Cream Continues to Rise to the Top (WSOP Results)

[Jax_Grinder]

Where is the evidence so far of the demise of skill and rise of luck in the WSOP now that your average donk thinks he has a legitimate shot at a bracelet?

Event No. 1 (2300+):

1: Allen Cunningman - $1,482,037 since '98 (1 Bracelet - now 2);
2: Scott Fischman - $866,938 since Sep. '02 (2 Bracelets);
3: Devilfish - $2,732,946 since '93 (1 Bracelet);

Event No. 2 (800+):

1: Thom Werthmann - 179th in 2004 WSOP ME (1st Bracelet)
2: Layne Flack - $2,561,475 since '98 (5 Bracelets)
3: Tony Ma - $1,885,504 since '96 (2 Bracelets)

Boy, it sure looks like the "pros" have NO shot at the big spots in a field full of fish. Or is that just an excuse for getting run over....?

Skill - 6
Fishes - 0

[bestcellar]

How do you know Werthmann isn't a fish and just did well in a couple of tourneys?

[Wes ManTooth]

Yeah, look at 2+2er Tyler Durden (126th in the WSOP ME 2004) he is a fish.

[Tyler Durden]

Two events of the WSOP isn't enough to prove your theory correct. Certainly you don't expect the top 3 of every event to have similar track records. But your point is taken.

[Jax_Grinder]

Sigh.

If you money in the WSOP ME in '04 and then win a Bracelet the following year, the paradigm should be that you are believed skilled until proven otherwise.

You, however, seem to believe that no one has proven that negative (i.e., "I am not a fish"') until they provide you with a complete data set of all tournaments they ever entered so you can perform a regression analysis to determine whether luck is a significant factor in their results. That is asinine.

My definition of "fish" certainly includes 2+2ers who respond to a thread about a Bracelet winner by saying "How do you know he's not a fish?"

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh.

If you money in the WSOP ME in '04 and then win a Bracelet the following year, the paradigm should be that you are believed skilled until proven otherwise.

You, however, seem to believe that no one has proven that negative (i.e., "I am not a fish"') until they provide you with a complete data set of all tournaments they ever entered so you can perform a regression analysis to determine whether luck is a significant factor in their results. That is asinine.

My definition of "fish" certainly includes 2+2ers who respond to a thread about a Bracelet winner by saying "How do you know he's not a fish?"

[/ QUOTE ]

"asenine"

You say this guy's a good player based on TWO TOURNAMENTS? C'mon. Who's being asenine now?

Good players = 5
unknown = 1.

fixed.

[Jax_Grinder]

[ QUOTE ]
Two events of the WSOP isn't enough to prove your theory correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess I didn't intend to put it out as a "theory" per se (more of a statement of fact), but Event 2 is about as good a test of the "theory" as were likely to see until the ME.

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly you don't expect the top 3 of every event to have similar track records.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. My interest in tracking this is quite simply borne of the incessant discussion about how the massive fields make it so difficult for skilled players to make the top money. I don't believe that to be the case, so this is my way of trying to add a little substance to the conjecture.

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh.

If you money in the WSOP ME in '04 and then win a Bracelet the following year, the paradigm should be that you are believed skilled until proven otherwise.

You, however, seem to believe that no one has proven that negative (i.e., "I am not a fish"') until they provide you with a complete data set of all tournaments they ever entered so you can perform a regression analysis to determine whether luck is a significant factor in their results. That is asinine.

My definition of "fish" certainly includes 2+2ers who respond to a thread about a Bracelet winner by saying "How do you know he's not a fish?"

[/ QUOTE ]

ps I love the two or three personal shots fired for asking what I perceived as a harmless question. Sorry to have stirred your [censored] or whatever. Jeez.

[Jax_Grinder]

I only count one personal shot (the "fish" one). Sorry if I made it personal.

On the other hand, it really is spelled "asinine" - not sure where you got the "e" from. You should check such things before posting, I guess.

Finally, I'll simply say that I disagree that we cannot put Mr. Werthmann into the "skilled" category based upon these two results. I did not imply that he is on par with any particular player (and thus did not employ a qualitative descriptor like "good") or range of players. I simply believe that if you cash in the ME and win a Bracelet within one calendar year, it is a small subset of people who are qualified to suggest that you do not have skills commensurate with those results (absent further evidence). Again, I default to the result until proven otherwise.

[bestcellar]

Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?

[dmk]

I have to agree w/ Jax on this one. Its more likely that someone who $s in the ME and wins a bracelet the following year is more skilled than not.

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
"asenine"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's a first. Never seen someone mis-correct someone else's spelling.

[nolanfan34]

I think this is going to be interesting to track. In the end, the final results are probably likely to mirror the results from every year - the pros are going to win a lot of bracelets, and there may be a few unknowns who take a couple as well.

The influx of "non-pros" certainly increases the chance that unknowns will win some events. But the other side of the coin is the fact that based on the large number of pros, at least a few of them in each event are going to accumulate a ton of chips from these players. It's just a matter of being the one who happens to survive a lot of all-ins when necessary IMO.

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"asenine"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's a first. Never seen someone mis-correct someone else's spelling.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah that was pretty asinine of me

[Moonsugar]

Why are you so obsessed with this?

[Zinzan]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree w/ Jax on this one. Its more likely that someone who $s in the ME and wins a bracelet the following year is more skilled than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Jax wasn't just saying that player X is skilled... he's saying the cream rises to the top--only proven players are placing high in these events (so far).

But you shouldn't look at THIS YEAR'S bracelet as proof that "cream continues to rise to the top". You can't use THIS result as an argument in the analysis of THIS result.

If Erin Ness wins a bracelet, you wouldn't argue that "it just goes to show that only proven players win bracelets... she moneyed in last year's ME and won a bracelet, you know."

That said, I am impressed with the current performance of proven players in these first two events, whether the count is 5/6 or 6/6 in the top three.

-Z

[Jax_Grinder]

Forgive me if my post does not meet with your threshold criteria for worthiness.

But, to answer your question, the topic underlying the point of my post - that being the impact of large numbers of inexperienced tourney players on the likelihood of skilled players making the big money - is one that is brought up on this (and other) forums very often. I have not seen a post tracking event outcomes (which, I think, is a relevant measure of the impact), I think it is interesting, and I posted on it.

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes).

Please back up your statement.

[adanthar]

The thing that speaks of this guy being good is that he cashed in the main event and then won a big event that nobody outside the poker world has heard of. (Does the average ESPN viewer even know the NL part of the WSOP is more than one tourney?)

But OK, he got lucky twice...look at the final tables. The pros are dominating, not close, etc.

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes).

Please back up your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing that speaks of this guy being good is that he cashed in the main event and then won a big event that nobody outside the poker world has heard of. (Does the average ESPN viewer even know the NL part of the WSOP is more than one tourney?)

But OK, he got lucky twice...look at the final tables. The pros are dominating, not close, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the OP in general, I'm just questioning what we know of the caliber of one player.

[billyjex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes).

Please back up your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly i seriously doubt you know what you're talking about.

moneymaker is a solid, aggressive player. he got lucky but everyone does to win a tournament.

i dont remember a 54o hand like that.

the final hand of the tourney was when money had 54, but that was heads up and he flopped two pair.

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes).

Please back up your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly i seriously doubt you know what you're talking about.

moneymaker is a solid, aggressive player. he got lucky but everyone does to win a tournament.

i dont remember a 54o hand like that.

the final hand of the tourney was when money had 54, but that was heads up and he flopped two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hand I'm talking about was fairly early in the tournament. I wish I had the exact hand history. I remember thinking it was a pretty bad hand and a pretty bad way of playing it.

[riverdance]

i always win with asenine, especially sooooted

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes).

Please back up your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only we had solid evidence like this back in 2000 for those pesky Florida recount investigations...

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes).

Please back up your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you're pulling this out of your ass. ESPN didn't show a hand like that. And ESPN didn't show any hands of Moneymaker's early in the tournament.

To say Moneymaker played that tournament like a fish is just idiotic jealousy. Standard tho. You belong in the WPT forum.

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes).

Please back up your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you're pulling this out of your ass. ESPN didn't show a hand like that. And ESPN didn't show any hands of Moneymaker's early in the tournament.

To say Moneymaker played that tournament like a fish is just idiotic jealousy. Standard tho. You belong in the WPT forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

You people sure are dictatorial when it comes to opinions.

[Tyler Durden]

ok i'm sorry. but please tell me more about the 54 hand, if it really happened, and i'm pretty sure it didn't.

[Hauser_III]

[ QUOTE ]
And ESPN didn't show any hands of Moneymaker's early in the tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious how you define "early"? They had coverage of him at the table where he zoned out when the action came to him, and somebody (I recall that it was either Lederer or Chan) finally asked him if he knew he was still in the hand. I thought that table was fairly early in the tournament. Then, again, this is from two years ago, so my memory could be faulty.

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I don't think I'm a better player than Moneymaker.
I don't think I could win or even place at any event at the WS of poker.
I don't think I'm a better player than you.
I don't think I'm a better player than anyone on this forum.

Can we get off of the defensive now, people?

As a hack, I watched the WSOP in 2003 and I saw Moneymaker as being a mediocre player in my opinion who I thought didn't play very well in my opinion, and saw him get extremely lucky and make a couple of great plays. I'm sorry I don't remember all the details.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, only fish play 54o. Only fish hit bottom pair and continue just calling (when they might have best hand and don't want to raise for different reasons), and only fish catch either two pair or trips. Come on. Even if this hand did happen, it says nothing about Moneymaker the way you describe it. This is ridiculous.

BTW, there was a thread here a few months ago about Gavin Griffin calling a raise PF with 22, and then calling all the way down (calling all-in on the turn I think) with no improvement. Well? Maybe you want to analyse this hand for us, with this information?

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, only fish play 54o. Only fish hit bottom pair and continue just calling (when they might have best hand and don't want to raise for different reasons), and only fish catch either two pair or trips. Come on. Even if this hand did happen, it says nothing about Moneymaker the way you describe it. This is ridiculous.

BTW, there was a thread here a few months ago about Gavin Griffin calling a raise PF with 22, and then calling all the way down (calling all-in on the turn I think) with no improvement. Well? Maybe you want to analyse this hand for us, with this information?

[/ QUOTE ]

where do I sign up for my crucifix?

[bestcellar]

I thought I could learn a few things about poker here, maybe sharpen up my game and maybe not get crucified for my opinions, however ill-formed others may find them.

Apparently, I was dead wrong.

Can a mod please delete my account now? Thanks. I won't bug you guys further.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
and maybe not get crucified for my opinions

[/ QUOTE ]

We have on this forum very passionate discussions about MTT poker, where people have very different opinions. Opinions are great. Your "opinion" was that Moneymaker is a fish, or something similar, and as an "evidence" you said something about a 54o hand. This is not an opinion, this is basically trolling.

[Moonsugar]

People can post whatever they like. I just thought I had missed some huge fiery debate thread somewhere...

[Jax_Grinder]

This idea is about to take a hit in Event 4. Peter Costa and Van Ness (1 Bracelet in '95 - nothing since) are the only ones with any kind of previous success at all (though Steinhorn had a nice cash in Event 2).

Thoughts on whether its the nature of limit poker that led to this rather anonymous final table or something else?

[ClaytonN]

Peter "The Silver Fox" Costa?

That guy is ALWAYS on the euro show late night poker that used to be on Fox a lot.

[Jax_Grinder]

The Hendon Mob has him listed as "The Poet" (and he doesn't even know it...). Cheeeeze.

[Kevmath]

Wing Wong does have 6 WSOP cashes, with 5 final tables, so he's not that unknown to the hardcore community.

Kevin...

[dfan]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought I could learn a few things about poker here, maybe sharpen up my game and maybe not get crucified for my opinions, however ill-formed others may find them.

Apparently, I was dead wrong.

Can a mod please delete my account now? Thanks. I won't bug you guys further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing the victim? Don't.

I don't think the problem is that you are expressing opinions. It's that you come across pretty bad shooting down the accomplishments of players like Moneymaker and calling them mediocre and supporting your put-down of the guy with some hazy memory of some play that may or may not have been less than optimal and that may or may not have happened...

And if you think "unskilled" "mediocre" players make the final tables of these megatournaments --well try it yourself sometime.

[Pat Southern]

I sure wish Gavin Griffin's cream would rise to the top, wow, that sounds really gay.

[boedeker]

costa used to be back by helmuth for years, but has been on his own since winning the aussie millions 2 years ago. great guy, and friend. worth rooting for.

[omahahahaha]

the problem with this reasoning is that Cunningham, fischman, ma, et. al. may not come in the top five of any wsop tourney for the next two or three years but there will always be a big "name" who comes in the top two or three or even more so, a couple "big names" who make final tables simultaneously. This does not mean that they are always there; IT IS THAT THERE ARE JUST SO MANY "BIG NAMES" OUT THERE NOW AWADAYS BECAUSE OF T.V. EXPOSURE.

...I kind of liken in to watching baseball tonight and seeing which homerun hitter happened to launch one this evening. While you I may initially say to myself, "wow that guy hits one every day it seems", the truth of the matter is that there are just so many big names in baseball.

[Pat Southern]

[ QUOTE ]
I only count one personal shot (the "fish" one). Sorry if I made it personal.

On the other hand, it really is spelled "asinine" - not sure where you got the "e" from. You should check such things before posting, I guess.

Finally, I'll simply say that I disagree that we cannot put Mr. Werthmann into the "skilled" category based upon these two results. I did not imply that he is on par with any particular player (and thus did not employ a qualitative descriptor like "good") or range of players. I simply believe that if you cash in the ME and win a Bracelet within one calendar year, it is a small subset of people who are qualified to suggest that you do not have skills commensurate with those results (absent further evidence). Again, I default to the result until proven otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Erin Ness wins a bracelet, can she be considered a top player?

[Jax_Grinder]

Has nothing to do with "big names". It has to do with results. That is why I included $$ won, rather than just identifying the players. It has nothing to do with TV exposure.

Just how many players with their kind of recent success do you think were in that field of 2300+?