Martin Aigner
11-26-2003, 03:48 AM
This might become one of the most useless posts at these forums this year (Iīm actually not even quite sure it this is the right forum for this post), so be careful if you tend to read it /images/graemlins/smile.gif
I just checked pokerpages.com. The final table of the 10k buy in event seemed to be a pretty tough one. Several of the top name players were playing. Anyway, these names didnīt place too high. 5th TJ Cloutier, 6th Daniel Negreanu, 7th Thor Hansen, 8th Mike Matusow. I guess thatīs what you can call a surprise. Winner was John Myung, according to pokerpages a 29 year old accountant. Runner up was Brian Haveson, who won a tourney at the World Poker Finals 2002 and finished 2nd in a WSOP tourney. I admit that I didnīt know him, although heīs obviously a succesful and somewhat known pro. Anyway, I think if you would have bet the field against TJ, Daniel,Thor and Mike the day before the final table you would have gotten pretty good odds. And I donīt want to imagine the odds of none of them placing higher than 5th!
Which leads me to another point. Anyone else thinks that 2003 was the year of the unknown players? Whenever I check out the results of the tourneys at pokerpages, lets say in the range of 300 - 1000 buy in events, it seems to me that in the last 7 or 8 years (the time I play poker and follow the results) there never had been this little "name players" at the final tables. OK, one can argue that at the Player Of The Year ranking by Card Player there are still the same players on top as in the previous years. But this might be simply for the fact that these players play on the tourney trail 12 months a year. Although in the 10k buy in event you find these "top players" on the final table quite often. Is is simply a matter of fact that these high buy in events are played with 1 or 2 hours rounds and lots of chips or is it only because 10k is quite some money for most of the players? Most probably both, but I think that the fact that if the 500 and 1000 buy in events were played in a slower way, too, there would be lots of surprises, too.
One more thought about the 10k buy in at the Sands. Iīm not sure, but I think this was an WPT event, wasnīt it? I know there was some discussion about the WPT banning deals, and I donīt want to restart this discussion again, but anyone thinks that it makes any sense to pay 10k for the buy in (meaning actually paying it, not winning a seat in a satellite) when 9th place gets you only 19.400$? Donīt forget, you have to play against the toughest field in the world. On the other side this fact might be even good for poker. I wouldnīt play in one of these events without winning a satellite. And I think there are lots of other players who think this way, too. And this might be even better for poker. At the WSOP championchip event you have something like 10% "name players" and 90% unknown players. At the WPT events most of these "name players" are in the field, but this time the percentage might be something like 40/60. So there is a high probability that the well known players, the ones the medias write and talk about, will be seen on TV quite often. This canīt be bad at all, since the audience wants players, who can become their idols, to be seen as often as possible. And of course itīs perfect it there are some underdogs at the table, who finish high in the money, so that everybody can see these events can become a wish-come-true for everybody. Therefor itīs quite possible that the fields in these WPT events shouldnīt grow to fast.
Just my opinion.
Best regards
Martin Aigner
I just checked pokerpages.com. The final table of the 10k buy in event seemed to be a pretty tough one. Several of the top name players were playing. Anyway, these names didnīt place too high. 5th TJ Cloutier, 6th Daniel Negreanu, 7th Thor Hansen, 8th Mike Matusow. I guess thatīs what you can call a surprise. Winner was John Myung, according to pokerpages a 29 year old accountant. Runner up was Brian Haveson, who won a tourney at the World Poker Finals 2002 and finished 2nd in a WSOP tourney. I admit that I didnīt know him, although heīs obviously a succesful and somewhat known pro. Anyway, I think if you would have bet the field against TJ, Daniel,Thor and Mike the day before the final table you would have gotten pretty good odds. And I donīt want to imagine the odds of none of them placing higher than 5th!
Which leads me to another point. Anyone else thinks that 2003 was the year of the unknown players? Whenever I check out the results of the tourneys at pokerpages, lets say in the range of 300 - 1000 buy in events, it seems to me that in the last 7 or 8 years (the time I play poker and follow the results) there never had been this little "name players" at the final tables. OK, one can argue that at the Player Of The Year ranking by Card Player there are still the same players on top as in the previous years. But this might be simply for the fact that these players play on the tourney trail 12 months a year. Although in the 10k buy in event you find these "top players" on the final table quite often. Is is simply a matter of fact that these high buy in events are played with 1 or 2 hours rounds and lots of chips or is it only because 10k is quite some money for most of the players? Most probably both, but I think that the fact that if the 500 and 1000 buy in events were played in a slower way, too, there would be lots of surprises, too.
One more thought about the 10k buy in at the Sands. Iīm not sure, but I think this was an WPT event, wasnīt it? I know there was some discussion about the WPT banning deals, and I donīt want to restart this discussion again, but anyone thinks that it makes any sense to pay 10k for the buy in (meaning actually paying it, not winning a seat in a satellite) when 9th place gets you only 19.400$? Donīt forget, you have to play against the toughest field in the world. On the other side this fact might be even good for poker. I wouldnīt play in one of these events without winning a satellite. And I think there are lots of other players who think this way, too. And this might be even better for poker. At the WSOP championchip event you have something like 10% "name players" and 90% unknown players. At the WPT events most of these "name players" are in the field, but this time the percentage might be something like 40/60. So there is a high probability that the well known players, the ones the medias write and talk about, will be seen on TV quite often. This canīt be bad at all, since the audience wants players, who can become their idols, to be seen as often as possible. And of course itīs perfect it there are some underdogs at the table, who finish high in the money, so that everybody can see these events can become a wish-come-true for everybody. Therefor itīs quite possible that the fields in these WPT events shouldnīt grow to fast.
Just my opinion.
Best regards
Martin Aigner