Andy Glazer "Internet Players take Skill out of the game"

[Stagemusic]

Article on CNN this morning. Some interesting quotes and views from "Poker Authorities".

CNN WSOP Article (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/05/31/pokerworldseries.ap/index.html)

[Myrtle]

In this particular case, if the inference is that because Fossil won his seat online, and therefore he is an “Internet player”, that it truly laughable to anyone who is aware of the reality of the situation.

I write this not to defend Greg, but to point out the huge flaw in logic in making such assumptive statements.

It seems to me that the underlying insinuation being discussed is that “unknown Internet” players are not as good as “well-known Professional” players. I think we all have to be very careful before we swallow that premise as gospel truth.

When Lederer, Negrenneau, Ivey, Hellmuth or any other recognized “pro” plays online, can they now be classified as an “internet” player, hence relegating them to what appears to be the common assumption that internet players are a cut below “real” players? Of course not….that’s simply bad thinking.

My gut tells me that part of the answer is that it’s a numbers game. When we contrast the typical “B&M-play” experience that most of us have vs. the typical “Internet-play” we encounter, a couple of things stand out in my mind.

- Most of our live play competition is, by practicality, drawn from a much smaller pool of potential opponents. This being the case, it is easier for us to get an overall “handle” on our opposition.

- Contrast that with Internet play, where, because of the much larger opponent pool, there is a much greater spread in opponents cultures, styles, skill-level and thinking.

Just these two issues alone, generate a very complex set of sub-issues and questions regarding attempting to make any kind of a reasonable delineation between the two classes.

In the end, it’s a lot easier to make broad generalizations regarding the differences, but I don’t think most of them really get us anywhere, other than to reinforce our anecdotal preconceptions, which in most cases get us in big trouble.

The bottom line here is in our ability to make adjustments. Before we can make adjustments, we must know be able to define what has changed.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
For the second straight year, an Internet unknown won the famed World Series of Poker

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever advantage the pros once held over the amateurs seems to have dissipated

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Players can get a huge amount of experience in a short time playing online

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this applies to Greg very well, it's obviously that the writer of this article doesn't know of Greg. He may be unknown to the writers of this article, but he's been on 2+2, and been a highly respected writer and player, for a long time. Greg has also been playing live for a long time, long before the internet thing got going.

It's ironic that the media is so desperate to get their cinderella story that they'll ignore the facts and not bother trying to figure them out either before they go to printing.

al

[hutz]

[ QUOTE ]
It's ironic that the media is so desperate to get their cinderella story that they'll ignore the facts and not bother trying to figure them out either before they go to printing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure it's ironic. It seems "intellectually lazy" would be a better description. The fact is, though, that the writer and/or editor of the piece should be forgiven -- they are just second-rate Internet journalists, afterall.

[T0asty]

Heh, I could have pre-written this article before he won the event. It was obvious that if anyone "unknown" won and had won there seat on the internet or wasn't a full time player, there would be hit with this story.

[citanul]

As others here have noted, this article is mostly just sad as a piece of journalism for it's laziness.

Speaking with a friend a few nights ago, we decided that the FossilMan story is much more compelling the way it is than the way the fairy tale writers would have it.

If there are two generalizable themes to the "American Story," they are 1) the everyman being able to win when no one thought he could (Moneymaker, or Varkoni is perhaps a better example, since MM actually is a decent card player) and 2) Hard work and years of slogging away pays off. This would I think be Greg's story, if I were spinning it for ESPN.

Then again, I may just be a sucker for something resembling the truth.

So what do you guys think would be the best for ratings "story" to spin around Greg, and on the other hand, which do you think ESPN will do?

citanul

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
As others here have noted, this article is mostly just sad as a piece of journalism for it's laziness.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't that the same thing that many of us at this very board did with Moneymaker last year....we only saw a select few hands on tv, yet because he was an unknown and caught ONE lucky break(8s vs As), we assumed he was a lucky amateur.

Why do we expect the general media to do anything differently with Greg? If anything we(this board) are getting what we deserve for being so judgmental of Moneymaker without truly knowing about his poker game.

[charlie_t_jr]

[ QUOTE ]
It's ironic that the media is so desperate to get their cinderella story that they'll ignore the facts and not bother trying to figure them out either before they go to printing.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironic? Surprising? Hardly, watch any CNN, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather newscasts....talk about fairytales....ignoring facts is an every day business for these guys/gals.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure it's ironic. It seems "intellectually lazy" would be a better description. The fact is, though, that the writer and/or editor of the piece should be forgiven -- they are just second-rate Internet journalists, afterall.

[/ QUOTE ]

.....BINGO!!!! I am constantly amazed at the epidemic-like growth of this affliction throughout all walks of our society.

..."give the lemmings a short, simple sound bite in somewhat of an authorative manner, and, regardless of it's veracity, it will soon become adopted as common truth".

People want simple answers to complex questions. I chalk so much of this up to Hutz's "intellectually lazy" description.

How many times in posts here at 2+2 have you seen someone virtually insist on reducing the game to simple black & white statements?

No problem, as far as I'm concerned....let those who do this continue along in their own self-imposed state of ignorant bliss....and continue to contribute to the pot....... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure it's ironic. It seems "intellectually lazy" would be a better description. The fact is, though, that the writer and/or editor of the piece should be forgiven -- they are just second-rate Internet journalists, afterall.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, what a perfect post. nh.

[midas]

With 2000+ entries in the WSOP how do you think the field breaks down?

Names/Pros - 10%
Very Good/Experienced Players like Greg (30%)
Truely dead money - 60%

The professional players don't stand a chance - the dead money will bust some of the pros out with bad beats and unpredictable play. The very good players will still vastly outnumber the pros and take down their share of pros
with better play and bad beats. The pros just don't have enough bodies to last out the battle.

With that said, Harrington making two final tables in a row definitely puts him in the top 10 in the world.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
In this particular case, if the inference is that because Fossil won his seat online, and therefore he is an “Internet player”, that it truly laughable to anyone who is aware of the reality of the situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Andy was referring to Greg in his comment, because in his WSOP report on his website, he seemed to know quite a bit about Greg and 2+2.

[Ulysses]

Greg Raymer, an experienced tourney and live cardroom poker player who also plays on the Internet, decided it would be more cost effective to play online satellites rather than directly pay the $10,000 entry. After investing a few thousand in these satellites, he won in one of the final satellites available, a $150 tournament. In the WSOP, Greg played his standard solid tourney game and managed to be lucky enough to only have two bad beats in the whole tourney, and all of his hands held up when he went against other players w/ very big stacks. This combination of skilled play and good luck led to him winning the WSOP.

Blah, pretty boring.

[Dante]

I think the point of Glazer's quote is that given 2 players of a particular skill level, the "worse" (note not necessarily "bad") player can negate the "better" player's skill by frequently moving all-in, and not allowing the other player to "play". Basically using the stack to negate a lot of skills. This is why Daniel Negreanu and other pros feel pot limit would make a much better choice for the Championship, because a strategy of constantly moving all-in isn't possible, forcing actual "play" and more decisions....

[davidross]

I didn't read the link provided, but Andy's column in Cardplayer was on the same topic, and I didn't think he was dissing any individual players, just that the internet players seem to prefer the all-in move pre-flop turning the tournament into a series of coinflips, and the long time pro's hate this, as it seems to take away their perceived edge. Much as Sklansky suggested with his "System". He felt that pot limit might be a better system for the Final events.

[MicroBob]

i too felt that glazer's quote was taken a bit out of context.

what he says IS in fact true....less experienced players can negate the disadvantage with an 'all-in' strategy.
but the way he was quoted seemed to imply that Raymer was one of these types of players...which Glazer clearly knows is not the case.

[chrisjp]

Daniel is of course right that there is considerably more skill in Pot Limit than No Limit.

But so what? The WSOP No Limit finals has a rich history, and the excitement generated by the event, both live and on ESPN, is incredible and quite good for the marketing of the industry.

It takes a tremendous amount of skill to win the big one. Anyone who knows anything knows that Daniel's overall trophy at the WSOP is "technically" more impressive than being champ.

Who cares what the public and media think. They always screw everything up anyway.

Leave the WSOP alone!