which is better for us?

[jdl22]

We were discussing this on IRC. PopinJay said that he hopes one of the famous pros wins. My gut reaction and that of another chatter (sorry can't remember the nick, Wakko maybe?) was that we hope that another amateur of amateurs wins. However he presented his argument which was fairly convincing. His argument is that if a pro wins it will demonstrate that poker is a game of skill. While that may seem bad for us, it could be good. Everybody thinks they are good at poker whether they are or not. Hence if people think they are good (when really they're fish) and they think it's a skill game they will be more inclined to play.

Honestly I'm not sure either way.

Any thoughts?

ps it would probably be best if this didn't break down into a full blown debate over whether this year luck was a bigger factor or not. Perhaps we could just discuss whether or not the perception of skill game vs luck game is better.

[Nepa]

Just because a player is a "pro" doesn't mean he's not going to make some mistakes. Even a pro would have to get lucky in this field.

Also, There is no way a total fish would be able to win.

[GrinningBuddha]

Depends what you mean by "better".

If you mean what will bring more fish to the tables, then Joe Nobody needs to win (like last year). Frank Schmo and Jake Schmuck will see it and say "Hey, I could do that, I have $25 for a satellite. What's a satellite?"

If you mean what will bring poker more respect as a sport (hobby, whatever), then a name needs to win. Then everyone can point out how he/she has put in their time and risen through the ranks, yadda yadda yadda. They can prove how much skill is involved in the game and how it shouldn't be ostracized like it is.

Either way, the $5 million first prize will make news. There will be more players after this event airs on ESPN no matter who wins, I'd wager.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because a player is a "pro" doesn't mean he's not going to make some mistakes. Even a pro would have to get lucky in this field.

Also, There is no way a total fish would be able to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

I played HU in a SnG against a guy who called all small preflop raises, bet every flop he hit and check-folded every flop he missed to any raise I made. I started HU 4:1 in his favor. I promise you a fish like that (despite taking second in the SnG) cannot win, despite whatever card luck he had to get as far as he did. Sometimes luck can bring people far, but they will never win the whole thing.

[eastbay]

Easy. You don't hear dead money standing in line for their first (second, third) tournament talking about how great it was that TJ Cloutier made another final table. They're talking about Moneymaker. Every time.

eastbay

[redwings03]

It is definitely luck and skill. Any pro or amateur can win if they get presented with a continuing set of favorable situations. I am not saying a terrible amateur could ever win, but an amateur with ability when placed in the right circumstances. Further, Almost any player (pro or amateur) will make several bad moves and have to get lucky to win (Moneymaker 88 v Brenes AA is case in point or this year we have heard Brunson's flush draw v Lederer's top set). Clearly these were "mistake" move ins as neither would have occurred had the Brunson or Money knew their opponents' holdings. Luck is a reality in poker tournaments, true skill will prevail in the long term perhaps in lifetime WSOP cashes or something like that but any given tournament is up for grabs.

[nolanfan34]

This is going to sound stupid, but in the end it doesn't matter who wins. As long as it's on as long as possible on ESPN and WPT, new fish will come swimming in.

Think about last year. Yes, Moneymaker was a compelling story. Amateur accountant, won $2.5 million, blah blah blah. That brought a great number of new players to the game.

But who else were people really talking about? Farha. At least among my friends, they were far more interested in the seasoned pro Farha. He just looked cool with the cigarette, bluffing, talking smack at the table, etc.

In the end I think the combined lure was "I could make it like this Moneymaker guy...and I'd get to play against guys like Hellmuth, Farha, Ivey, etc." It's a dual attraction.

So, what matters for this year? All that really matters is that at least ONE amateur makes the final table. Because the money at that level is going to be so high, it will be plenty interesting to people that someone who "isn't a pro" could make it that far. And of course ESPN will be playing that angle up.

The sport of poker can't lose either way in my opinion.