4 definite pros at final table

[betgo]

Kanter ------- probably amateur
Barch -------- probably pro
Black -------- definitely pro
Matusow ---- definitely pro
Danneman --- definitely amateur
Hachem ----- definitely pro
Bergsdorf ---- definitely pro
Lazar -------- not sure
Kondracki ---- definitely amateur

[KSOT]

Nice math.

[gorgeous]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice math.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. At least he learned from his "definate" mistake.

[BlackRain]

What is the criteria being used for being a "pro" here? That they have played in some big events before? That they make a living playing poker? Seems like there is a big difference between these categories.

I mean, Andy Black has been in a Bhuddist Monestary for the last 3 years. Was he hustling the monks in there? Anyone have confirmation on this?

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the criteria being used for being a "pro" here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Someone who makes a living playing poker.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice math.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with the math?

[BlackRain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the criteria being used for being a "pro" here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Someone who makes a living playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if you could provide some sources then because what I have read about the players does not correlate with your results.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if you could provide some sources then because what I have read about the players does not correlate with your results.

[/ QUOTE ]

I put this up for discussion. If you disagree with specific entries, please indicate that. I am pretty sure that Matasow, Bergdorf, and Hacham are pros. Bergsdorf lists himself as a pro for 3 years in Cardplayer. Hacham is one of the top players in Australia.

[istewart]

Matusow is clearly an amateur.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the criteria being used for being a "pro" here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Someone who makes a living playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if you could provide some sources then because what I have read about the players does not correlate with your results.

[/ QUOTE ]

typical internet etiquette (heh) requires that if you're gonna call someone out on posting BS, you are the one that is meant to provide a source contradicting what they've said.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the criteria being used for being a "pro" here? That they have played in some big events before? That they make a living playing poker? Seems like there is a big difference between these categories.

I mean, Andy Black has been in a Bhuddist Monestary for the last 3 years. Was he hustling the monks in there? Anyone have confirmation on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

No he was out of the game from about 1998 to 2002 approx. from what I have heard. Has been a pro (or should we say has returned to being a pro) since then.

[Tical]

Bergsdorf and Kondracki (sic).

Per pokerstars website.

[BlackRain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if you could provide some sources then because what I have read about the players does not correlate with your results.

[/ QUOTE ]

I put this up for discussion. If you disagree with specific entries, please indicate that. I am pretty sure that Matasow, Bergdorf, and Hacham are pros. Bergsdorf lists himself as a pro for 3 years in Cardplayer. Hacham is one of the top players in Australia.

[/ QUOTE ]

I ran all of the final 9 through

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com

Barch, Danneman, Bergsdorf, Lazar all display 0 results on
meaning they likely have no prior experience in any major tournaments.

Hachem and Matusow both have a large amount of major tournament experience, again according to the mob database and the other 3 have very limited experience.

So if we want to judge who is a "tournament pro" or not here, only Matusow and Hachem fit that criteria.

Whether or not these other players make a living playing poker in cash games, I don't know. And I don't know how you would find that out without digging through blogs or something. This is why I asked about how you came to your conclusions.

Here are a few media reports:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071402076.html

Dannenman, day job, accountant, not a pro.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-tournaments/event.php?id=1228&screen=writeup&writeup_id=267

Black, lived in a monestary for the last few years. Not a pro, at least these last few years.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Nickname:
Berka

Hometown:
Umea

Birth date:
June 23rd, 1978

How did you qualify for the WSOP:
$33 satellite

WSOP money finishes:
0

How long have you been playing:
All my life, but 3 years as a pro.

What player do you most respect:
Don’t know

Your most proud poker moment:
This one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Above is Daniel Bergsdorf's questionaire results from Cardplayer. http://www.cardplayer.com/final27/

[ QUOTE ]
As for the remaining players, my two favorites are Andy and Tex. I think both are very good players, and both seem to be very good human beings as well. Based upon my sparse knowledge, they would make the greatest champions of our game for the next year.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Fossilman's pot today in this forum. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2879440&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=1&vc=1

You seem like a real nit. I gather your definition of a pro is someone who is listed in the Hendon mob database. I don't agree with that. I am a tournmanet pro, but I am not listed in the Hendon mob database and I didn't play in the WSOP.

[blufish]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the criteria being used for being a "pro" here? That they have played in some big events before? That they make a living playing poker? Seems like there is a big difference between these categories.

I mean, Andy Black has been in a Bhuddist Monestary for the last 3 years. Was he hustling the monks in there? Anyone have confirmation on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I needed a laugh... great post...