is daniel negreanu right or is he a right muppet

[NoflopsHomer]

They world champion should be decided with all the following disciplines to determine who is truly the best....

Golf
Omaha Hi-Lo

Fixed limit Stud
Uber-deep stacked NLHE
Crazy prop bets
Kings are wild Razz

You-tube educational film making
One card brag
Understanding Sklansky
Reading 2+2
Selling your autobiography
Eating junk food
Limit Holdem
Fighting the urge to call everyone donks.

No Western Roll?

[gatso]

Sounds like an idea.  Only problem would be that the winner wouldn't get the big glamorous, glitzy presentation of the bracelet, prize, etc. 

why wouldn't they?

[TommyGun241]

Sounds like an idea.  Only problem would be that the winner wouldn't get the big glamorous, glitzy presentation of the bracelet, prize, etc. 

why wouldn't they?

They would obviously get a presentation of some sort but it wouldn't be anywhere near the kind of thing you get at the culmination of a big tournament.  Theoretically, they might not even be in the last tournament when it's taking place so might be on the other side of the world or wherever.

[neeko]

Just to alter the subject slightly but which world champion (in any sport) was actually the best at the time.

And thus what structure is the optimal to determine the "best"

[gatso]

Sounds like an idea.  Only problem would be that the winner wouldn't get the big glamorous, glitzy presentation of the bracelet, prize, etc. 

why wouldn't they?

They would obviously get a presentation of some sort but it wouldn't be anywhere near the kind of thing you get at the culmination of a big tournament.  Theoretically, they might not even be in the last tournament when it's taking place so might be on the other side of the world or wherever.

considering the players who would be in contention for this under my system I'd be amazed if you found any of them weren't in Vegas for the last championship event as this is the ME

[TommyGun241]

Just to alter the subject slightly but which world champion (in any sport) was actually the best at the time.

And thus what structure is the optimal to determine the "best"

Darts - Phil Taylor

Snooker - Stephen Hendry

Football (substitute 'player' with 'team') - Brazil (1970)

Just a few examples of people who were clearly the best at the time.

[neeko]

Just to alter the subject slightly but which world champion (in any sport) was actually the best at the time.

And thus what structure is the optimal to determine the "best"

I would choose:

Brazil - Football - world cup finals (just the best)
Steve Davis/Steven Hendry snooker (long games)

OK I am having a problem with this (well finding the good teams who lost) so lets switch it round, which sport gives the worst world champions?

[TommyGun241]

Just to alter the subject slightly but which world champion (in any sport) was actually the best at the time.

And thus what structure is the optimal to determine the "best"

I would choose:

Brazil - Football - world cup finals (just the best)
Steve Davis/Steven Hendry snooker (long games)

OK I am having a problem with this so lets switch it round, which sport gives the worst world champions?

Poker (Moneymaker) 

[AlexMartin]

Just to alter the subject slightly but which world champion (in any sport) was actually the best at the time.

And thus what structure is the optimal to determine the "best"

nail/head

"best" is so subjective.

[thetank]

They world champion should be decided with all the following disciplines to determine who is truly the best....

Golf
Omaha Hi-Lo

Fixed limit Stud
Uber-deep stacked NLHE
Crazy prop bets
Kings are wild Razz

You-tube educational film making
One card brag
Understanding Sklansky
Reading 2+2
Selling your autobiography
Eating junk food
Limit Holdem
Fighting the urge to call everyone donks.

No Western Roll?

GO FUWCK YOURSELF. Hmmm, possible.

[snoopy1239]

I think there are two assumptions that get made that are possibly incorrect. One is that the final is often made up of 'Cinderellas' rather than the more skilled players. However, if you look back at recent years, you'll notice that respected pros such as Marcel Luske, Phil Ivey, Andy Black, Julian Gardner, Allen Cunningham and more have ploughed through huge fields to prove that the cream can rise to the top, even though the pros are vastly outnumbered. Even winners such as Hachem and Raymer, who were respected players before they triumphed, have gone on to prove their worth in the poker world. As for Jerry Yang, he did play that final table better than anyone else and so perhaps was deserving of his win. Then take a look at Dan Harrington. He defied the odds to hit that final table two years in a row, and both times the field was massive. Jamie Gold receives a lot of criticism, but he played an aggressive game, kept applying the pressure on his opponents and, in all fairness, used speech play to great effect, even if it was obvious to us viewers.

The other assumption is that the 'name' players are actually better than the less familiar faces. This may be true on the whole, but there are plenty of capable online players out there and just because we don't recognise them during the latter stages, doesn't necessarily mean they are any worse than the big guns. As AndrewT said, a Cinderella story to some may actually be one of Europe's finest high stakes players. Fame and recognition doesn't necessary equate to quality of play.

For me, just because the field is big doesn't mean we receive a less esteemed or worthy final table. In 2007, we had an EPT finalist in Hilm, an established pro and highly successful name in Lee Watkinson, a bracelet winner in Alex Kravchenko, a highly respected Brit in Jon Kalmar who has previously run well in the Main Event and an online whiz in Haved Khan. Childs, Lam and Rhame were no mugs either. If the event held a smaller field, would the final table really be that more esteemed or higher in standard? Even if they were all recognisable, surely it's not unfeasible that all nine actually played better than the pros. The WSOP Main Event is about who performed on that week, not who is the best player before the event. Like most sports, if the pros don't perform on the day, then they don't deserve to win.

I can't recall what year it was, but even when there were a minuscule amount of players, a complete random can still win. Des Wilson recalled a chap who was absolutely clueless, but still won the Main Event when numbers were small, and subsequently disappeared. If this guy had won in the modern day game, people would soon be jumping on the bandwagon and saying what a lottery it is. Not true in my book. Yes, the numbers are tougher, but poker is a game where luck is always going to be prevalent, whatever the field. If a pro won the Main Event, is it not possible that he was lucky rather than just skilled in victory?

Considering inflation and the fact there are now several other 10k events available, I'm happy for the fee to be bumped up to $25k as it will still create online qualifiers thereby remaining available to players of all bankrolls (which is important as not all good poker players are wealthy), but I don't buy into the idea that a bigger field creates a less worthy crop of finalists. Poker shouldn't just be about how you play against the good players, but also how you deal with the so called donks.

[boldie]

excellent post snoops..but you agree that a true ME should be a Fixed limit razz event with 50k chips and 5 hour levels, no?

[snoopy1239]

I think there are two assumptions that get made that are possibly incorrect. One is that the final is often made up of 'Cinderellas' rather than the more skilled players. However, if you look back at recent years, you'll notice that respected pros such as Marcel Luske, Phil Ivey, Andy Black, Julian Gardner, Allen Cunningham and more have ploughed through huge fields to prove that the cream can rise to the top, even though the pros are vastly outnumbered. Even winners such as Hachem and Raymer, who were respected players before they triumphed, have gone on to prove their worth in the poker world. As for Jerry Yang, he did play that final table better than anyone else and so perhaps was deserving of his win. Then take a look at Dan Harrington. He defied the odds to hit that final table two years in a row, and both times the field was massive. Jamie Gold receives a lot of criticism, but he played an aggressive game, kept applying the pressure on his opponents and, in all fairness, used speech play to great effect, even if it was obvious to us viewers.

The other assumption is that the 'name' players are actually better than the less familiar faces. This may be true on the whole, but there are plenty of capable online players out there and just because we don't recognise them during the latter stages, doesn't necessarily mean they are any worse than the big guns. As AndrewT said, a Cinderella story to some may actually be one of Europe's finest high stakes players. Fame and recognition doesn't necessary equate to quality of play.

For me, just because the field is big doesn't mean we receive a less esteemed or worthy final table. In 2007, we had an EPT finalist in Hilm, an established pro and highly successful name in Lee Watkinson, a bracelet winner in Alex Kravchenko, a highly respected Brit in Jon Kalmar who has previously run well in the Main Event and an online whiz in Haved Khan. Childs, Lam and Rhame were no mugs either. If the event held a smaller field, would the final table really be that more esteemed or higher in standard? Even if they were all recognisable, surely it's not unfeasible that all nine actually played better than the pros. The WSOP Main Event is about who performed on that week, not who is the best player before the event. Like most sports, if the pros don't perform on the day, then they don't deserve to win.

I can't recall what year it was, but even when there were a minuscule amount of players, a complete random can still win. Des Wilson recalled a chap who was absolutely clueless, but still won the Main Event when numbers were small, and subsequently disappeared. If this guy had won in the modern day game, people would soon be jumping on the bandwagon and saying what a lottery it is. Not true in my book. Yes, the numbers are tougher, but poker is a game where luck is always going to be prevalent, whatever the field. If a pro won the Main Event, is it not possible that he was lucky rather than just skilled in victory?

Considering inflation and the fact there are now several other 10k events available, I'm happy for the fee to be bumped up to $25k as it will still create online qualifiers thereby remaining available to players of all bankrolls (which is important as not all good poker players are wealthy), but I don't buy into the idea that a bigger field creates a less worthy crop of finalists. Poker shouldn't just be about how you play against the good players, but also how you deal with the so called donks.

[boldie]

excellent post again snoops..as it was the first time

[gatso]

excellent post again snoops..as it was the first time

stop encouraging him. I don't want to have to read it a 3rd time