Best Pros for Various Categories
 

Who would you consider... (all questions relate to NL texas holdem tournaments)

Best player?

Most aggressive player?

Best at making correct reads?

Best at post-flop decision making?

Most feared?

Unreadable?

Best heads up?

Best at large fields?

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

Most Aggressive is easily Tuan Le.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

I'm answering Phil Ivey for 90% of those.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

As far as best at large fields, Harrington would be a leading candidate because of his performance in the 2003 and 2004 ME.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as best at large fields, Harrington would be a leading candidate because of his performance in the 2003 and 2004 ME.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gotta go with Raymer on that one.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

Raymer came in like, what, 25th this year. Obviously impressive, but there is something to be said for final tables, of which Harrington made two in a row.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Raymer came in like, what, 25th this year. Obviously impressive, but there is something to be said for final tables, of which Harrington made two in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can be said that greg raymer outlasted about 7000 people in his two years and Harrington outlasted about 3500 in his two years.

Two things: First, the results over a span of two tournaments don't really tell you anything. Second, if you are going by results, Raymer is the clear answer.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who would you consider... (all questions relate to NL texas holdem tournaments)

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I scoffed this off at first, but now I think it might be kind of fun, so long as we realize that we're mostly just guessing, and don't put too much stock in the little we've seen on tv, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Best player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil Ivey. John Juanda is a very close second. Juanda has pretty much inarguably the best tournament record of anyone in the last five years, but Ivey appears not to play in as many events. Daniel Negreanu, Barry Greenstein, and Paul Phillips have all said that Ivey is at or near the top of their respective lists for touranment nlh, and his record in big tournaments is like something out of a nightmare. I mean it's so good that it's way beyond the limit for how good it's possible to be at poker; he has to be getting lucky to some degree. But even so.

[ QUOTE ]
Most aggressive player?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is tricky because I'm sure there's some psycho we've never heard of who never wins anything, but among the top pros, I'm inclined to say John Phan. There are lots of players who are known for being totally fearless, raising lots of pots, etc., but you never hear anybody even mention Phan without bringing up that he tries to run over every table. It really seems like he's in overdrive mode 100% of the time. Tuan Le and Hon Le also come to mind, but Phan's my pick.

[ QUOTE ]
Best at making correct reads?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard anybody praised more explicitly for their reading ability than Jennifer Harman. I suspect that there are players out there who are basically coasting by with little-to-no fundamental knowledge on their ability to read perfectly, but Jen's still my pick.

[ QUOTE ]
Best at post-flop decision making?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gus Hansen. Lots of other names come to mind, but when you think about people who play phenomenal post-flop poker, you have to imagine that someone who plays as many hands as Gus must be pretty good at knowing when his third pair is good, etc. Negreanu's also made a point of being proud of his post-flop skill, and he'd probably be my second choice.

[ QUOTE ]
Most feared?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ivey. It's amazing what shutting the hell up will do for one's mystique. Johnny Chan also comes to mind.

[ QUOTE ]
Unreadable?

[/ QUOTE ]

This one's almost impossible, having never played with any of them. I'll default to Ivey, because it's hard for me to imagine that someone who's supposed to be so focused and studied would be predictable.

[ QUOTE ]
Best heads up?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not even going to venture a guess. I remember Negreanu writing that he'd be most scared to play Ivey and John Hennigan, so, whatever.

[ QUOTE ]
Best at large fields?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say anybody who knows the math very well. It seems like mathematical players, like maybe Chris Ferguson or Andy Bloch, would have a more fundamental understanding the strategy in a huge field. Like the need to gamble early, I guess.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Raymer came in like, what, 25th this year. Obviously impressive, but there is something to be said for final tables, of which Harrington made two in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]
No offense, but that makes no sense. YOu have to look at the field size in relation to how they placed. 2003 the field size was around 800 and Harrington made the final table. 2004 the field size was around 2500 and both made the final table and Raymer won it. 2005 the field size was around 6000 and Raymer came in 25th (after a really dumb beat).
Frankly this whole "best at..." debate is silly because you can make a legit argument for any player. You could legit. make an argument that Matasow is better at post-flop decisions than Jen H. Or that Chip Reese is better all around than the OP's man crush Phil Ivey.
Armchair poker players just aren't qualified to make these type classifications.




that's what Barry Greenstein is for [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

I love posters like you. You can't contribute anything to the discussion, which will obviously be subjective, and so you pretend to be smart and tell everyone that they do not have the credentials to post.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who would you consider... (all questions relate to NL texas holdem tournaments)

Best player? Phil Ivey

Most aggressive player? Layne Flack

Best at making correct reads? Marcel Luske

Best at post-flop decision making? Phil Hellmuth

Most feared? Phil Ivey

Unreadable? Chris Fergusson

Best heads up? Doyle Brunson

Best at large fields? Dan Harrington

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
I love posters like you. You can't contribute anything to the discussion, which will obviously be subjective, and so you pretend to be smart and tell everyone that they do not have the credentials to post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm sure that posting about the most UNREADABLE professional isn't subjective at all on your part. You've played countless hours with these professionals, so I'm sure you know exactly how READABLE or FEARED someone is. Good work.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love posters like you. You can't contribute anything to the discussion, which will obviously be subjective, and so you pretend to be smart and tell everyone that they do not have the credentials to post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm sure that posting about the most UNREADABLE professional isn't subjective at all on your part. You've played countless hours with these professionals, so I'm sure you know exactly how READABLE or FEARED someone is. Good work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you don't know what the word subjective means.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

Objectivity is a matter of fact, subjectivity is more opinion based; a point of view.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who would you consider... (all questions relate to NL texas holdem tournaments)

Best player?

Most aggressive player?

Best at making correct reads?

Best at post-flop decision making?

Most feared?

Unreadable?

Best heads up?

Best at large fields?

[/ QUOTE ]

These questions cannot be answered without having played extensively with whatever pool of players you are drawing from.

For example, the first response said Layne Flack is more aggresive than Phil I-- nope not even close.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Objectivity is a matter of fact, subjectivity is more opinion based; a point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and there's no "fact" of who is the best at this and that. It's all subjective.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

Best player? Phil Ivey

Most aggressive player? John Phan

Best at making correct reads? Daniel Negreanu

Best at post-flop decision making? Phil Ivey

Most feared? Phil Ivey

Unreadable? Phil Ivey

Best heads up? Phil Ivey

Best at large fields? Phil Ivey

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

I vote Chris Ferguson for unreadable.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

Best Player- Ivey
Most Agressive- Tie between Tuan Le and David Pham
Best at Making Correct reads- Negreanu... Its just sick sometimes.
Best at post-flop decision making- Ivey
Most Feared- Ivey
Unreadable- Ivey/Ferguson/Laak
Heads up- God I hate to say this... Hellmuth.
Large Fields- Raymer

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

A lot of people are saying Negreanu for 'best reads' but keep in mind that a lot of the other pros are making the same reads they just don't say them out loud every time [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

Best heads up limit david oppenhiemer and i venture to say that at plo heads up the devilfish is a 60% favorite over anybody except maybe scott williamson and sam farha

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Objectivity is a matter of fact, subjectivity is more opinion based; a point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and there's no "fact" of who is the best at this and that. It's all subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]
but you're still a moron for voicing your choices on a subject that you really know nothing about. What exactly was the point of your original post? So other idiots like you can just quote what they hear on TV? I don't usually post angry replies like this, but you're just a moron.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Objectivity is a matter of fact, subjectivity is more opinion based; a point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and there's no "fact" of who is the best at this and that. It's all subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]
but you're still a moron for voicing your choices on a subject that you really know nothing about. What exactly was the point of your original post? So other idiots like you can just quote what they hear on TV? I don't usually post angry replies like this, but you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Best heads up limit david oppenhiemer and i venture to say that at plo heads up the devilfish is a 60% favorite over anybody except maybe scott williamson and sam farha

[/ QUOTE ]

How could David Oppenheim possibly be the best in the world at heads up limit hold'em if his name doesn't (as far as I know) pop up here?

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm answering Phil Ivey for 90% of those.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

Best player? Phil Ivey

Most aggressive player? John Phan

Best at making correct reads? Negreanu

Best at post-flop decision making? Erik Seidel

Most feared? Ivey

Unreadable? Jesus

Best heads up? Hellmuth

Best at large fields? Ivey

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

Ive only played with like eight of these guys how can I make a reliable decision?

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Best player?


[/ QUOTE ]
Jesus


[ QUOTE ]
Most aggressive player?

[/ QUOTE ]
Gus Hanson


[ QUOTE ]
Best at making correct reads?

[/ QUOTE ]
Phil Helmuth


[ QUOTE ]
Best at post-flop decision making?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dan Negreanu


[ QUOTE ]
Most feared?


[/ QUOTE ]
Phil Ivey


[ QUOTE ]
Unreadable?

[/ QUOTE ]
Phil Ivey


[ QUOTE ]
Best heads up?


[/ QUOTE ]
Johnny Chan


[ QUOTE ]
Best at large fields?

[/ QUOTE ]
Greg Raymer

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Objectivity is a matter of fact, subjectivity is more opinion based; a point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and there's no "fact" of who is the best at this and that. It's all subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]
but you're still a moron for voicing your choices on a subject that you really know nothing about. What exactly was the point of your original post? So other idiots like you can just quote what they hear on TV? I don't usually post angry replies like this, but you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[/ QUOTE ]
the obvious response by someone who who has nothing else to say.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

I like how the player we see the least of, phil ivey, gets the most votes.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

Best at large fields.... Dan Harrington. I think I remember that he went to 2 ME final tables with those huge player pools and went pretty deep this year. Greg, allthough he is a great player at the big tournaments, Dan making 2 final tables through 2 of the deepest fields in tournament poker is amazing to say the least.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Raymer came in like, what, 25th this year. Obviously impressive, but there is something to be said for final tables, of which Harrington made two in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]


He won once also

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

Best at making reads? Phil Hellmuth, he can dodge bullets ya know.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Objectivity is a matter of fact, subjectivity is more opinion based; a point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and there's no "fact" of who is the best at this and that. It's all subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

But for the category at hand, the original response was attempting to use an objective criteria, which the responder pointed out that even under that objective criteria it was wrong. It may be subjective, but when someone tries to use objective criteria to judge it, and then uses it incorrectly, then we have a right to debate it.

Re: Best Pros for Various Categories
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like how the player we see the least of, phil ivey, gets the most votes.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by that? Ivey has probably made more TV telecasts than any other player.