Negreanu lumps Raymer w/ Moneymaker & Gold

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not Shaniac, but these are two different points. Just because the odds between the best player and a mediocre player winning might be relatively small, doesn't mean it's not significant. Suppose the best player has a 1% chance of winning and a good, but sorta normal poker nerd has a 0.1% chance of winning. That's a 10x difference, but both are clearly longshots to win. Still, a 10x edge is a 10x edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

10x edge is a huge advantage HU but not really when there are 10K people.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you know what "edge" is.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on people, does anyone realistically think that skill makes a damn difference in a field of 8K players??? Saying that GOld was lucky or Raymer was lucky is stating the obvious. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to win the ME without being on the run of your life. To beat all those players, even if you make the correct decision EVRY SINGLE hand based on percentages, you never win in your lifetime. I don't care who wins the WSOP ME from now on, they are lucky sob's. However,once they've lucked their way to the top hundred or so, then yes, skill can take over. But to make the top hundred....rush of your life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love it that people think this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shaniac,

In a field of say 10K (round up to even numbers to simplify), what do you think would be the odds of the very best player in the world be to win the whole thing? And what about for a mediocre amateur player?

Of course skill matters a great deal, but I think it's ridiculous to talk about GR and JH and CM etc and their relative skill levels based on their play in WSOP ME's.


But please answer my question above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skill makes a difference whether there are 10 or 10,000 people in the event. No one has a 10-1 edge over anyone else in poker, but a player with a 3-1 edge over the field is still 3 times more likely to win in a huge field over an amateur. In fact, the ratio of skill-to-luck doesn't really change at all, except maybe to emphasize the stamina aspect of poker skill. Your original assertion to the contrary makes no sense, just like your contetntion that you couldn't win even if you saw peoples' cards.

[dahouse]

dont really like gold or raymer so im for danny all the way

[Jourdain]

Negreanu talks about this topic on the circuit radio show.

[slim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on people, does anyone realistically think that skill makes a damn difference in a field of 8K players??? Saying that GOld was lucky or Raymer was lucky is stating the obvious. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to win the ME without being on the run of your life. To beat all those players, even if you make the correct decision EVRY SINGLE hand based on percentages, you never win in your lifetime. I don't care who wins the WSOP ME from now on, they are lucky sob's. However,once they've lucked their way to the top hundred or so, then yes, skill can take over. But to make the top hundred....rush of your life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love it that people think this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shaniac,

In a field of say 10K (round up to even numbers to simplify), what do you think would be the odds of the very best player in the world be to win the whole thing? And what about for a mediocre amateur player?

Of course skill matters a great deal, but I think it's ridiculous to talk about GR and JH and CM etc and their relative skill levels based on their play in WSOP ME's.


But please answer my question above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skill makes a difference whether there are 10 or 10,000 people in the event. No one has a 10-1 edge over anyone else in poker, but a player with a 3-1 edge over the field is still 3 times more likely to win in a huge field over an amateur. In fact, the ratio of skill-to-luck doesn't really change at all, except maybe to emphasize the stamina aspect of poker skill. Your original assertion to the contrary makes no sense, just like your contetntion that you couldn't win even if you saw peoples' cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was a hypothetical situation. I should have been more clear.If you could see your opponent's cards before the flop and made your decision whether or not to play in that hand, but then after the flop, your memory was erased.....you still would not liekly win.

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on people, does anyone realistically think that skill makes a damn difference in a field of 8K players??? Saying that GOld was lucky or Raymer was lucky is stating the obvious. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to win the ME without being on the run of your life. To beat all those players, even if you make the correct decision EVRY SINGLE hand based on percentages, you never win in your lifetime. I don't care who wins the WSOP ME from now on, they are lucky sob's. However,once they've lucked their way to the top hundred or so, then yes, skill can take over. But to make the top hundred....rush of your life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love it that people think this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shaniac,

In a field of say 10K (round up to even numbers to simplify), what do you think would be the odds of the very best player in the world be to win the whole thing? And what about for a mediocre amateur player?

Of course skill matters a great deal, but I think it's ridiculous to talk about GR and JH and CM etc and their relative skill levels based on their play in WSOP ME's.


But please answer my question above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skill makes a difference whether there are 10 or 10,000 people in the event. No one has a 10-1 edge over anyone else in poker, but a player with a 3-1 edge over the field is still 3 times more likely to win in a huge field over an amateur. In fact, the ratio of skill-to-luck doesn't really change at all, except maybe to emphasize the stamina aspect of poker skill. Your original assertion to the contrary makes no sense, just like your contetntion that you couldn't win even if you saw peoples' cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was a hypothetical situation. I should have been more clear.If you could see your opponent's cards before the flop and made your decision whether or not to play in that hand, but then after the flop, your memory was erased.....you still would not liekly win.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could still win most of the time, just go all in or fold preflop every hand.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
okay, negreanu's annoying but why do we love raymer so much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Raymer taught us lots of good stuff about poker tournaments. Negeranu might be a better NL tourney player (though I'm not sold), but Raymer was an excellent teacher and de-facto mentor to a lot of us on 2+2, and his contributions to MTT theory will probably always remain underrated.

[slim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on people, does anyone realistically think that skill makes a damn difference in a field of 8K players??? Saying that GOld was lucky or Raymer was lucky is stating the obvious. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to win the ME without being on the run of your life. To beat all those players, even if you make the correct decision EVRY SINGLE hand based on percentages, you never win in your lifetime. I don't care who wins the WSOP ME from now on, they are lucky sob's. However,once they've lucked their way to the top hundred or so, then yes, skill can take over. But to make the top hundred....rush of your life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love it that people think this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shaniac,

In a field of say 10K (round up to even numbers to simplify), what do you think would be the odds of the very best player in the world be to win the whole thing? And what about for a mediocre amateur player?

Of course skill matters a great deal, but I think it's ridiculous to talk about GR and JH and CM etc and their relative skill levels based on their play in WSOP ME's.


But please answer my question above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skill makes a difference whether there are 10 or 10,000 people in the event. No one has a 10-1 edge over anyone else in poker, but a player with a 3-1 edge over the field is still 3 times more likely to win in a huge field over an amateur. In fact, the ratio of skill-to-luck doesn't really change at all, except maybe to emphasize the stamina aspect of poker skill. Your original assertion to the contrary makes no sense, just like your contetntion that you couldn't win even if you saw peoples' cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was a hypothetical situation. I should have been more clear.If you could see your opponent's cards before the flop and made your decision whether or not to play in that hand, but then after the flop, your memory was erased.....you still would not liekly win.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could still win most of the time, just go all in or fold preflop every hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about that. If you go all in everytime you have AA, you swill still get called a good number of times and when your opponent folds, you basically steal the blinds plus the initial raise. Im pretty sure you AA will get cracked over the course of the ME. And what about all the times that you see you have a better hand than your opponent (AKs vs AQs,JJ,TT etc) many oppoenents may call your all in and there's no way your premiums can hold up over that many scenarios. But anyways, we're getting a little off topic [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[slim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not Shaniac, but these are two different points. Just because the odds between the best player and a mediocre player winning might be relatively small, doesn't mean it's not significant. Suppose the best player has a 1% chance of winning and a good, but sorta normal poker nerd has a 0.1% chance of winning. That's a 10x difference, but both are clearly longshots to win. Still, a 10x edge is a 10x edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

10x edge is a huge advantage HU but not really when there are 10K people.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you know what "edge" is.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a matter of semantics....you knew what we were getting at.

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't know about that. If you go all in everytime you have AA, you swill still get called a good number of times and when your opponent folds, you basically steal the blinds plus the initial raise. Im pretty sure you AA will get cracked over the course of the ME. And what about all the times that you see you have a better hand than your opponent (AKs vs AQs,JJ,TT etc) many oppoenents may call your all in and there's no way your premiums can hold up over that many scenarios. But anyways, we're getting a little off topic [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

If one had this ability they wouldn't be making those plays. They would only go all in when nobody would call.