|
|
#83
06-17-2007, 07:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: exactly how bad IS phil hellmuth?
Great, so when one of these internet "superstars" gets within a few bracelets of Cunningham, then we can start to seriously consider them as actual poker superstars. And, at that point, they will only need another half dozen or so bracelets to catch Hellmuth.
The End. 
|
|
#86
06-17-2007, 08:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: exactly how bad IS phil hellmuth?
WSOP Bracelets are what distinguish the top champions from the also-rans in the world of poker. If you have a problem with that, go whine and post on some message board about it. Oh wait, that's what you already do.
|
|
#87
06-17-2007, 08:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: exactly how bad IS phil hellmuth?
[ QUOTE ]
WSOP Bracelets are what distinguish the top champions from the also-rans in the world of poker. If you have a problem with that, go whine and post on some message board about it. Oh wait, that's what you already do. [/ QUOTE ]I haven't whined about anything. I felt like I have always been respectful toward you and had well thought out responses. The thing about poker is that it is a money game where the goal is to win money and you win the most money by playing the best (though by nature there are many who win who do not play the best). Accolades don't mean much (but they are nice), because the really good players don't need them to know that they are good. Or to say it differently, the so-called also-rans who are making tons of money at this game are the real winners, whether anybody considers them as such or not. Once again, PH has made plenty of money at poker, so he IS one of the real winners. But there are plenty more real winners you've never heard of, even if they haven't won any bracelets. And if some people consider a few of those players "the best" because they respect their play, that's a legitimate perspective, even if it's not one that you put much stock in. Once again, saying "WSOP bracelets are what distinguish top chapmions . . ." is completely arbitrary. Who decided this? ESPN? Phil Hellmuth? People who watch poker on TV? Why aren't WTP finishes considered. Why aren't online tournaments considered? Why aren't cash winnings in the everyday grind considered? I have tried to respond respectfully and intelligently to you and you have yet to acknowledge any points I've made. You continually ignore the perspectives of many people who understand poker better than you. I suppose it is well within your rights to believe the picture as ESPN presents it and not consider a broader perspective, but that is an ignorant approach and I'd think you want to do better.
|
|
#89
06-17-2007, 10:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: exactly how bad IS phil hellmuth?
The WSOP is universally considered to be the most important tournament in poker. You have a problem with that concept.
As for your categorizing my statement (about multiple bracelets distinguishing top players) as "arbitrary," I think you may not know what the word arbitrary means. Here is a definition of arbitrary (from Wikipedia): "Choices and actions are considered to be arbitrary when they are done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula." If I say to you that there exists a poker tournament that is universally acknowledged to be the most important poker tournament in the world and that those players who win that tournament multiple times are considered to be top players, and then you say that this statement is illogical, then I say to you that you are either dumb or you are misusing the word arbitrary (and are just dumb in your use of words you dont understand). Additionally, you presume that other people (including yourself?) know more about poker than me. This opinion is based on what?: The fact that you disagree with the points I make, or just pure arrogance on your part (as part of the "wiser" collective that seeks to "educate" me) Everybody wants to win the big one. Which tournament is "the big one?" Well, we all know the answer to that question, dont we? It is known universally, isnt it?
|
|
#90
06-17-2007, 11:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: exactly how bad IS phil hellmuth?
[ QUOTE ]
The WSOP is universally considered to be the most important tournament in poker. You have a problem with that concept. [/ QUOTE ]I do not have a problem with that concept. IN fact, it is quite clear that the WSOP main event is the most important tournament in poker. However, it does not correlate that Jamie Gold is the best poker player just because he won it last year. Being the "most important" is not the same as "an effective measure". [ QUOTE ] As for your categorizing my statement (about multiple bracelets distinguishing top players) as "arbitrary," I think you may not know what the word arbitrary means. Here is a definition of arbitrary (from Wikipedia): "Choices and actions are considered to be arbitrary when they are done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula." [/ QUOTE ]Pretty clear on the definition of the word "arbitrary". And what I mean is, considering these (very important) tournaments alone and not including others (and there are other important tournaments as well), is illogical when looking at who the best tournament players are. It is EXTREMELY illogical to use these tournaments at all to measure the skill of a player in a cash game. It is close to saying that because a player won 5 no limit hold em tournaments, he must be the best seven card stud player as well. They are different forms of poker, and while many of the skills are the same, it is possible to be excellent at one and poor at another. Just like stud and hold em are different variants of poker, so are tournaments and cash games. I would call judging a player's seven card stud ability by hold em bracelets won arbitrary, just as I claim judging a poker player's cash game skill by bracelets won as arbitrary. It is illogical to do either. [ QUOTE ] If I say to you that there exists a poker tournament that is universally acknowledged to be the most important poker tournament in the world and that those players who win that tournament multiple times are considered to be top players, and then you say that this statement is illogical, then I say to you that you are either dumb or you are misusing the word arbitrary (and are just dumb in your use of words you don't understand). [/ QUOTE ]I never said WSOP winners are not "top players". I have said that their record in the WSOP does not equate to be good at playing cash games. That is not illogical. Also, please don't use personal attacks. I have not called you "dumb" or any other name; there is no reason to start name calling. [ QUOTE ] Additionally, you presume that other people (including yourself?) know more about poker than me. This opinion is based on what?: The fact that you disagree with the points I make, or just pure arrogance on your part (as part of the "wiser" collective that seeks to "educate" me) [/ QUOTE ]This is based on your continued and repeated misconceptions about poker that you have made abundantly clear. Yes I disagree with you, but we are not talking about opinions when we talk about the differences between tournament poker in cash games. It is a clear FACT that the two play different and require different skills. That you refuse to acknowledge this belies your lack of poker experience. I am guessing you play a bit, but there are people who have posted in this thread who have played thousands upon thousands of poker hands, both in tournaments and cash games, and you might want to acknowledge that they might know more about the game that you do. Do I believe I know more poker than you? I don't know- I certainly know more about the differences between tournament poker and cash games. Maybe you haven't played enough of each to see why they are different, but I certainly have. That is not arrogance; but as long as you continue to argue that tournament wins is an effective measure for cash game skill, then I will be confident in my assessment that I understand this aspect of poker better than you.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
