Jump to content

luck vs skill 2005 wsop main event


Recommended Posts

WIth over 6000 players expected this year do you guy think skill will play a big factor in crowning this years champ. I think this years WSOP main even will be a total crapshoot and with more and more inexperienced players entering to be part of the hottest event in vegas. So my question to you guys is with 6000 players is this event a total crapshoot? Should they raise the buy in to keep the weaker players out?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest XXEddie

I beleive the first few days will be luck with all the inexperienced, bad players around, but once they fall out and lose all their chips it will become a more skill-needed tournament

Link to post
Share on other sites
Should they raise the buy in to keep the weaker players out?
Yes I certainly think they should. Raising it will by no means get rid of all the fish, but by making it closer to $25,000, you wont lose the pros, and will still have enough amateur's that it'll be a good sized tourney.
Link to post
Share on other sites

there are lots of arguments to refute your points.with so many players, having strong focus will be key. inexperienced players will most definitely make bad calls, etc., on day 1, 2, 3 and so on, so the experienced pros will have a significant edge.secondly, more inexperienced players actually means that the game is easier to beat. what's a tougher tournament, 1000 pros + 1000 amateurs, or 1000 pros + 5000 amateurs? by arguing that a $25k buy-in would keep the pros and weed down the amateurs, you are essentially saying that good players will have an edge against a tougher field, which is wrong.finally, it's true that more players means more opportunities for lady luck to show her face, but that doesn't mean that the tournament becomes a crapshoot and requires less skill. it is the opposite... more players means a tougher tournament, so it will require significant (read: more) skill to beat.there's a reason that some critics dismiss the earlier WSOP champions, saying that the field was smaller and those same players could not beat the 2003/2004 field nearly as easily. an example of why it takes more skill to beat these tournaments is dan harrington... he consistently cashed in the past few years, and it shows that you need tremendous skill to do well. granted, the champion this year might be an amateur ala varkonyi or moneymaker, but the top cashes, etc., will all be undoubtedly skillful players.aseem

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly when a pro wins it again they will be a Carlos Mortensen or Josh Arieh type in which they are known in the community but not known to the public at large

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the last 3 winners, they are far from the top 10, it is luck, like Raymer getting lucky on coin flips over and over. And moneymaker against Dutch B. he should have been done there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the 2005 winner need luck? Sure, but that's no different than past years (Chan's 2-outter [Was it two? I know it wasn't very many] to win it all in '87 comes to mind), really. I don't think it's possible to win such an event without a combination of luck and skill--again, no different than in years past if you think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest XXEddie
Look at the last 3 winners, they are far from the top 10, it is luck, like Raymer getting lucky on coin flips over and over. And moneymaker against Dutch B. he should have been done there.
yeah, he shoulda been done there.....starting with the best hand and allI assume you mean against Brenes, or even Ivey, if so it doesnt matter, EVERY winner has gotten lucky during a tournamentDoyle, Chan, anybody, even Ungar, he hit like a 7 outeron the river to win it in 97...or whenever
Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite what people claim, I think it is almost impossible for a bad player to win this thing. Can a less than world-class player win it? Absolutely. In an event like this the skilled players are fighting against bad luck more than looking for good luck imo. A careful pro like Hellmuth for instance, will be careful not to commit all his chips unless he is a big favourite, because he knows he is going to be faced with these situations so many times over the tourney and only has to lose one to cripple himself. But a tourney like this it will be easy for him to be in a situation where he is 80% favourite to win 10 times... and odds says he will lose 2 out of 10 of those. Hopefully the two he lose are to short stacks, as the big stacks would end his tourney.A player like Daniel will probably be concentrating on building up a big stack early, because he is a monster when he has a lot of chips. Building up a big stack early though usually requires a fair degree of risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will pay off a certain type of skilled player more than others... for exaple, a great player who is willing to be reasonablly loose, and get involved in pots with the 1000's ( and there will be more than 1 thounsand bad player here) of bad players, will be rewarded... in such a huge, huge, huge field, I don't think that playing super tight is going to win you any money... You want as many chances as you can to double up through a bad player... players who make too many bad calls, and players who make too many bad, weak folds... Players who play a normal tight game, I just don't think are going to win, 'cause eventually they are going to get unlucky, and drawn out on... if you've accumulated a mountain of chips from playing against bad players, you can survive getting drawn out on... Players who accell in manuplating really bad players have a significant edge.. but I mean, significant will be relative.... Like if say Daniel is Ten times more likely to get first than the average player ( which is debatable) he's odds of winning are only 1-600. But with all the dead, dead money in the tourney, players like Daniel are getting amazing return on their money... it's just not very likely that the money will return to him, more likely than say you or me...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the last 3 winners, they are far from the top 10, it is luck, like Raymer getting lucky on coin flips over and over. And moneymaker against Dutch B. he should have been done there.
Should have been done there? What poker world do you live in? Have you ever played before?
Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if they raise the buy-in to $25,000. Half the entries are people who won their seat online. The online poker rooms get people in by offering WSOP seats. That will never change no matter how much the buy-in is. They will keep giving seats and people will pay whatever to play a satellite to get there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to point out that this is the most prestigious poker tournament of the year with the toughest field (it will have pretty much all the good players along with the bad players). The "bad" players we're talking about are generally better than the average poker player, and often need to win an onloine tourney to get in. Granted there's a few total fish who bought in, but they'll dump their chips early, and a player who is good against bad players will know how to beat them. Even if all these "bad" players we're refferring to are total fish, it doesn't mean the tournament will take more luck, it means it will take a different type of skill. Take the example of your average online poker tournament, everytime someone wins a tournament like this is it completely luck? No. I mean, there's a much larger degree of bad players to good players in a tournament like this, and yet you still have to contribute the win to skill, even if the winner got lucky here or there they needed skill alongside luck to win. If a tournament like this can be attributed to skill, then the most prestigious tournament of the year most certaintly can.P.S.- I'd like to point out that these "lucky" Champs of the past 2 years are very very good players. Chris Moneymaker played a great tournament, and has been fairly succesful since, sure he got lucky against Ivey and Brenes, but every player HAs to get lucky here or there. I'm sure Daniel needed to suck out at leats once to win say the Borgata Championship or the Bellagio event, but that doesn't mean the win needs to be completely attributed to luck. And in terms of Greg Raymer, he's been a very succesful poker player for years, and is very well respected in the poker community, I remember even hearing Matt Matros say he believes Raymer is a superior player to Hellmuth, and that he would be willing to accept many last longer bets between Raymer and Hellmuth in future events. Even in the case of Varkoyni, Hellmuth admitted he played well at the final table. Just because a player gets lucky in a few hands doesn't mean they are a horrible player, you have to look at the whole of their work, and in the case of these televised events you just can't do this to offer a fair opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The insane number of players at this event make it what it is...As poker has grown and given the pros more places to play I say lets leave this one event status quo, I'm convinced DN can wade his way thru all the players and win this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
there are lots of arguments to refute your points.aseem
good post. (i removed most of it to limit scrolling)i just think it might be a little unfair that one pro might get luckier than the others, and increase his stack to an enormous amount, because he was lucky enough to be at the table with numerous fish, whereas another pro might have a tight table, with exceptional players.i know, it's the luck of the draw, but if one player is "handed" 50,000 more in chips, because he's with a bunch of fish...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Name pros are continuing to win major tournaments with large fields and two-three find themselves on TV tables. I don't think the days of a name pro winning the big one are over. Granted, the odds are diminished when dealing with such enormous fields, but these guys are pros, and are learning to adapt. The more typical winner will be someone like Greg Raymer. A very solid cash game player with some tournament experience. I'd look at the mid-level LA or Bellagio games, 50-100 limits and up for your likely relative unknowns. Throw in the the many winning online players who successfully play 30-60 and above, and you'll likely locate your a probable winner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ill be that guy...a NAME PRO WILL WIN THE WSOP CHAMPIONSHIP EVENT THIS YEAR. Think about it, doyle & jesus played amazingly and i still think if it wasnt for that guy acting out of turn doyle makes the final table...and lest we forget dan 'all i do is make the final table of the wsop championship event' harrington. i think last year everyone thought, 'hey im a pro, lets show these kids what its like' and it bit them on the butt. this year im expecting the final 3 tables to have 5 top name pros one of which will take it to the house. you can shower me with praise come july

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...