Jump to content

WSOP main event still determines #1 player?



Recommended Posts

With a record number of participants at the WSOP Main Event this year, the question must be asked...Does this event still determine the "best poker player in the world", or has it simply become the "Poker Open Championship"?With 2600+ entries, basically equal to "Anyone with a desire and 10K" playing, how can this event still be thought to determine the 'best'?In addition, with the value of money today, as compared to say 10-15 years ago, is the 10K buy-in too low and thus contribute to this situation.Back when Doyle won back to back and there where <100 or so entries, I think it was fairly easy to title him the 'best'. But does that still hold true today?In my opinion, somethink like a 25K (or higher) buy-in event, where maybe the top 100 or 200 players from the series leader board are invited, would be a much better determination of the champion for the year.Granted, a change is most likely (ok, definately) not going to happen, as it would probably drop attendance and thus cost the casino $$, but the question still looms...Does the WSOP Main Event still determine the 'best poker player in the world'?I say no.(Hmmm, maybe this should have been a poll....oh wait...it's not too late)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It definately doesn't determine the best player. With 2500+ entrants, you're going to at least need some luck. I will say that you still have to be a good poker player to win, not just anyone can win, it still does take a lot of skill to win. Yes Raymer and Moneymaker got lucky (so did Varkyoni) but they still had to get to the WSOP which in their case meant winning smaller tournaments, so they are good, but yes still lucky :D . I definitely don't think that they're the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is..does it still determine who is #1.Well #1 of WHAT????#1 best player?#1 Luckiest player#1 most watched player.#1 player who got the most tv time?So the question is only #1 poker player. The question did not specify #1 of what!!!. So I can only answer with what the main event has always done.I answered yes on the poll, Because...like always in the past and present. The WSOP of poker main even still does what it did 30 years ago.It determined the #1 most well known and riches single tournament player of the year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to take the winner of the WSOP Main Event and compare it to the US Open or Masters in golf. The winner of these "Majors" is not neccessarily the best player in the world but much like the WSOP, you do not often get unskilled players winning when it is all said and done. Therefore my vote is "NO" it does not answer the question of the best player.With respects to the post about too many entrants and a minimal buy-in... the WSOP Main Event is the one big reason for the explosion in the poker world as it has allowed for "normal, blue collar workers" to take a stab at the big pot. Without being a professional myself, I am sure that they would agree that the more people that enter...the more money that they have a good shot of winning.Now a question for Daniel...I have heard rumblings of a Canadian Poker Tour starting soon...Can you confirm this and will you make any apperances?

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading Super/System. I must say this. or was it somewhere else I read it? anyway, Johnny Moss was not the first world series champion because he one this event. He was the first world series champion because he was voted the best of the series by the rest of them. after that, the main event made someone the champion of the world in No limit poker, yes, but back then, everyone knew it was a title. This is why the world series is more than just the main event. More than likely, the toyota leaderboard would be the thing that actually would crown the best in the world, specially since the guy that won that would win card player's poty if he makes the final table tonight. They should have given him a crown with the car, but that might go to his head (enter drum fill here). Pretty much, the toyota thing showed the guy that could outlast big fields and win money more than anybody, and there was a reason that some big names were up on that list. I think, though, that it still isn't accurate, since these guys are doing the best at tourneys. What about the cash game factor. The big names consistantly say Chip Reese, but he never gets mentioned by anybody else because he doesn't get so far in tournies or he doesn't play them. But doyle is awesome, and he doesn't do as well in tournies ( as some of those big superstar names), although he does still win his share. And most of us would agree that Annie Duke, while very good, is not the best. A tourny of the best and only the best doesn't do the job either, because since everyone is so afraid of Chan and Phil and Doyle and Chip and blah blah blah blah, and everyone is so close in skill level it makes it so the cards end up being more of an influence (so shoot me if I think that luck will have an influence). There has to be bad players involved, because the best players will profit more from them than the great players, and then we will see who can manage their stack size against the others. We need the best players in the world to all play in one cash game and rate that against their play in tourneys. That is how we find the best one poker player of the year. Someday, it just might be .....Brian Dennehy.

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...