David Benyamine

[ifm]

hehehe, yeah i suppose it does, though most sports have pretty comprehensive ways of ranking players.
Though there is the whole era thing then (was fangio better than shumacher?).
I do believe that everyone has a unique talent in something but most will never know what that is because you don't think to see how far you can flick your toenails or how quickly you can stuff pillows???
I was trying to say that to decide whether Brunson was better than Ulliot based on a game that only one of them plays in is not going to work.

[RED-DOG]

Agreed

[Balloo]

do you go by who wins the most money?

Yes you do. Thats all that counts because thats how score is kept in poker. Over a lifetime of play the professional that has made the most money can be looked upon as the best player. If you took a 25 year playing career of any profesional poker player and compared them you would get an accurate picture of who the best players have been in that period. You wont have to look further than the big game to find the the majority of the top ten.

[RED-DOG]

Alex Higgins won the world snooker championship and got about £400

[Balloo]

There are other ways to distinguish who the best was in snooker at a given time. Career earnings is not the most suitable way. World Titles, length of time at number 1 would be more suitable.
This isnt possible in poker because of the huge short term luck involved in poker.
If your argument is that when johnny moss won the wsop he got tuppence and half a crown so his earnings would be dwarfed by the winnings now the this is where you have to put the money he won in context and if anyone asked in the 70s to name the top 5 in the world, Johnny Moss would come up because he was winning the most money then.

[NoflopsHomer]

do you go by who wins the most money?

Yes you do. Thats all that counts because thats how score is kept in poker. Over a lifetime of play the professional that has made the most money can be looked upon as the best player. If you took a 25 year playing career of any profesional poker player and compared them you would get an accurate picture of who the best players have been in that period. You wont have to look further than the big game to find the the majority of the top ten.

Ok, who is the greatest writer of all time?

[RED-DOG]

The bloke who writes the adverts for "Special edition plates from the Frankin Mint"

[bundle]

And who is the greatest fighter of all time? ALI ? Tyson? Frazer?  the list goes on and on

so what your saying is the guy that has won the most money is the best

[Balloo]

Because poker players play for a longer period of time i.e there career spans longer it is possible to compare them with the best in the world over a longer period of time. Unlike boxers.

If mike tyson was able to compete like Doyle does then could accuratley measure him against other boxers of a different generation.

[The Baron]

There are other ways to distinguish who the best was in snooker at a given time. Career earnings is not the most suitable way. World Titles, length of time at number 1 would be more suitable.
This isnt possible in poker because of the huge short term luck involved in poker.
If your argument is that when johnny moss won the wsop he got tuppence and half a crown so his earnings would be dwarfed by the winnings now the this is where you have to put the money he won in context and if anyone asked in the 70s to name the top 5 in the world, Johnny Moss would come up because he was winning the most money then.

As a snooker player the time spent at number 1 in different eras CANNOT be compared. Otherwise Fred and Joe Davis are the best players ever with their seven and fifteen world titles and kabillion years spent between them at number 1!

[ifm]

how do you know who's won the most money?
It is illegal for americans to play poker online so i would guess none of them would even say if they won anything at all.

[I KNOW IT]

do you go by who wins the most money?

Yes you do. Thats all that counts because thats how score is kept in poker. Over a lifetime of play the professional that has made the most money can be looked upon as the best player. If you took a 25 year playing career of any profesional poker player and compared them you would get an accurate picture of who the best players have been in that period. You wont have to look further than the big game to find the the majority of the top ten.

There is a flaw in all arguments. i.e Joe Hachem winning 7.5 million doesnt make him better than T J Cloutier.
On the subject of Johnny Moss, I had a great conversation with a guy who was TD at Binions Horseshoe for many years and knew the poker pro's of old . He said J Moss could only play N/L hold em, and was very average at all other games.
You must rate a good poker players by the level he/she is able to play ALL GAMES not just one discipline.

[Balloo]

My initial post was hoping to find out how Benyamine had become able to sit in the big game in Vegas with the best players in the world.  No one seems to know how this occured.

The argument over wether me calling him the best in Europe because he is playing in this game has been sidetracked because it seems like posters are ignoring the fact Benyamine is sitting in a game where 1 million swings are common in sessions. Tournament poker is way below the games these guys are playing. Put in context Joe Hachems victory could also be a months winning streak in this game.

This is specualtion but if there was only tournament poker most of the table would have upwards of 10 bracelets in lots of different disciplines. Ivey and Brunson have only played about 30 tournaments this year and their results are unbelievable. Who knows what Greenstien would have won if he had been a tournament player from the start?

Im suprised at how niave some of the replys have been really I thought it was almost taken for granted that the guys playing in this game were the best in the world because they were competing with the best with the most amount of money on the line.

[I KNOW IT]

My initial post was hoping to find out how Benyamine had become able to sit in the big game in Vegas with the best players in the world.  No one seems to know how this occured.

The argument over wether me calling him the best in Europe because he is playing in this game has been sidetracked because it seems like posters are ignoring the fact Benyamine is sitting in a game where 1 million swings are common in sessions. Tournament poker is way below the games these guys are playing. Put in context Joe Hachems victory could also be a months winning streak in this game.

This is specualtion but if there was only tournament poker most of the table would have upwards of 10 bracelets in lots of different disciplines. Ivey and Brunson have only played about 30 tournaments this year and their results are unbelievable. Who knows what Greenstien would have won if he had been a tournament player from the start?

Im suprised at how niave some of the replys have been really I thought it was almost taken for granted that the guys playing in this game were the best in the world because they were competing with the best with the most amount of money on the line.

David B  has been playing in the large cash games for a while, maybe not the big1 but hes been about for a while.
He wasnt at WSOP  a couple of years back ,as on entering the USA, he told them he was a poker pro.
They told him that he needed a green card to play if it was his job, and refused him entry.
Thats why a lot of the pros say they are ameteurs on TV. 
hope that helps

[ifm]

there is always the tournament of champions, it actually started yesterday

http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/qualifiers.asp

Phil Ivey lasted a little over 2 hours!!!!
Cloutier just over an hour!!!