POLL-my first serious poll

[tolbiny]

By that definition writing your thesis is a sport.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
By that definition writing your thesis is a sport.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, cowchip tossing is a sport, so I guess slinging bullsheet should be considered one too. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[TransientR]

Yeah, the physical endurance needed to sit on your ass for 7 days staring at cards is miles above what is required to play 5 sets of tennis at a top level..lol.

Only an absolute prodigy like Agassi can play top flight tennis into his thirties..while, despite all the talk about physical conditioning being needed to play poker, a 400 lb Doyle Brunson did quite well for decades, and now at 70+ years of age he can still get it done.

I think the challenge of a long poker tournament is less physical, than mental.

Which makes Poker a game, IMO, not a sport.

Frank

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't.

Chan's back to back is better by far. In a post about 8 months ago I figured out approximate odds on accomplishing both things, and Chan's was about 15x or so less likely.

Now, if DH were to make final table THIS year, then yes, best ever.

[ZeeJustin]

Johnny Chan's 87/88/89 accomplishments > Ungar's

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
Chan's back to back is better by far.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I totally forgot about Chan, despite having watched Rounders less than a week earlier. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[builtiz]

I SAY UNGAR!

I just recently watched the movie on the bio of stuey ungar and it made and impression on me. He was probably the best all around card player in the last 30 years and perhaps ever. If he had stuck around i think he could have won it a 4th time by now.

He was really strung out after winning the first two and didn't really take it seriously until he won his third one for his daughter to see. Don't get me wrong harrington is the man at WSOP but i don't think he has quite the same card sense that Ungar had. Just read some of the hands ungar played to win the events, its pretty amazing how he just has a natural instinct and goes with it and hes dead on 99% of the time. I wish i could do that. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Johnny Chan's 87/88/89 accomplishments > Ungar's

[/ QUOTE ]

God yes.

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why speak in general? I think you need to adapt your "set-in-stone" theories for such large fields. I don't think you can fold your way to a final table in a field this size. While Action Dan has a reputation for being tight as a drum, he actually had to take quite a few chances, and get lucky to make it that far. Maybe he took fewer risks than some others, but likely more than were required to make a final table 10 years ago when he won it.

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to adapt your "set-in-stone" theories for such large fields. I don't think you can fold your way to a final table in a field this size.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm certainly not an advocate of "set-in-stone" strategies, nor did I intend to suggest that Harrington (or anyone else) "folded their way to the final table". In fact, I believe that the ability to change gears at the right time is one of the most important skills required to consistently succeed in tournaments, regardless of whether your main goal is to make the final table, win the tournament, or simply finish in the money.

Rather, my main point was that DH (and many other great tournament players) employ a much more conservative approach than Stu. Given that, it's pretty impressive that Stu was able to avoid the "early bustout syndrome" that plagues many aggressive tournament players. I was trying to compliment Ungar, rather than insult Harrington.