an argument for the old timers

[housenuts]

i'm going to make an argument for the older poker players. people seem to discredit their WSOP wins because of the smaller fields. for example people would say doyle's wins, or stu ungars wins, aren't as impressive as compared to say harrington's recent accomplishments or even fossilman mowing down a 2500+ field.

i contend that in fact winning these tournaments back in the day may be even more impressive. for one the field of 100 consisted almost entirely of seasoned poker players. no sea bass like you see today. as well in the smaller fields luck does not play as much of a factor. to win a 2500+ event i don't care how good you are, you have to be very lucky as well. to win in a field of 100 sure luck is involved but your skill alone can take you alot further.

think about that before you discredit past champions

[slickpoppa]

I'm sorry, but your argument is terrible.

Compare the following 2 probabilities:
1. The probability of Doyle Brunson (or insert the name of your favorite pro here) winning it all against a field of 100 "skilled" players.
2. The probability of a Doyle Brunson winning it all against a field of 100 "skilled" players + 2400 "unskilled" players.

It is preposterous to say that winning in the first scenario is any more meritorious or impressive than winning in the second scenario. Although there are a lot of unskilled players in the second case, Doyle still has to make it past the same 100 "skilled" players. The presence of the unskilled players does not make this task any easier.

The only way that your argument makes sense is if somehow there are fewer skilled players today than there used to be. I think that any pro will say, though, that the number and calibre of skilled players at the WSOP has increased a lot since the early days.

[YTV]

I can see valid points in both your arguments. One thing you have to think about also is Doyle (or your favorite pro) may never even sit at a table with a "skilled pro" until the main table, making luck a huge factor.

I cant decide one way or the other which would be tougher, but Im leaning towards today.

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but your argument is terrible.

Compare the following 2 probabilities:
1. The probability of Doyle Brunson (or insert the name of your favorite pro here) winning it all against a field of 100 "skilled" players.
2. The probability of a Doyle Brunson winning it all against a field of 100 "skilled" players + 2400 "unskilled" players.

It is preposterous to say that winning in the first scenario is any more meritorious or impressive than winning in the second scenario. Although there are a lot of unskilled players in the second case, Doyle still has to make it past the same 100 "skilled" players. The presence of the unskilled players does not make this task any easier.

The only way that your argument makes sense is if somehow there are fewer skilled players today than there used to be. I think that any pro will say, though, that the number and calibre of skilled players at the WSOP has increased a lot since the early days.

[/ QUOTE ]

[BarronVangorToth]

Whether or not they play with a pro until the final table is almost meaningless to the final equation as the level of play displayed by the so-called dead money isn't so disproportionate as to offset the fact that there are twenty times as many people ... and by next year, probably more like fifty times as many people ... playing in these events.

For example, let's say it was possible for you to play in 100 events in the 1980 WSOP (the same main event against the same field 100 times in a row). Let's then figure out how well you did. (Assigning points to each place.)

Now let's have you play 100 times in the WSOP 2005 field, assigning points as before.

Where do you have more points? Where did you do better?

If you really believe you'd make more final tables playing 100 tournaments today in the sea of humanity that they have become vs. 20 years ago, well, suffice it to say that I'd like my chances a lot better 20 years ago.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[TheJackal]

It is not harder to win in a 100 person tournament with seasoned pros than 2000 person tournament with complete morons. If both these tournaments had a structure of 1000 in starting chips, is it harder to accumulate 100,000 chips against a tough field or 2,000,000 against a soft field? Which one would take longer, and have more chance for ruin? Which one would be harder to accumulate the necessary chips in order to win? My money would be against the 2000 player field, having to win probably 7-8 coinflips and not making a huge mistake in the process. Sure the amateurs might pay you off better than the pros, but just the sheer magnitude of having to accumulate 2 million in chips I think would be much much harder to do than to accumulate 100,000 chips against a tough field.

[TStoneMBD]

1 tournament means nothing. discredit any result of a tournament until the player of that result continues to perform. aside from that, i would personally consider winning a tournament this day in age far more difficult than winning one back then. players are far more advanced now then they used to be, even the internet newbies could be considered more advanced then some of the average "pros" back in the day. add to the fact that the player pool has dramatically increased and winning becomes difficult.

[TheJackal]

Do you think it would be harder to win the Championship at the Plaza or the WSOP from last year?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but your argument is terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

You took the words right out of my mouth. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[housenuts]

would you say more luck is needed to win a tournament with a 100 person field or a 2500 person field?

i am quite confident you will answer more luck is required for 2500.

thus if you say poker is a game of luck and skill, and the luck factor goes up then simultaneously the skill factor has to go down.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
thus if you say poker is a game of luck and skill, and the luck factor goes up then simultaneously the skill factor has to go down.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not correct. You can't assign percentages to the two factors. You can't say "you need 75% skill and 25% luck to win a 100-man tourney." You need more of BOTH skill AND luck to win a 2500-man tournament as opposed to a 100-man tournament.

[Johnny5]

[ QUOTE ]
You need more of BOTH skill AND luck to win a 2500-man tournament as opposed to a 100-man tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't necessarily true either, but then again, who cares anyway?

J5

[A_C_Slater]

We all know that good players can't beat bad players. The only way to do it is to get lucky. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif


God you are a moron.

[Johnny5]

Please don't call God a moron.

J5

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need more of BOTH skill AND luck to win a 2500-man tournament as opposed to a 100-man tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't necessarily true either, but then again, who cares anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you're correct. However, assuming the distribution of skilled players vs. dead money amatuers is similar in the 100 and 2500 touraments, and assuming you can't obtain infinite skill or infinite luck, it's pretty safe to say you'll need a lot of skill and a lot of luck. Most of the time. /images/graemlins/smile.gif