Should the HORSE event be the determining factor for the best?

[Mygtar]

Should the $50,000 HORSE event winner be deemed the best poker player in the world? Why or why not?

[Bicycles_Biatch]

yes

[DeuceHigh13]

Ummm, No. You can't consider somebody the best in the world because they won a single tourney. Anybody can get lucky and win one tournament, or get very unlucky and get knocked out on a bad beat.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
Should the $50,000 HORSE event winner be deemed the best poker player in the world? Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Answer: No.

Better question: Aren't there at least five other forums where this thread is more appropriately put?

[Warren Harding]

[ QUOTE ]
Should the $50,000 HORSE event winner be deemed the best poker player in the world? Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like an essay prompt.

[peterchi]

"Champion" != "Best"

Never has and never will, in ANY venue of competition.

That's not to say that being a champion isn't great. Let's just not confuse what it really means, though.

[Tybo]

It will do a good job of showing who the best all around players are. However, not many people can afford the $50,000 buy in.

[stinkypete]

no, because the best player in the world isn't even playing in that tourney.

[Bicycles_Biatch]

a mixed game will cause the cream of the crop to rise.

of course anyone can get "lucky" for one... maybe two tournaments (i.e. MM)... but I can pretty much guarentee that the final table of this event will be 7-8 players that everyone knows to be great (forest, Ivy, et al.).

[Mygtar]

[ QUOTE ]
no, because the best player in the world isn't even playing in that tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you think that is?

Peace,
Mygtar