|
|
#31
12-12-2006, 02:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is winning the WSOP Main Event really prestigious?
[ QUOTE ]
Daniel glares at this guy and says "Nope. That ain't poker. That may be the way y'all play it, but believe me that ain't poker" [/ QUOTE ] The ironic part is that Daniel himself teaches people to play like this. Watch his lecture on the 2004 World Poker Players Conference DVD where, if playing against better skilled opponents, he advocates doing exactly what he whines about. 
|
|
#32
12-12-2006, 04:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is winning the WSOP Main Event really prestigious?
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] Apples and oranges. Doyle was not stacking off preflop with his T2o.
|
|
#33
12-12-2006, 12:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is winning the WSOP Main Event really prestigious?
[ QUOTE ]
there was never a time when it was "all skill" [/ QUOTE ] I was kinda curious from your point of view, when the skill level of the tourney picked up. I mean, did you notice in the early rounds the same sort of playing that was described by DN, where an early standard 3xBB raise was followed by someone else calling all in preflop for 10k more chips. I'm wondering if this was indicative of someone raising against DN or other pros in an attempt to bust them, or grab some air time, of if this was the standard at early table regardless of who was the original raiser. Assuming that this was done mostly by amateurs in an attempt to not be outplayed postflop, did you happen to notice around what stage of the tourney that this type of action changed. I would assume that by day 2, when most of the field was eliminated, that this style of play wasn't seen much around other than by low stacks.
|
|
#34
12-12-2006, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is winning the WSOP Main Event really prestigious?
[ 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 ] Yes, it is. The operative word for #2 is is "public." To the public at large (not the surfers here) there is much prestige in outlasting 8,000 others in a poker tournament. Most of them may have been luckboxes but it does not change the prestige factor for the public.
|
|
#37
12-12-2006, 11:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is winning the WSOP Main Event really prestigious?
Why does everyone assume the guys who played in the first couple of WSOPs were great players? Fewer players does not equal more skill. Winning a 2 table tournament does not equal more prestige than beating 8000+. It's very likely that the best players of today would run all over the best players of the early days of the WSOP.
As someone said earlier, everyone likes to romanticize about the past. The best player now may have less of a probability of winning than the best player 30 years ago, but winning $12 million is much more prestigious than winning $100,000
|
|
#38
12-12-2006, 11:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is winning the WSOP Main Event really prestigious?
[ QUOTE ]
Why does everyone assume the guys who played in the first couple of WSOPs were great players? Fewer players does not equal more skill. Winning a 2 table tournament does not equal more prestige than beating 8000+. It's very likely that the best players of today would run all over the best players of the early days of the WSOP. As someone said earlier, everyone likes to romanticize about the past. The best player now may have less of a probability of winning than the best player 30 years ago, but winning $12 million is much more prestigious than winning $100,000 [/ QUOTE ] Forget the money...the money has NOTHING to do with the argument all it does is cloud the real issue. If some donk scratched a New York lotto and won $50 miillion does the $50 million make lotto scratching prestigious? Forget the number of players that also clouds things. Everyday in all the hundreds of pokersites they run freerolls everyday. Pokerstars has one and how many THOUSANDS enter that, now would you conisder winning a freeroll prestigious simply because 4000 people entered. My point from the original post boils down to the QUALITY of players in the WSOP. I'm not romaniticizing the past. I'm not saying that everyone at that first table were all superstars..I'm sure they had their donks, but in a field of 8000, where I would easily guess that over 70% of the people there have extremely poor skills, only know their poker from TV, and play kill phill style all in on the flop if you hit a pair or hold pocket anything over 8's PREFLOP, is it a prestigous event anymore because the overwhelming majority of the players have NO CLUE as to what they are doing. THE HUN.
|
|
#39
12-12-2006, 11:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is winning the WSOP Main Event really prestigious?
|
|
#40
12-13-2006, 12:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is winning the WSOP Main Event really prestigious?
Hun - I submit it is more difficult to win, not less, when you have no idea what 8000 players of the 8773 field are going to do.
Bottom line - Hachem and Raymer could compete at any time at any level of the WSOP. If it is so easy to beat all the donks, why can't Negreanu, Greenstein and the rest of the HSP crowd get a sniff??? Are you trying to sat Hachem isn't as good as Brad Daugherty.....ot Raymer isn't as good as Tom McEvoy??? Get serious.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
