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

[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!