A World Class Player, indeed! [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

West

10-28-2004, 11:28 PM

I'm more impressed by the fact that it seems like I keep seeing his name show up in fairly high finishes. Ben Affleck won that one tourney and has pro word of mouth behind him, but Tobey Maguire seems like he is playing a lot of tournaments and doing well.

willie

10-28-2004, 11:34 PM

this was an invitational i think that affleck won an open tournament.

West

10-28-2004, 11:42 PM

Ok, but I'm fairly certain I've seen Maguire's name pop up numerous times in the results of open tournaments...

Bluffstar

10-29-2004, 03:19 AM

I think its great that these people that are famous outside the pokerworld, plays in some tourneys and are doing very well. As far as I'm aware they are nice guys as well.

I think it is great that the world of poker are getting such great ambassadors as these guys.

From my perspective I think poker gets a much better image.

Who did the best job of these guys, hmmm I dont know..... thats not the important question.

alittle

10-29-2004, 12:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Check out who just won first place:

This guy has proven that he is a World Class Player. (http://www.pokerpages.com/tournament/result10474.htm) Just like Ben.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to hear about Toby and Ben from Stan Goldstein. 9th here and 2nd to Affleck. I sat next to him once and wanted to ask about losing to Ben, but thought better of it. Figured the other pro's probably ribbed him enough.

SossMan

10-29-2004, 12:40 PM

I don't see why it is surprising that these seemingly bright guys with bankrolls big enough to jump right into WC games and probably more free time than most of us with regular jobs would do just as well as anyone else.
I'm not saying that they are world class, but why can't they be better than average?
To a man, every pro I've seen quoted as having played with Tobey has said that he's tough to play against and is pleasant to have at the table.

wray

10-29-2004, 12:56 PM

I was fairly surprised to see Ellix Powers name in a Card Player paper. I think he came in 7th or 8th in a limit hold em tourney.

Not a big big one. I think he got 3 or 4 grand for it.

jakethebake

10-29-2004, 01:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
these seemingly bright guys

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding? Affleck?

J.R.

10-29-2004, 01:16 PM

it was an open 2K buy-in tournament.

Masquerade

10-29-2004, 01:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to hear about Toby and Ben from Stan Goldstein. 9th here and 2nd to Affleck. I sat next to him once and wanted to ask about losing to Ben, but thought better of it. Figured the other pro's probably ribbed him enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that Affleck got past Goldstein in a long heads-up session without any ridiculous bad beats or freak hands surely settles the question as to whether he is a very good player or not. Maybe he had slightly the better of the luck, I dont know, but what winner doesnt?

SossMan

10-29-2004, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that Affleck got past Goldstein in a long heads-up session without any ridiculous bad beats or freak hands surely settles the question as to whether he is a very good player or not

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with your conclusion, the above statement is pretty silly. It would be equivilent to saying that a player that led the league this week in field goals (who didn't miss any field goals) is a great kicker in the game.

Masquerade

10-29-2004, 02:27 PM

No, it's not equivalent to saying that. I assume what youre trying to say is that in a large field someone is going to perform flawlessly in any given week and you cant extrapolate the fact that theyre a great player from that. However winning a poker tournament is inherently more skillful than just being the best performer in a given week.

Asufiji2004

10-29-2004, 03:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's not equivalent to saying that. I assume what youre trying to say is that in a large field someone is going to perform flawlessly in any given week and you cant extrapolate the fact that theyre a great player from that. However winning a poker tournament is inherently more skillful than just being the best performer in a given week.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. I think being a professional poker, NFL, NHL, chess player...you get the idea...takes a certain amount of skill. To say winning a poker tournament is inherently more skillful than kicking the most field goals in a week, or throwing the most TD's or whatever..is kind of retarded. Poker is not the only "skill" game out there. I think it's possible for any given player to win a tourney. Look at the WSOP will a pro ever win that tourney again? To consistently win is skill. I mean Affleck won a big tourney....call him good...calling him great is a little off...and calling him world class is obsurd.

JalKelly

10-29-2004, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
these seemingly bright guys

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding? Affleck?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Affleck IS intelligent. I saw him being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly at the Democratic National Convention and he came off extremely well spoken and had some quality things to say.

Masquerade

10-29-2004, 03:48 PM

You couldnt be more wrong.

Kicking the most field goals etc is an example of a linear performance. A players performance will be some sort of bell-curve distribution. Better players will have slightly higher performance means but in a sample of roughly evenly matched players anyone can hit an outlier and be the "best" that week.

However winning a poker tournament requires repeatedly making good decisions with incomplete information. This decision making extends over several days and hundreds of hands. Luck plays a part, sure, but noone can win a tourney by luck alone and the structure greatly magnifies skill differences in a non-linear way. Your choice of chess to support your argument is particularly bogus. There are many top GMs who have never beaten Kasparov, nor even finished ahead of him in a tourney and never will. By contrast look at golf where any top 20 player would have a good chance against Woods over 18-holes and would have finished ahead of him in many tourneys.

SossMan

10-29-2004, 03:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I assume what youre trying to say is that in a large field someone is going to perform flawlessly in any given week and you cant extrapolate the fact that theyre a great player from that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful when you put words in people's mouths. I never said winning a tournament requires flawless performance...or even good performance, for that matter. There is much, much, much more luck involved in the short run in poker than many, many, many people want to admit. Also, people's notion of "short run" is much, much, much too short, especially in tournament poker.

[ QUOTE ]
However winning a poker tournament is inherently more skillful than just being the best performer in a given week.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, now you are just being silly.

SossMan

10-29-2004, 03:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This decision making extends over several days and hundreds of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

hundreds of hands? I had no idea it was such a statistically significant number!! I stand corrected

jakethebake

10-29-2004, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
he came off extremely well spoken

[/ QUOTE ]
He's an actor! Of course he's well spoken. That doesn't make him intelligent. Of course the fact that he can't seem to close his mouth and stands around like he's trying to catch flies doesn't necessarily make him unintelligent, but it sure makes him look dumb. And let's not forget about the jewel encrusted toilet seats he bought Jennifer...lol. Doesn't "seem intelligent" to me.

jakethebake

10-29-2004, 04:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
However winning a poker tournament is inherently more skillful than just being the best performer in a given week.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually I'd say it's less so.

adanthar

10-29-2004, 04:38 PM

I'd like to point out that both Affleck and Maguire are professional actors who basically get paid to convincingly project emotions to millions of people. (Yes, Affleck comparatively sucks at it. He's still better than I am or you are.)

Given an average run of cards and a decent amount of brainpower there's no reason any actor couldn't do well in a game that's half about reading the opponent.

Paul Phillips

10-29-2004, 04:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He's an actor! Of course he's well spoken. That doesn't make him intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actors have to be good at reading prepared lines. That doesn't automatically render them good at speaking extemporaneously, and indeed, some actors are visibly poor at this.

Affleck IS very intelligent.

jakethebake

10-29-2004, 05:01 PM

I don't know him personally. I have not played with him. I missed the Democratic Convention (well I wouldn't say I MISSED it). But the times I've seen him speak (ie. talk shows, awards, etc.) when he didn't have lines to read, he sounded like a complete idiot. Just the impression I have.

nsj

10-29-2004, 05:17 PM

Eloquence is not the only measure of intellect...

...but considering Affleck is a hugely successful celebrity who happened to co-author one of the smartest screenplays of the last 20 years, it's safe to say that while his acting and choice of scripts is pretty poor, he's still a smart guy.

As for poker, any idiot can win, any time, ONCE.

Daliman

10-29-2004, 06:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he came off extremely well spoken

[/ QUOTE ]
He's an actor! Of course he's well spoken. That doesn't make him intelligent. Of course the fact that he can't seem to close his mouth and stands around like he's trying to catch flies doesn't necessarily make him unintelligent, but it sure makes him look dumb. And let's not forget about the jewel encrusted toilet seats he bought Jennifer...lol. Doesn't "seem intelligent" to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

PLEASE tell me you're not holding what a man did for a woman as evidence of intelligence. If that were the case, we'd ALL be idiots.

P.S. Affleck is pretty smart. Isn't he Ivy League? (course, so is GWB...)

CrisBrown

10-31-2004, 01:18 AM

Hi SossMan,

This is a classic application of the Fundamental Attribution Error:

* If I win, I deserved it.
* If I lose, I got screwed.
* If you win, you either got lucky or cheated.
* If you lose, you deserved it.

That basic concept underpins this entire thread, and indeed much of this forum. Afleck and Maguire, as well as Hansen, Duke, et. al., are talented people whose talent -- applied diligently when opportunities presented themselves -- has given both of them a lot of attention and a lot of money. This is not true for most of the people posting here. The system must be flawed, or else these posters would have to admit that either: (a) they lack talent; or, (b) they lacked diligence when opportunity knocked.

Much easier to just ridicule those who succeed.

Cris

alittle

11-01-2004, 05:20 PM

There are a lot of things that contribute to winning a poker tournament. There are a lot of things that contribute to success in anything.

Intelligence
Experience
Bankroll
Dedication
Fortitude
Luck

It's funny that when discussion of any kind of success ensues, there always seems to be a focus on just one of these things. In reality, it is a highly variable mix of all kinds of things, and any two successful people will have a different mix.

Sorry to use you as an example Paul, but was Paul Phillips' business success due to intellect or being at the right place at the right time (luck)? Some of both, I imagine.

And his poker success? Could it be his intelligence combined with a bankroll allowing him to be dedicated to the game, giving him the experience needed to capitalize on luck?

Let's be realistic - luck does not win the WSOP and neither does intelligence. People win the WSOP and people are an imperfect lot.

Topflight

11-01-2004, 09:49 PM

Didn't Affleck co-write an Academy Award winning film. What an idiot.

Sponger15SB

11-01-2004, 10:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't Affleck co-write an Academy Award winning film. What an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but this guy "wrote" /images/graemlins/grin.gif one and he is an idiot...

http://members.optusnet.com.au/evilpundit/blog/images/michael-moore-fugly.jpg

CrisBrown

11-01-2004, 11:59 PM

Sponger,

There's a difference between "I disagree with X" and "X is an idiot." Whether you agree or disagree with his politics, Michael Moore is a very intelligent man, and a gifted documentary filmmaker.

Cris

Bernas

11-04-2004, 02:10 PM

n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries

A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

If you had changed the bold part to selective and persuasive then I would agree with you that he is a gifted documentary filmmaker.

I'll give you that he is a gifted filmmaker.