[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously you don't know the etymology of "Donkament"

Donk = DONK. Duh.
'ament" = Tournament

There are more donks in the WSOP ME than any other major tournament. Therefore not only is the WSOP ME a donkament, but it is the king of donkaments.

Also, for a reasonable proof: Jerry Yang won this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, now here someone actually gets closer to what's really interesting about all of this (even if inadvertently).

That the origin of "donkament" = "donk" + "tournament" is not the point.

The point is that in common usage "donkament" has become a pejorative, a term that conveys a lack of general lack of respect for the abilities of most anyone who does well in such tournaments.

However, in this poker bubble, nearly every non-invitational tournament could be labeled a "donkament". Perhaps the WSOP $50K HORSE is not, perhaps EPT Grand Final is not, but most all of the others are.

By lumping together nearly every major tournment into a single "donkament" category and discounting the abilities of anyone who has success in these "donkaments", one misses the point that the real opportunity for great tourney players in this poker bubble is the large-field large-purse tournies. Calling them "donkaments" is ok I guess, as long as you understand that they are not "donkaments" as in skill plays a diminshed role. It's the opposite: by any metric, these tournaments offer a greater payoff for application of real skill than any other.

Someone said "name" players play in highly visible tournaments for the endorsements. A recent interview with Carlos Mortensen disputes this. Carlos talks about the very high cost of playing on the live tourney circuit, how much of his profits must be plowed back into self-funding. Endorsements may help a little, but they are not the enabler.