Is winning the WSOP Main Event really prestigious?

[thehun69]

[ QUOTE ]
pres·tige
–noun

1. reputation or influence arising from success, achievement, rank, or other favorable attributes.

2. distinction or reputation attaching to a person or thing and thus possessing a cachet for others or for the public:

***

Yes, winning the WSOP is really prestigious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue with point one... on achievement. That is the crux of this debate. Is winning the WSOP much of an achievement in the sense of "poker greatness". I will say that yes, it is something to be able to survive over 8000 players, playing poker over the span of five days straight. Is that something? Sure. BUT....look at the quality of players out there. Does ANYONE have any statistics of the number of players in this years WSOP that got there through winning a contest, a freeroll, a 2-20 dollar satellite, or just truly incompetent people with money to burn. Sitting at a table with these phD's and winning, doesn't make you a good poker player. Sitting at a table where people raise 30x the BB when they have pocket kings or pocket aces isn't something to be proud of. Sitting at a table with Johnny Moss, Amarillo, Dolye, not only surviving that table but cracking each one, one by one, now that is prestigious. It seems as if the difference between this years large field and sitting in a bingo hall....less troll dolls at the RIO.

THE HUN.

[technologic]

there was never a time when it was "all skill"

[thehun69]

[ QUOTE ]
No. But that doesn't mean that every player who wins is horrible.

Most prestigious event: $50K HORSE

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think all the winners are horrible. I would certainly call Greg Raymer and Joe Hachem World Class players. Chris Moneymaker and Jamie Gold,,,,,ehh...not so much.

My comment is more on the quality of the field. My point is: getting through a tournament of all professional poker players who play at an extremely high level, (which is what the original WSOP tables had) is quite an accomplishment and deserving of prestige. Getting through a tournament where over 80% of the players barely have enough intellect to read a book, nevermind read a board, is not something that should be honoured.

THE HUN.

[thehun69]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pres·tige
–noun

1. reputation or influence arising from success, achievement, rank, or other favorable attributes.

2. distinction or reputation attaching to a person or thing and thus possessing a cachet for others or for the public:

***

Yes, winning the WSOP is really prestigious.

[/ QUOTE ]

See #2. No, it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, #2 applies more accurately as a definition of prestigious for the WSOP--whether or not you consider it a great accomplishment, winning the WSOP definitely confers a certain status to the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, if the argument that the prestige has been diluted due to the lack of decent players in the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? Every decent player I can think of played the WSOP 2006 ME. Every player plays the event, and it's extremely tough to win. You've already labelled it an "accomplishment," so we agree on that.

Where we disagree is when it comes to distinguishing between the actual quality of accomplishment--which we, as savvy poker experts, can evaluate--versus the "prestige" associated with the accomplishment, which has been solidified by the media and through the WSOP's own mythology and has nothing to do with the substance of winning the WSOP.

As the guy above me accurately pointed out, winning a poker tournament is never a meaningful baromoter of anything, anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument in a nutshell...well put.

THE HUN.

[thehun69]

[ QUOTE ]
there was never a time when it was "all skill"

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been up wayy too long....no, not all skill...there is an element of luck in poker... how big it is..debatable. My all skill comments relates to surviving at that final table with arguably the best in the world. Luck will get you so far, but you can't expect to survive, let alone win, without mad skills....

THE HUN.

[thehun69]

AHH..Look at them fly...

THE HUN.

[dStrangefate]

Sure, it's prestigious, arguably more so today then in the past. Besides making you a multi-millionaire, it opens all sorts of doors for you, at least as long as the boom lasts. As for whether it makes you a great player, no (knowledgeable) pro ever seriously believed that, at least in my opinion.

If you read much about WSOP history, you'll find most of the pros always found the tournament rather dubious. A complaint made by many was: What good is to even be a world champ? In a world where the only measurement of success if the size of your bankroll, it means next to nothing. In the early days many players--Doyle, for example--didn't even really want to win it but showed up mostly because of the side games and the belief playing it made him look an "action player." (In other words, made him look like someone willing to gamble for high stakes with the odds against him).

Amateurs have been in contention to win the thing almost from the beginning. Hal Fowler was among the earliest winners, a poor player who luckboxed his way through the final table (by all accounts) and devastated Hold 'Em expert Bobby Hoff with a series of bad beats. And nobody believed Amarillo Slim or Puggy Pearson were the best poker players in the world on the years they won, except maybe Slim and Puggy.

The only WSOP that actually meant anything IMO (in terms of a skill barometer anyway) was the first, where the winner was selected by a vote. When a room full of top poker players elected Johnny Moss as the best all around poker player among them--well, that says a whole lot. It would not, however, be very dramatic to watch on TV or bring much publicity to the hosting casino.

So since then the WSOP has always been a commercial venture as dreamed up by Benny Binion and others. To pinpoint the best player in poker was never really the goal, just the tag line of a press release. Winning always meant just one thing: you played well enough that you didn't blow the huge rush of luck you got. And you get a picture on the wall at the Horseshoe.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, this one bugged me the second I saw it..Dude, with the blinds 25 and 50, the pot is all of 200 chips, raising to FRIGGIN 10,000 is not poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a bad play too, but it's more an indication that the game of NLHE is broken than anything. My point is that tournament pros love to complain about super-aggressive amateurs, which is stupid because donks generally increase the pros' EV.

Your comments about how it used to be indicate that you've bought the hype on the early WSOPs. Do you not think it was mostly luck who won back then too? People love to romanticize the past.

[jah7_fsu1]

[ QUOTE ]
Even Joe Hachem's win was more notable for the hands at the FT that he threw away after being re-raised so that others would bow out before him.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the hands I saw on ESPN I thought Hachem made some great laydowns when he knew he was behind. Winning the main event is probably the best thing that can happen to any player in the game, for the amount of endorsements, etc, etc, etc. I don't think many players would rather win a different bracelet than the ME. I can see the whole its a crapshoot theory and it is more difficult, but for guys who watch poker and 2+2ers...history won't remember Chris Moneymaker as being one of the best ever anyways unless he does more than just that.

[tourney guy]

What exactly does "play real poker" mean?? I hear that all the time. Was it real poker when Doyle won the WSOP with 10-2......TWICE????

I have to laugh, when Doyle wins with 10-2 off twice, it is real poker. When Varkonyi wins with Q-10, he is a donk.

That is not to say Varkonyi is anywhere in Doyle's league.....but in the context of the main event, the luck factor is exactly the same.

Fact is.....winning the main event is infinitely more difficult now than in the past.

So, of course it is a real acheivement and the last 3 winners, especially Raymer, could compete in the ME at any time.