome Challenge is, I cant bring myself to sit through any of the episodes. From time to time they have some big names (Tony G, Scott Fischman, etc.) but generally its a bunch of nobodys. Ever watch the Heartland Poker Tour? Thats what I thought. I just dont want to see the ME FT turn into one of those lame poker events that no one cares to watch because no one knows anyone at the table. Link to post Share on other sites
magnus72 0 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 I just clicked on this thread to see your half naked picture of Jessica Alba this morning.Thanks JadeTiger keep it up Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyJoe 0 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Right, my question is when do you think this will occur. And if it does, whats the draw for ESPN viewers? I mean how many people will tune in to watch the WSOP ME FT if its a bunch of nobodys? As COOL as the Mansionpoker.net PokerDome Challenge is, I cant bring myself to sit through any of the episodes. From time to time they have some big names (Tony G, Scott Fischman, etc.) but generally its a bunch of nobodys. Ever watch the Heartland Poker Tour? Thats what I thought. I just dont want to see the ME FT turn into one of those lame poker events that no one cares to watch because no one knows anyone at the table.the thing about the WSOP is that since they show a lot of footage from the preliminary days so they can show a lot of footage of pros before they go out. Intertwined with this pro footage, they follow a few key amateurs, some of which just happen to make the Final Table. They edit it to make you know some of the FT players before they show the FT, so they'll never really have a table of "nobodies", they make them known themselves leading up to the Final Table.Now, that is for the regular broadcast, as for the PPV, I guess your point is a lot more valid there. When I was telling people I ordered the FT, a lot of people at my work asked me, "Whos in it?" I would say "well, Allen Cunningham, that's it for pros really..." They would say, "Oh......that's weird, no pros made it" and I would have to explain the whole 8000+ field thing. Link to post Share on other sites
showstopper24 0 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Some of the past final tables have not had final pros until after the tournament, when they become pros. Link to post Share on other sites
JadeTiger 0 Posted August 10, 2006 Author Share Posted August 10, 2006 Some of the past final tables have not had final pros until after the tournament, when they become pros.Name one. 2005 - matusow2004 - Harrington2003 - Harrington, Farha2002 - Julian Gardner2001 - Carlos Mortenson, Dewey Tomko2000 - Chris Furgeson, TJ Cloutier1999 - Alan GoehringBefore '99 they were almost all pros that won the event and definitely had pros at the final table if they didnt win. Link to post Share on other sites
Socrates 0 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Wow - some of you ppl really do think there are only 20 pros or so in the world don't u? Look at this year's table, pretty much every player has been a relative full time player making a living at the game for some time now. Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyJoe 0 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Wow - some of you ppl really do think there are only 20 pros or so in the world don't u? Look at this year's table, pretty much every player has been a relative full time player making a living at the game for some time now.ya that doesnt really apply to the OP, his question was if lack of a famous face pro will make less people watch the WSOP broadcast..Doesnt matter if the final table is full of internet pros who make over a million a year, the general poker public isnt going to recognize their face or their name, so the op point stands. Link to post Share on other sites
jay1085 0 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 the thing about the WSOP is that since they show a lot of footage from the preliminary days so they can show a lot of footage of pros before they go out. Intertwined with this pro footage, they follow a few key amateurs, some of which just happen to make the Final Table. They edit it to make you know some of the FT players before they show the FT, so they'll never really have a table of "nobodies", they make them known themselves leading up to the Final Table.Now, that is for the regular broadcast, as for the PPV, I guess your point is a lot more valid there. When I was telling people I ordered the FT, a lot of people at my work asked me, "Whos in it?" I would say "well, Allen Cunningham, that's it for pros really..." They would say, "Oh......that's weird, no pros made it" and I would have to explain the whole 8000+ field thing.Exactly. Link to post Share on other sites
JadeTiger 0 Posted August 10, 2006 Author Share Posted August 10, 2006 ya that doesnt really apply to the OP, his question was if lack of a famous face pro will make less people watch the WSOP broadcast..Doesnt matter if the final table is full of internet pros who make over a million a year, the general poker public isnt going to recognize their face or their name, so the op point stands.Thank you. At least someone isnt completely baffled by my question. I didnt realize it was so ambiguous. Link to post Share on other sites
chrozzo 19 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Andrew Black last year as well at the FT Link to post Share on other sites
JadeTiger 0 Posted August 10, 2006 Author Share Posted August 10, 2006 Andrew Black last year as well at the FTYeah i know there were more at each FT I just listed at least one to prove my point. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentButDeadly3 0 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Name one. 2005 - matusow2004 - Harrington2003 - Harrington, Farha2002 - Julian Gardner2001 - Carlos Mortenson, Dewey Tomko2000 - Chris Furgeson, TJ Cloutier1999 - Alan GoehringBefore '99 they were almost all pros that won the event and definitely had pros at the final table if they didnt win.2003 - Vahedi and Lester were both pros. Link to post Share on other sites
jay1085 0 Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 Thank you. At least someone isnt completely baffled by my question. I didnt realize it was so ambiguous.yeah and Crazy Joe answered the question by telling you the way ESPN broadcasts the ME. By the time you watch the final table you know some of the players through the previous episodes. Link to post Share on other sites
augmented 0 Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 2003 - Vahedi and Lester were both pros.yeah and grey and singer. that was actually a pretty good ft. the 10th place finisher was pretty good too, forgot his name, phil ivy or something.grey, singer, vahedi, lester, harrington, farha. thats 6 out of 9.sw by the way for the ivey comment. i really hate having to do that. 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