WSOP Online qualifiers vs. tournament pro entries

[PokerPaul]

In response to WSOP scrapping post by bluebear here.....

He makes some good points (raising entry fee for "biggest" poker tournament in world, # entries making it more crapshoot etc.)

However, i totally disagree with the notion or implication that BM tourney pros are better players than online qualifiers.

In fact, i'll bet there are some pretty damn good online pros who could teach some of the BM pros a lesson. Granted, there are also many beginners and fish playing online, more so than in a BM environment, but no doubt some of the best poker players in the world come from the internet today.

In fact, if someone tells me they have 3 years experience on the internet fulltime, they have likely played more hands and seen more poker scenarios than a BM pro in 7 years.

I think too many BM's have this chip on their shoulder that internet players are inferior to them, but thats OK. I don't think it was just pure luck that allowed moneymaker, varkonyi, hellpi etc and many others to succeed at that level.

Didnt Ferguson also start from the internet?

[M.B.E.]

Good post PokerPaul. I agree.

It's just crazy to assume that someone who beats hundreds of players in an online tourney to win a WSOP seat will be "dead money" at the Horseshoe.

[PokerPaul]

Exactly.

In fact, i have found that the live BM games i sometimes attend to be easier money than lots of the online games for the same limits.

Whenever i go to vegas (usually twice a year for 3-4 days), i always try to play in as many of those mirage evening tournaments, against live players, many of them supposed poker pros.

So far, i have played in 13 of them, and have been in the money 7 times. and 3 of those times in the top 4, and winning it outright once ($4400 win).

So, if me, a parttime internet player for only 2 years (not a pro, but a decent player), can handle and beat those live mirage tournaments against seasoned las vegas regulars consistantly, how can anyone say live players should be the ones winning and dominating these big tourneys.

In fact, i'll bet the amount of hands i have played online since then is more than most of those midlimit 'pros', meaning i am catching up to them in experience or even surpassing.

So let the live players look down upon internet qualifiers as 'dead money'. Isnt that what last years final table did to moneymaker?

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Your point about online players not being "dead money" is certainly true. However, if all I know about two players is that one of them has been making his living playing online for the last 3 years, and one of them has been making his living playing B&M poker for the last 3 years, I know which one I would bet on.

There are aspects of B&M poker that do not exist online, tells in particular. And somebody who has little or no experience outside of internet poker will likely fare very poorly in this regard. It may be that they can become a very good "live" poker player very quickly, but at least at first, they are going to be at a big disadvantage.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[snakehead]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it was just pure luck that allowed moneymaker, varkonyi, hellpi etc and many others to succeed at that level.


[/ QUOTE ]

you might want to rethink that one... and please don't lump ferguson in with those three.