[Smoothcall]

How does one become a top WPT player? Does one have to be willing to risk there tournament life making a gutsy all in bluff. And playing aggressively not fearing ruin throughout a tourney? What makes these aggressive players that seem to rise to the top have in common? I would say aggression and fearlessness. Do you have to have this to be great? Or is there more roads than one to achieve being a top tourney player?

For instance a Dan Harrington i think differs from these other players but still may be a top player. He seems to play more of a tight to the vest game and survival thorugh alot of the tourney except for a few exception when he makes a move. But even his moves he doesnt risk all his chips and his tournament life usually. My style is more in line of how Dan harrington(not saying as good as him, just meaning playing a tight to the vest survival game) would play. But i'm wondering if it is better to throw this style out the window and look to emualte the aggressive players style. As there seem to be many more of the aggressive(ala Gus Hansen) players doing well than the Dan Harrington's and Dewey Tomnko's.

So what do you guys think? Can either style achieve the same goals? Or is one far better than the other? I think if the styles earned the same amount of money over a lifetime(hypothetically, they may not, but for argument sake) the aggressive player would win more tournies and get more money through books commercials etc.

One last thing. For the people(me included sometimes) that see plays that look like awful plays, and maybe they are awful plays. But maybe these are the plays that got them to the final table and they live or die by what got them there. Although i think the truley great players should be able to adjust from plays that got them there and what needs to be done at the final table. Just saying maybe these plays that look very stupid are plays that have made them beat these big fields and get there. And sometimes costs them a high finish at a final table but when it works brings them victory. Like Amir Vahedi at the wsop me when moneymaker won. He cost himslef alot of money as he was one of the chip leaders with moneymaker and sammy. But Amir wins many tournaments playing that style at final tables. I think this may be an extreme case and Amir just played badly. But the idea of bluffing alot of chips and getting in the face of the other leaders is what has won him so many tournies. So maybe we shouldn't 2nd guess them everytime they make what looks to be an awful play.

Ok i'm done. What you guys think?