The Greatest Accomplishment in WSOP history

[Al Mirpuri]

The following appears in the spiel for Harrington On Hold'em on the title page of this web site:

"he [Dan Harrington] was the only player to make it to the final table in 2003 (field of 839) and 2004 (field of 2576) - considered by cognoscenti to be the greatest accomplishment in WSOP history."

I think not. I am sure even Harrington does not think that. Who thinks this? Mason? David? Let the cognoscenti identify themselves.

Have you been seduced by the bloated fields? It is probably minimally more difficult to win a 2000+ tournament than a 1000+ tournament but you never play all the field simultaneously. This is not the greatest achievement in WSOP history.

The greatest achievement in WSOP history was either a drug ravaged Stu Ungar winning his third title or Johnny Chan winning 88, 89 and coming second in 90.

[ClaytonN]

Well, it really depends on how you define the word "great". If "great" means accomplishments that further impact the world of poker in itself, then you couldn't argue against Harrington. He made the final 3 in the last two WSOP main events, the first two to be so heavily covered.

If you argue "great" for skill, then you could probably make the argument for Chan.

Paul Phillips made a great post about multi table tournaments and standard deviation. I think a main point of his post was you could pick up to 8 world class players for 1 to cash and you'd end up around even money. Luck is a prevailing factor in these multi table tournaments, especially when the fields are that damn big.

[NotMitch]

[ QUOTE ]

It is probably minimally more difficult to win a 2000+ tournament than a 1000+ tournament but you never play all the field simultaneously.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is true.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is probably minimally more difficult to win a 2000+ tournament than a 1000+ tournament but you never play all the field simultaneously.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, it is not true. It is the kind of statement made by people who don't really understand math that well. Especially statistics when very small and very large numbers are involved. People are notoriously bad at dealing with extreme numbers, a point Paul Phillips and others have made previously on these forums. I'm bad myself, but not as bad as most.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[jakethebake]

nm

[deacsoft]

Anyone have a link to Mr. Phillips' post?

[dogmeat]

IMHO, Ungar winning three times is by far a greater accomplishment. My feeling is based on how hard I believe it is to actually come in first, not just get to the last table. However, it is still an amazing accomplishment for Harrington to get there in 2003 and 2004.

Your belief that it is only minimally more difficult to win against 2000 players than against 1000 players makes me think you have never played any tournaments.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[ClaytonN]

Well, you have three different extremes.

1) Harrington finishing high in 2 extremely large field events (~800 and ~2600), and not winning

2) Chan winning two straight events and finishing second in events where the field was around 150 deep.

3) Ungar winning when the field was small (in the seventies) and when the field was large (350 or so in 1997).

*note: my numbers on field size are probably off

One played awesome when the fields were gigantic, one played awesome when the fields were average sized, and one played awesome in both kinds of fields in different times.

All amazing accomplishments, though I don't think you could peg one any "greater" than another.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I think the greatest accomplishment is winning against over 2,500 people. Is there anyone here who agrees with this?

Best wishes,

Mason

[dogmeat]

Not me. I think Greg played fantastic, and someday I hope to be just half as good as he is, however, somebody was going to win, and I am not ready to claim any single victory as the "greatest" accomplishment. If Greg were to make the final table again in 2005 - I'd rethink my position.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[NotMitch]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

I think the greatest accomplishment is winning against over 2,500 people. Is there anyone here who agrees with this?

Best wishes,

Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

Given that most people expect the 2005 field to be larger will the winning that event a greater accomplishment?

[Freudian]

I think one could also argue that the number of very good players also have gone up (in absolute terms and not relative terms) and will continue to go up. Which at least to some extent balances the influx of pure amateurs.

That the 2004 WSOP field was the hardest to navigate in the history of WSOP is indisputable. Now if one were to go into a detailed hand-by-hand analysis (assuming an alternate universe with full information after the events) of all past WSOP winners, I am sure there would be plenty of candidates for the greatest accomplishment ever if one interprets that as playing the best poker. After all it is possible that Greg Raymer simply got the best cards in the history of WSOP or that Harrington has had exceptional luck these past two years.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

I think the greatest accomplishment is winning against over 2,500 people. Is there anyone here who agrees with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitions of great:

-Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent:

-Of outstanding significance or importance:

-Superior in quality:
_______

You'll have more people arguing your point based on the definition of the word "great" rather than debating over a player that countered your definition of a "great" accomplishment.

FWIW, I think magnitude of the field is a deterrant in determining greatness in poker tournaments where varience and luck can be such a key factor. My definition of "great" is an accomplishment that furthers the development of poker overall, and none could compare to Moneymaker's victory in 2003.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

I think the greatest accomplishment is winning against over 2,500 people. Is there anyone here who agrees with this?

Best wishes,

Mason


[/ QUOTE ]


No, because SOMEONE had to do it.

I can guarantee you right now, SOMEONE will win next year with many more people playing than 2589(if there is that many, but i keep hearing 6000.)

I'm surprised that you would consider a zero-sum certainty a greater accomplishment than an 83,434-1 (and probably much more) occurance that Chan overcame that is nowhere NEAR certain.

You obviously aren't much good with figures.


P.S. I came up with this # by using the old "no player is more than 3x better than the average player" axiom, and even considered him as 3x better than EVERYONE the whole field each year, (which, of course, is unpossible). If 1.5x is the closer to true overall talent gap, then were looking at more like 170,000-1.

Seriously, Mason. You should have someone check your #'s every once is awhile. I know a retired former census guy with a BS in math who may be able to help out the math-averse such as yourself.

[J_V]

I believe Johnny Chan's run was more remarkable. Certainly, much more unlikely. Greg's chances may have been as good as 1/1200 to win last year.

We are very proud of Greg, but your argument would be tough to logically support.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

It was a joke. I couldn't resist poking a little fun at Greg since he participated in this thread.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

It was a joke. I couldn't resist poking a little fun at Greg since he participated in this thread.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Bah. You were kissing up, and you know it.

[jasonHoldEm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

It was a joke. I couldn't resist poking a little fun at Greg since he participated in this thread.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ] Bah. You were kissing up, and you know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta keep those flavor of the month authors happy. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Duke]

I'd say that it's about as good an accomplishment as winning 20 straight black/red bets on roulette.

Does it say anything about his play? Not much. We all know he's better than the field, and we all know that there are some guys who play flat out better than him who weren't around in the end.

Is he better than the field? Certainly. Is he one of the best in the world? Top 100 easily. Is that proven one way or the other by 2 successful years at the WSOP? 3? Not hardly.

~D

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

It was a joke. I couldn't resist poking a little fun at Greg since he participated in this thread.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler was only joking as well.

[jakethebake]

I'm still buying both Harrington and Raymer's books. And Brunson's. If Chan writes one I'll buy it too. I don't expect one from Ungar anytime soon. I've said it before, if I can gleen one little piece of advice from any book that helps me, it easily pays for itself. Think about it as one bet (depending on your limit). And any good piece of advice can save you or make you one bet. And I'd bet that every one of these authors knows at least one thing that I don't. That's my $.02.

[jayheaps]

greg is right if you assume that all other players are equally skilled. However, there is a point of view that there are not double as many people with legitimate chances to cash so the odds of winning are not double. in all likelyhood, the real answer is probably somewher ein the middle.