[ohgeetee]

[ QUOTE ]
but it is this 'tournament' luck factor that is really driving the popularity of poker (Moneymaker, WPT, ESPN etc...)

My impression is that Barry G is basically calling Gus Hansen and Daniel Negreanu the real live ones... and he is implying it about guys like John Juanda, Phil Hellmuth and Chris Ferguson.

They really ought to get something like 'Live at the Bike' going for the 'big game' or just have it on whatever the biggest game at the Bellagio or Wynn is... That could be HUGE.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're putting a lot of words into Barry's mouth IMO. he gave us a list of the top 5, and didn't mention anyone below the top 5. he listed no names, and im sure that was on purpose. If he were wrong, I think you would see a slew of pissed off pros mentioning it, but there simply arent. I bet if you asked most folks at that table who the top 5 were, they would probably agree.

He mentioned the people the media points to as being great. This list in my mind are people like Chris Moneymaker, Greg Raymer, Scott Fischman, Dutch Boyd, Phil Hellmuth, etc.

Does anyone question that Moneymaker would be out of his league sitting at the big game? Raymer is good, but could he handle the big game? not at this moment IMO, but i bet if he worked his way up he could do it. Hellmuth has never won a bracelet outside of holdem... is there any question he would lose in a game where more than just holdem were the focus? Fischman and Boyd and the crew? There just isn't a chance.

Then there are the questionables... Negreanu, Forrest, Todd Brunson, Jennifer Harmon, etc. Barry makes no inference about these guys, except that they are 6th or lower in his ranking of top players. is 6th really that bad? who says which place a person becomes a losing player?

Barry is an intelligent person, and trying to make inferences from purposely left out names is a bad call IMO. he said the names he said on purpose, and he left names out on purpose.

People beg and beg and beg to get the scoop on who is a winner and who isn't, but when someone steps up and gives a bit of insight, so many more inferences are drawn, its just going to stop more from stepping forward. The subject is so sewing circle, few people even understand the stakes and representations of the big game in different locations, and it becomes like an urban legend. Barry has even said that he only has 10 hours logged with Negreanu. These guys are playing poker sometimes 24 hours at a time, yet daniel has only played 10 hours with him ever? There are so many questions surrounding exactly how things are handled it is hard for anyone to formulate any meaningful counterargument to barry, because he is the only one talking that has any first hand info.

the bottom line is, anyone not sitting down at the big game is not in contention, because if they could win at it, they would. thats as cut and dry as it gets. If you feel a person could win "if they had the bankroll" you are completely wrong, because if they could, they would. there is no logical argument as to why someone would not want to make more money for the same time investment if they could do so, especially when the only real difference is where you're sitting and who you're sitting with, as long as your skill level is appropriate.

I think the bottom line is, the guys hocking DVDs and doing more promotional crap are doing so because they are making more doing it than playing poker, whether it is because they make the same amount for a lesser time investment, or they just flat out make more money.