Will a big name win the 2005 WSOP? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Vince Lepore

04-06-2005, 03:01 PM

With a field of 6-8000 I like the chances of the Tournament Pros. I see a bunch of them making the money and finding themselves in a position to win the thing. Guys that have done well in the past such as Dan Harrington and others that play in a similar manner, the Sklansky manner,(I call it) will have a good chance this year. With such a huge field I believe there will be a feeding frenzy early by the experienced conservative pros. I bleive a lot of them will make the money. But I give guys like Fossilman, Negreanu, and others pro's that know how to wield a big stack the best chance of winning it. These types know how to build a stack and know how to use it once they get it.

So I like the chances of the pros (over the field?) this year. Yes, I think Phillips has a good chance of getting to a position to win. I don't think that he will win because I don't find him as agressive as I think he needs to be to win. I think the same is true for Helmuth. The young bucks, the Josh Ariehs and the like, if they can build a stack early might have a shot. If they get to the money I think that these guys might find that their aggressiveness will be a big plus late in this tournament. Their problem is that have to wade through too many opponents and the more chances they take early on the more likely they are to bust out. The field will be so big that early on a lot of bad players will make weak calls and plays and put the early super aggressive and aggressive pros in a lot of close decisions. Losing a close decision early usually has a dramatic negative effect on ones chances.

Anyway I see this as a good year for the big name tournament pros in the WSOP.

If I play I should make the money but probably with not many chips. I don't see me winning unless I get lucky and pick up a lot of hands.

Vince

Russ McGinley

04-06-2005, 03:09 PM

I remember Annie Duke saying that a pro would never win this again because there are so many people in it. By pros, of course she means either herself or Howard.

drewjustdrew

04-06-2005, 03:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The last time one of the favorites won was 1997 with Stu Ungar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris Ferguson 2000
Scotty Nguyen 1998
Carlos Mortenson 2001

aren't all of these guys favorites/heavy favorites over the field(not the field as a whole but individually)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at the time they won it (although Ferguson and Nguyen had prior known success). Knowing now that they are good players they would be considered better than average, but not really favorites or heavy favorites (lets start another semantics battle!!) No one should be ranked that high. Better than average to me means that in a field of 6000, they have a better than 1 in 6000 chance of winning.

IMO, no one player should be better than 100-1 to win this thing.

drewjustdrew

04-06-2005, 03:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I remember Annie Duke saying that a pro would never win this again because there are so many people in it. By pros, of course she means either herself or Howard.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's classic! I think she probably also includes approximately 10-20 other big name players.

partygirluk

04-06-2005, 03:18 PM

Kwazar must be the big favourite.

other1

04-06-2005, 03:25 PM

I won't pretend I can predict who will win the 2005 ME, but I will go out on a limb and predict that the next 'big name' to win the ME will be Chris Ferguson. I just don't know if it will be this year. Too big an element of luck to make an absolute prediction like that.

04-06-2005, 03:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Kwazar must be the big favourite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, dude! I'm honing my skills for the Big Show online the next three months. It don't matter that I've never played anyone live before but live play is overated. A good internet pro like mytruly can go in and wing it.

I'm going to be like Matt Damon in my favorite poker movie Rounders. Going to Vegas and playing the Big Show.

Vince Lepore

04-06-2005, 03:37 PM

LOL

Vince

bball233

04-06-2005, 03:44 PM

"IMO, no one player should be better than 100-1 to win this thing."

Hollywood sportsbook has the top names at 300-1

jojobinks

04-06-2005, 03:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
With a field of 6-8000 I like the chances of the Tournament Pros. I see a bunch of them making the money and finding themselves in a position to win the thing. Guys that have done well in the past such as Dan Harrington and others that play in a similar manner, the Sklansky manner,(I call it) will have a good chance this year. With such a huge field I believe there will be a feeding frenzy early by the experienced conservative pros. I bleive a lot of them will make the money. But I give guys like Fossilman, Negreanu, and others pro's that know how to wield a big stack the best chance of winning it. These types know how to build a stack and know how to use it once they get it.

So I like the chances of the pros (over the field?) this year. Yes, I think Phillips has a good chance of getting to a position to win. I don't think that he will win because I don't find him as agressive as I think he needs to be to win. I think the same is true for Helmuth. The young bucks, the Josh Ariehs and the like, if they can build a stack early might have a shot. If they get to the money I think that these guys might find that their aggressiveness will be a big plus late in this tournament. Their problem is that have to wade through too many opponents and the more chances they take early on the more likely they are to bust out. The field will be so big that early on a lot of bad players will make weak calls and plays and put the early super aggressive and aggressive pros in a lot of close decisions. Losing a close decision early usually has a dramatic negative effect on ones chances.

Anyway I see this as a good year for the big name tournament pros in the WSOP.

If I play I should make the money but probably with not many chips. I don't see me winning unless I get lucky and pick up a lot of hands.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

oh lordy. i hate to say it, but i agree with vince.

drewjustdrew

04-06-2005, 04:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"IMO, no one player should be better than 100-1 to win this thing."

Hollywood sportsbook has the top names at 300-1

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems reasonable to me. I remember last year, some of the favorites had unbelievably bad odds. Some were 30-1 or "worse".

touchfaith

04-06-2005, 04:27 PM

Better question....Why even call it the World Series Of Poker anymore? Granted, that's the name and it's not going to change....

But, if anyone still thinks this is a World Series that determines "the best poker player" is severely mistaken.

It's more like "The Poker Open Championship" then anything else.

IMO, they should run all the events, and then make the Main Event an invitational. Something like the top 100 (or even 250 or 500 or something) from the Toyota Leaderboard or something like that.

That way, people would have to play in as many early events as possible in order to qualify for the main event. Exemptions could be given for past winners and stuff like that...

Kinda like the PGA I suppose...

Either way...I think something needs to change.

jojobinks

04-06-2005, 04:34 PM

what you're talking about is the PPT. it already exists.

SossMan

04-06-2005, 04:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"IMO, no one player should be better than 100-1 to win this thing."

Hollywood sportsbook has the top names at 300-1

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems reasonable to me. I remember last year, some of the favorites had unbelievably bad odds. Some were 30-1 or "worse".

[/ QUOTE ]

reasonable??? You really think that anyone other than God himself is 20x better than the field?
I bet Hellmuth wouldn't even take action on himself at 600:1. I wouldn't take action on anyone at anything less than 800 or 900 :1.
I think too many people seriously underestimate the factor that field size plays in these events.

threeonefour

04-06-2005, 04:59 PM

i think its called the world series because it is open to the world and is probably one of the most "international" events.

series is a given. the WSOP isn't an event, its a series of events.

i think WSOP is a better name than Poker Open Championship for those reasons(though POC would be a reasonable name).

NLfool

04-06-2005, 05:50 PM

regardless if Dan Harrington gets to the final table again he should definitely wear a shirt that says "Who's Your Daddy" on TV.

Hold'me

04-06-2005, 06:10 PM

I think I can safely predict at least one big name proffessional poker player will be at the final table. I just don't know who. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

As for them winning the 2005 WSOP ME, I don't think they will. I believe it will be someone most of us are not too familiar with but has got some serious poker skills. To win in a field so huge like this, you need to have enormous luck and talent.

TheShootah

04-06-2005, 06:19 PM

I was just about to make a comment about DH final tabling again, and you stole it. Nicely done sir...although you crushed my hopes and dreams.... /images/graemlins/mad.gif

KDawgCometh

04-06-2005, 08:39 PM

A pro will win it again, but they will be like JOsh Arieh or Carlos Mortensen. In that they will be a familiar face to those who tour the circuit, but the vast majority won't know who they are. This year could be the year a pro like that could win it. The Grinder is onlyknown to the internet message boards. I'm not saying he'll win it, but those who are familiar with Mike Mizrachi won't be the majority of those playing in the WSOP Main Event

lastchance

04-06-2005, 09:02 PM

DO NOT TAKE ANY OF THOSE BETS! Even with all the dead money in there, no one is better than 1000 to 1 to win, and I still wouldn't take anyone on a 1000 to 1.

If I remember correctly, Linda Johnson posted a cardplayer article about the field vs top players. I think you need at least 1/5th of the field to make that bet good.

A_C_Slater

04-06-2005, 10:39 PM

'Well... I got 8% of the chips, I think I'm better than the rest of the field, so lets double it, if you really wanna be generous then those are my chances.' A rough quote of Dan Harrington's when asked what his chances were of winning the ME when he got to the final table again last year.

So...If someone has 1/6600 of the chips on day one and we will assume they are better than rest of the field (a big assumption,) then the most you can put them at is being 3300 to 1 to win the whole thing.

deacsoft

04-06-2005, 10:50 PM

Do you consider "deacsoft" a big name? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Phill S

04-06-2005, 10:58 PM

unless it has a lot of letters, there wont be a big name winning.

odds on, itll be someone youve never heard of, and the qualified via an online site, stars being the number one runner.

i think the odds of a 2+2er bringing back the title again is better than the odds on somone youve heard of doing it.

and its not even close.

Phill

PukaPlaya

04-06-2005, 11:22 PM

Yeah I think you are correct that it will be an all around solid player who wins. It could be one of the top large field online MTT guys I imagine as they are the among the few who have the experience to wade through fields of 2000-3000 regularly. They will probably need to have some live tourney experience as well.

Dan Harrington will be at the final table again of course.

I hope to be one of the large field MTT guys in the event of course. /images/graemlins/cool.gif Still haven't qualified but I haven't tried very hard yet either.

MLG

04-07-2005, 12:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It could be one of the top large field online MTT guys I imagine as they are the among the few who have the experience to wade through fields of 2000-3000 regularly. They will probably need to have some live tourney experience as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds about right /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

lastchance

04-07-2005, 01:24 AM

Yes, but that was at the final table, not at the beginning of the tournament. The skill difference at the beginning of the tournament will be much greater than the skill difference at the end of it. At the end, the fish's number per table will have greatly decreased from the beginning of the tournament. If you can pick up a 2 to 1 edge at the final table, you certainly can pick up bigger ones much earlier.

SossMan

04-07-2005, 02:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider "deacsoft" a big name? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

i do.

Jurollo

04-07-2005, 02:48 AM

Justin Rollo - 2005 WSOP ME Champ...
I went back to the future and got the almanac from this year, it said he wins, take it for what it is worth.
~Justin

FMMonty

04-07-2005, 03:56 AM

My money is on a Poker Stars qualifier, as it looks like they are going to enter over a 1,000 people this year.

mmbt0ne

04-07-2005, 04:29 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
'Well... I got 8% of the chips, I think I'm better than the rest of the field, so lets double it, if you really wanna be generous then those are my chances.' A rough quote of Dan Harrington's when asked what his chances were of winning the ME when he got to the final table again last year.

So...If someone has 1/6600 of the chips on day one and we will assume they are better than rest of the field (a big assumption,) then the most you can put them at is being 3300 to 1 to win the whole thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, that's a bit of an oversimplification. There are a lot of donks in that full 6600, but once you get to the final table they other players are gonna have a much better idea how to play, thus affecting your chances.

Russ McGinley

04-07-2005, 04:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My money is on a Poker Stars qualifier, as it looks like they are going to enter over a 1,000 people this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

A better bet would be to bet on how many PS qualifiers will be at the final table. I'm going with 5.

Chaos81

04-07-2005, 04:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The Grinder is onlyknown to the internet message boards.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seeing as he was on the cover of Card Player, I think he's known by more then just internet message boards. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Howard Treesong

04-07-2005, 06:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"IMO, no one player should be better than 100-1 to win this thing."

Hollywood sportsbook has the top names at 300-1

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems reasonable to me. I remember last year, some of the favorites had unbelievably bad odds. Some were 30-1 or "worse".

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet Hellmuth wouldn't even take action on himself at 600:1. I wouldn't take action on anyone at anything less than 800 or 900 :1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm too lazy to go look it up, but I remember a Hellmuth article some time back in which he estimated his chances of winning a particular tournament at 20% with 45 runners left, where Hellmuth had somewhere around double par -- which made him 4x better than the remaining field, which included guys like Harrington and Ivey. It would not shock me in the slightest if Phil though he were a 20x favorite to the 05 ME field.

touchfaith

04-07-2005, 03:23 PM

With all those additional chips in play, I think we are going to see a MONSTER chip leader on the final table.

Depending on who it is, it could get real boring.

jojobinks

04-07-2005, 03:25 PM

a boring final table? kinda like 2004, i guess... /images/graemlins/frown.gif

betgo

04-07-2005, 03:34 PM

Maybe, or maybe there will be 2 or 3 monster stacks.

A_C_Slater

04-07-2005, 03:49 PM

The final 2 Heads up could theoretically go on for days.

drewjustdrew

04-07-2005, 04:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"IMO, no one player should be better than 100-1 to win this thing."

Hollywood sportsbook has the top names at 300-1

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems reasonable to me. I remember last year, some of the favorites had unbelievably bad odds. Some were 30-1 or "worse".

[/ QUOTE ]

reasonable??? You really think that anyone other than God himself is 20x better than the field?
I bet Hellmuth wouldn't even take action on himself at 600:1. I wouldn't take action on anyone at anything less than 800 or 900 :1.
I think too many people seriously underestimate the factor that field size plays in these events.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your assessment. I was just pointing out how absurdly low the odds were last year. At least at 300-1 you could put someone in the realm of possible. I look at it this way, if Daniel N had 300 stabs at the 6000 person field, do I think he could win one. It's possible (maybe not likely). Then again, do I give him 30-1 in a 600 person field. Again, it's possible. Of course I would like better odds, but not sure if I would get them.

LSUfan1

04-07-2005, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is probably not. The field is just too big for it. The last time one of the favorites won was 1997 with Stu Ungar.

I think the field is also to big for a Varkonyi or Moneymaker to win. I would expect it will be a strong player, but not necessarily a recognized top player. Someone along the lines of Raymer, Arieh, or Farha is most likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you highly underestimate the ability of the pro player to adapt and overcome. Now that the pros have figured out that you cannot bully out every player (ie..the funniest of exits by Annie Duke) the pros will start to adapt to a newer style of play.

I expect to see 2 to 3 known pros at the final table this year. OK, maybe just 2. But a known pro will win again soon IMO.

KDawgCometh

04-07-2005, 07:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Grinder is onlyknown to the internet message boards.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seeing as he was on the cover of Card Player, I think he's known by more then just internet message boards. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

very true. But I still think he'd be an unkown to the vast majority of the donks that enter teh WSOP nowadays. Since he will have just appeared on TV around that time maybe he'll have more of a bullseye on him then say Prahlad Friedman, Chris Savage, or Erik Sagstrom