Why is it if you do well in a TV tournament you are imediately BAD
 

Do Bulls have ears????

Re: Why is it if you do well in a TV tournament you are imediately BAD
 

Not sure if that is true.

The plays people sorta make fun of and pick on are when somebody calls a big bet with a raggedy hand...w/o proper pot odds to make the call. Thats why people ripped on Tuan Le....for calling with the worst hands w/o odds, and then getting lucky and winning. It didn't help that he was totally arrogant about it...like he not only deserved to win, but he was destined to win.

Calling a large perentage of your chip stack with an inferior hand is generally a horrible play in tournaments(while pushing with it is not so horrible).

I think maybe you misinterpret what others are writting or perhaps you are hearing only what you want to hear.

Re: Why is it if you do well in a TV tournament you are imediately BAD
 

TV editing and the networks glorifying all in bets, suckouts and crazy bets are part of that problem.

And yes, bulls do have ears.

Re: Why is it if you do well in a TV tournament you are imediately BAD
 

Two words: Robert Varkoni...he won the WSOP and hasn't done [censored] since then.

Re: Why is it if you do well in a TV tournament you are imediately BAD
 

do you think a "name" pro will win the main event within the next 10 years? Assuming poker stays this popular.

Re: Why is it if you do well in a TV tournament you are imediately BAD
 

Absolutely!

Anytime you mix in this many "rookies" you're bound to have a few win. But the cream usually rises to the top. Look at the rest of the final tables over the years...Harrington, Ferguson, etc... too many to list here. A big name will probably win this year.

Varkoni and Moneymaker were truly not qualified but got lucky at the right times. Moneymaker has improved but his game still needs work. IMO Varkoni will never be great.

But don't think that Fossilman's was a fluke. He is a top notch player that had great success in smaller tournies before. He is a math genius and has a "no fear" approach to the game. He is a true student of the game and works very hard at it. When he gets "hungry" again, he'll post more major wins. He is incredibly busy right now with all his responsibilties away from the game. And so I think his heart isn't in it at the moment. But he'll come back strong. I've known Greg for many years and he can play with the best.

Re: Why is it if you do well in a TV tournament you are imediately BAD
 

[ QUOTE ]
do you think a "name" pro will win the main event within the next 10 years? Assuming poker stays this popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but it depends on how large you consider the group of "name" pros to be. I would bet that there is at least a 30% chance that someone we've all heard of will win the ME sometime over the next 10 years. Possibly greater given the fact that every year the WPT and (previous year's) WSOP gives us more "name" pros.

Re: Why is it if you do well in a TV tournament you are imediately BAD
 

[ QUOTE ]
Two words: Robert Varkoni...he won the WSOP and hasn't done [censored] since then.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's that supposed to mean? Varkonyi is merely one example...are you implying that he's the reason others tend to hate anyone who wins, or do you believe that yourself? What about when the top pros take down tournies...we see that all the time on WPT, as opposed to the World Series, where it looks increasingly likely that anyone can win it due to the enormous amount of entries.

Re: Why is it if you do well in a TV tournament you are imediately BAD
 

how many were in the PPT

Re: Why is it if you do well in a TV tournament you are imediately BAD
 

[ QUOTE ]
do you think a "name" pro will win the main event within the next 10 years? Assuming poker stays this popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

With every televised episode of the WSOP this year, the number of "name" pro's will increase dramatically.
With this notion, a name pro will likely win in the next 10 years. If you mean the current name pros only, then likely not.