Doyle Brunson = Poker's All Time Best?

[MRBAA]

Everything I've read about this guy suggests he is the best ever. A direct descendant of the original Texas hold'em pros (Johnny Moss, etc.), he seems to have been a killer in side games and master of the rough and tumble but also won the WSOP and CONTINUES (at age 70) to play and do well in super high stakes games to this day.

He seems to combine intellectual skills with gut feel and staying power in a way no other pro I've heard of can match. Anyone else have other candidates (besides Moss, who I consider to have played his best poker in another era, sort of like comparing George Mikan to Shaq -- can't do it, whereas Brunson is perhaps more akin to Wilt, in spanning old and modern eras).

[broomcorn]

[MRBAA]

A genius, but didn't have Brunson's consistency or staying power. Sort of the Elgin Baylor or Bill Walton of poker.

[Howard Burroughs]

Stu was the best big buy-in no-limit tournament player ever. Doyle has said that Stu would not be in his top ten list of poker players of all time and that it's not even close. Stu was also well known to be very dealer abusive when things did not go his way on the river (live games). And would the world's greatest player really blame the dealer for their results?

I'm a big Doyle fan too. I think Chip Reese is in Doyle's league as one of the all time greats. Never seems to lose his composure. Often the table captain at a table full of the world's best players. Classy guy and perhaps the greatest poker player who ever lived.


I'm just glad I have had the chance to watch all three of them play from the rail over the years.


Also a strong case could be made for Ray Zee, IMHO


Best of Luck

H.B.

[whiskeytown]

Many people would put TJ Cloutier as their best NL player...(and an excellent player overall)

He too was part of that Texas poker crowd that used to play NL in the smoky backrooms of the South....and now he's strictly tournament, but then again, the NL poker is pretty much gone except for tourneys these days...

TJ's skill comes from his ability to read opponents...but no one is perfect..

as far as Doyle goes...don't get me wrong...a lot of those guys were great and deserved to win in the early days of the WSOP, but the field was a LOT smaller, and skilled players a LOT rarer. These days, Doyle and the rest have just as tough a time at the modern WSOP as the rest of us.

I liked the comment in Rounders "It's not gambling...why is it you think the same 9 people make it to the last table at the WSOP every year?" - well, that's funny, but also untrue..it was true early on, but lots of people coming from out of nowhere these days to that final table /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

anyways...I vote TJ...and yeah...Stuey wasn't there enough to be the best NL player....

[Mason Malmuth]

Here's mny opinion.

There's no question that Doyle is a great player in every aspect.

Unger was a great no limit tournament player, but I'm told he did poorly in the side games. I did play very briefly against him a couple of times but not long enough to form an opinion.

Moss had very little understanding of how to play any type of poker. I don't care what you may read, I played enough against him to be very sure. Furthermore, based on my play against him, I can't believe that he might have been good at a different form of poker when he was young. He basically was a guy who ran poker rooms.

As for Cloutier, I actually know very little about him and have never even spoken to him. There is no question that he is a terrific tournament player, but I don't believe that he even sits in any sort of side game.

Best wishes,
mason

[whiskeytown]

regarding your opinion of TJ...

you're right, I think...I think NL hold em is his preferred game of choice, and when it was popular back in the day, that's what he played....

I think I read somewhere he made the transition to tournaments because the NL poker ring games dried up...they no long exist for the most part outside of tourneys...(as we all know...) -

so I guess the question really should be - who is the best NL Holdem Tourney player, cause I doubt you can find many NL games anymore, except the microlimits online in $25-$50 increments...

RB

[John Feeney]

I wouldn' t doubt that Doyle and Chip have both been among the top all-around players.

As for T.J., from a *very* brief personal experience I don't think he's really a limit player. But I have an old poker buddy from Texas, who's a long time pot/no-limit player. He used to host a private no-limit hold'em game which T.J. played in quite a few times. My friend told me that, among players who played more than a couple of times, T.J. was the only player in the game who virtually never lost. Also, I trust my friend's assessment, and he says T.J. does play big bet very well. From what I've heard (not necessarily reliable sources) his leak is that he enjoys stuff like craps.

[SlyR]

Not having followed Poker personalities to a great extent, I would nevertheless like to comment that character does matter. For that reason, I would lean towards Brunson.

While the basketball comparisons are astute, my comparison from the music world would be Wagner vs. Mahler: Perhaps equally proficient, but one was a real jackass.

[andyfox]

"Moss had very little understanding of how to play any type of poker."

Do you think it's a case of printing the myth instead of the facts? Maybe the Nick the Greek duel?

Also, is it possible that he played better when he was younger?

[The _Grifter]

" From what I've heard (not necessarily reliable sources) his leak is that he enjoys stuff like craps."

...That has no bearing on his poker play.

[John Feeney]

"...That has no bearing on his poker play."

Of course not. But why do you mention that?

[John Feeney]

I guess it must have sounded like I was factoring his craps etc. into some overall assessment of him as a player. But nope. I was just sharing some bits of info, with no grand plan.

[balt999]

Personally, I think the best player is someone no one knows about....the quiet guy who plays 20-40, beats the game consistently, and doesn't seek the publicity...

We have this perception that just because you're "poker celebrity"...you must be the best....it's far from it in my opinion.

[Glenn]

"Personally, I think the best player is someone no one knows about....the quiet guy who plays 20-40"

This is impossible for the same reason the best hitter in the world in the world can't be someone who has only faced high school pitching.

[olemissgolf]

If your love of craps and ponies continuously depletes your bankroll, it could have a significant effect on your poker playing.

[John Feeney]

Sure, but I think Grifter is just separating pure poker ability from other things. Bottom line is that I've heard T.J. is a good pot/no-limit player.

[Ian]

In the past year I have played at about five tables with Cloutier at big buy-in tournaments. Overall he is quite a strong player. Interestingly, in light of the TJ versus Sklansky debate in an earlier thread, I have seen him play two baby flushes. He won one and lost one. But I couldn't have played either hand better myself even if I had known what the other players were holding.

His biggest weakness -- and perhaps this is where his weakness for Craps becomes relevant -- is that he sometimes relies on intuition over rigorous analysis. This puts him a level below a Seidel or a Lederer. For example, I saw him lay down an ace high flush with an unpaired board when he put his opponent on a double belly-buster straight flush.

Another time his intuition was dead-on, but still got him in trouble. He flopped a paired ace, weak kicker and had position against a short-stacked opponent who called modest flop and turn bets and then checked the river with half his stack already in the pot. Cloutier correctly smelled fear and raised him all-in. The guy called with a slightly better kicker. Cloutier had the perfect read on the guy, but ended up making a terrible play that unnecessarily cost him one-third of his stack.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Andy:

I guess it is possible he might have played better when he was young but I strongly doubt it. This was a person who thought that certain dealers were bad luck, who would play the majority of hands that were dealt to him, who would call through the river with one overcard, and who wanted to fire every dealer or florrperson whenever he lost a pot. He would play every day at the Horseshoe $20-$40 and the game was always packed. As soon as he died, they lost the game.

Best wishes,
mason

[HDPM]

Do you believe this says anything about the possibility of cheating at the games he played in when younger or when he ran various poker rooms in Las Vegas? I ask this seriously and not as a slam or a Russ G conspiracy. I watched him a little at those Binions 20-40 games when he was at the end, and didn't have enough experience to evaluate his play. Looking back on it, with what little I remember about specific hands, he didn't play too well. I can't imagine being senile or past his prime would affect him in that certain way. Was he just an up and down player who was in and out of money or who banked a big score or two? Or did he get his reputation by other means?

[andyfox]

Just found my old copy of Poker Faces by David Hayano, and here's what it says about Johnny Moss:

"It is reported that Las Vegas Johnny Moss, a Texas-born pro from the age of nineteen, won $100,000 on some football bets in 1939. With this fortune in hand he instructed his wife, Virgie, to shop around for a new house. Later that evening when she told him of the mansion she had found, it was too late. He had lost all the money. In 12950 Moss won the staggering sum of $10 million playiing poker in Reno, Nevada. Because many people thereafter refused to play with him he turned to the dice tables and graudally lost all his winnings again. To survive as a professional gambler he borrowed a playing stake of half a million dollars in cash from his gambling friends. He eventually paid them back in $100,000 installments."

Sure sound like a case of "printing the legend" to me.

[DanS]

Glenn,
I think you're wrong here. I grew up with a guy who was a good ballplayer. He spent a few years in Pittsburgh's organization, realized he was stagnating in AA ball, quit, and went to law school. Whereas Jimmy Rollins, who I played high school baseball against, was in the bigs in three years (I graduated '97, he was '96).

I'm not sure if that conveyed my point, but here's the point: there's a huge discrepancy between the big leagues and working at, say, a convenience store. There's also a difference between being staked a lot and winning a lot of tournaments with all the notoriety, and being a quiet workaday guy who play in the 20-40 to 200-400 range. I don't think the world's best players play 20-40, but I would think some of the guys that play in the 3 Bet Brett (Snakehead) range, including him, would impress me more than some of the turnament trail guys.

Dan

P.S. Johnny Moss had to do SOMETHING right to win the World Series three times (yeas, I know he was voted the best in '70).

[Glenn]

I have no idea what you were talking about with Jimmy Rollins or how it relates /forums/images/icons/smile.gif . My point is that no 20-40 player has the experience necessary to be called the best. At 20-40, the games really aren't very tough, and there is no way anyone could learn enough there to be the best in the world. I agree that a lot of the 100 and 200 players are probably excellent, and may be better than a lot of "name" players. A lot of them are specialists though, and wouldn't do well playing mixed games, etc. However, the best players will eventually make a living in the biggest games, and the skills needed to beat the biggest games can only be honed in the biggest games. You can't learn to be the best hitter in the world without facing the best pitchers, and you can't learn be the best card player without facing the top players.

[Jedi Poker]

I was able to play with Moss exactly two times in the 20-40 game at the Horseshoe. I also thought he played very bad (worse than amateur - as if his money was water and he was pouring it like it would never run out - rumor had it that Jack Binion gave him a playing allowance of something like 1000 to 2000 per day). At the time, I explained it to myself as senility. I nevertheless felt it was an honor to have been part of poker history by being at the same table as the legend. I will never forget how I helped him open and close his medicine bottle while his wife smiled at me and said "Thank you". I was totally starstruck! There I was, this low-limit newbie, beating the legend's AA (he didn't raise it from UTG) with my 56 of hearts (I called pre-flop after 3 other players also limped before the action got to me - and got my straight on the turn and Moss paid me off till the river).

At that time I had zero no-limit experience. But over the years, I've gained some no-limit experience and have come to the new conclusion (which replaces my senility explanation) that Moss played pathetic (and I do mean pathetic) limit holdem because as a result of being unable to adjust to the limit structure, he may have been employing no-limit strategy in a limit game. The illegal games that he used to play while he was in his prime in Texas and Oklahoma in the 30's, 40's, and 50's must have been played no limit and shorthanded which required ultra-aggression and lots of trapping (which now that I think about it, explains his attempted limp-reraise with AA from UTG). It was a classic case of an old dog being unable to learn new tricks. Like a Railroad company unable to adjust to the reality of airplanes and automobiles.

I buy the legend that Moss played great shorthanded no-limit in his prime. The poor dinosaur just couldn't adapt to limit poker. Plus, he never wore glasses which probably helps explain why he was playing like the cards on the table were different from what they actually were.

[thebroker]

[DanS]

Hi Glenn,
My point was that there's financial incentive to make the big leagues and make a few million a year, but if you tap out at $30,000 in AA ball, you might as well go to law school and make a quarter mill a year.

The corresponding point is that there may be more stability and even income potential playing say 200-400 regularly than being a mediocrity on the tournament trail that wins a few decent events and is the all star of the hour. Those upper mid limit players generally rip the tourney stars the shreds in the side game.

So, your points are all excellent. But, Robert Varkonyi winning the World Series would be like me facing Randy Johnson and cracking a double to the alley, swinging with a whiffle ball bat.

Damn I'm confusing myself. Lemme know if this one was decipherable.

Dan

[Glenn]

Dan,

I am not saying that tourney stars are good. I am saying the the people who play in and beat the bellagio big game and the biggest Calif games are the best. The WSOP final buyin like one bet in the big game so I really don't think it matters much at all. I am NOT saying tourney players are better than 100-200 pros. I am saying that the best 1000-2000 to 5000-10000 pros (many of whom have also had tourney success) are better than the best 100-200 pros.

[DanS]

Glenn,
That's right on. Here's some food for thought though. I think the guy that's playing 100-200 might be better at MORE games than the 'big game' guys. But I think everything you said was dead on, I'm just trying to play a little devil's advocate.

Dan

[Timer]

>>Stu was also well known to be very dealer abusive when things did not go his way on the river (live games). And would the world's greatest player really blame the dealer for their results?

<font color="red"> Don't forget Johnny Chan. One of the greatest dealer abusers of all time. Who can forget the dealer who waited five years to jump the rail and drown Chan with a 7-11 Big Gulp while Chan was playing in a tournament at Binions a few years ago. Oh yeah, Chan threw the cards at this guy when he was dealing to him, and the kid never forgot it.</font color>

[The _Grifter]

It's really a toss up trying to figure who's best in poker. You could start looking at limits, games, how long a particular player has played as a professional, how much they've won, etc..etc...

...Just ask yourself a simple a question, since there is no cut and dried answer to the question..." Who would I stake with my money in a specific event ?"

....For me...Cloutier's certainly getting the job done in tournaments......cash games....Chip Reese....

These players are as good as anybody on any given day or night. Poker's not like golf where one player can dominate for a couple years....the simple reason being, the luck factor involved.

...On a good night I could take home all the money against anybody. That wont happen on a golf course because skill is the over riding factor...not luck.