[ QUOTE ]
I watched the first part of the final table WSOP and it seems like all Matusow does is whine. He thinks he's some kind of brilliant player but really all he did was play like a fish at a $11 SNG imo. The guy makes it to the final table out of thousands of players and he thinks it's due to his great play. No class at all.

"No justice when I play great."
"I played the best 6 days of my life."
After showing his 85s bluff: "I have to play great like that because I never get any cards or get a cooler (referring to his KK vs. AA)."

My question is: Do most players attribute their success in any given tournament to their great play? Do you think Hachem believes he won because he outplayed everyone or because he basically had the most luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, that's why Phil Ivey has had three top 25 finishes in the last four main events. That's why Harrington made back to back final tables. That's why Greg Raymer outlasted two ridiculous fields and almost repeated. That was Matusow's second straight deep run in the main event. There's no doubt you do need some luck to win or go deep in these things, but skill will surpass luck in the long run. Matusow is a great player with a big mouth, and if you don't like his attitude that's a whole lot different than saying he isn't a good player. He did just win the TOC and has been on a tear as of late. I don't even know what you're trying to say. It sounds like you don't think there's a big difference between the skill of a guy like Moneymaker compared to Phil Ivey.