POLL-my first serious poll

["spaceman"Bryce]

[jah0550]

Two words: field size. Harrington passed 2600 last year and 6000+ this year. I think Stu would never win this day and age. Hell, he won it when there was like 200-300 people in the tourney. I wish I would have seen him play with a field this big.

["spaceman"Bryce]

hmm thats what i thought.Anyone wanna take up stu ungars cause?

[TomHimself]

dan only made 2 final tables in a row, which is still amazing

["spaceman"Bryce]

So do you think that two years in a row is better than winning three times?I cant really bring myself to say that.Dan needs to make it again to cement his legendary status.

[TransientR]

Remember too that Harrington also won it.

I agree with the folks who voted for Harrington. A massive field makes it much harder to get to the final table. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this year's winner is a relative unknown. The luck factor is that strong.

Poker isn't like tennis. If you had 6000 players in a tennis tournament, 99% of them would have near zero chance to defeat Roger Federer if matched against him. But assuming a decent number of competent players in the WSOP, luck will play a big role.

Frank

[jah0550]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker isn't like tennis. If you had 6000 players in a tennis tournament, 99% of them would have near zero chance to defeat Roger Federer if matched against him.
Frank

[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't? Also luck might have a small factor to winning a poker tournament. Poker is not a sport. It is gambling.

[Chimera]

Even though I voted for Harrington, there is one thing I'd like to point out on Ungar's behalf. Generally speaking, winning a tournament requires a somewhat different strategy (based less on chip preservation and more on chip accumulation), compared to the strategy required to make a final table.

While I never saw Ungar play (at least not with the hole card cams), I think it's safe to say that he employed a much more high risk style than Harrington. Given that, it's actually fairly remarkable that he was able to get to 3 final tables, much less to win them all.

Nevertheless, the sheer size of the respective fields makes Harrington's accomplishment arguably the most impressive in the history of tournament poker, IMO.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]

It isn't? Also luck might have a small factor to winning a poker tournament. Poker is not a sport. It is gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically speaking, poker is a game. A sport requires physical activity. But if you consider the endurance requirements to play a 7 day tournament, you might very well consider tournament poker a sport.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
hmm thats what i thought.Anyone wanna take up stu ungars cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll make the case for Ungar. Remember, he won. Period. To make the final table, you only need to be in the top 9. I don't have the numbers Ungar beat, but from a pure odds standpoint, it's got to be close. Then throw in the fact that to win three times against much tougher average competition than the monster fields today, where it's tough slogging the whole way, and winning means beating everyone, no room for error, I'll take Ungar.

Harrington making three final tables would be a great feat, but I don't think even Dan would compare it to winning 3 times, even in the "old" days.