Was Paul Phillips *GASP* WRONG?!?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It always seemd to me that if you had a tournament with 100 players, and 80 top pros, and a tournament with 1000 players, and the same 80 top pros, plus 800 literally dead money players, a single pros' chances are not that grossly diminished, i'd say by no more than 50% less likely for him to cash or win, but that's a wild, unsubstantiatable guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree with that estimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thus a wild, unsubstantiable guess, but in the past I did an exhaustive, (by my standards; half assed by PP's I'd bet) analysis on this and found that this can EASILY be the case.

[jojobinks]

to reiterate the scott fischman issue:

after playing in one wsop plus one even this year, he had 2 bracelets and a second place. why does it seem so unlikely, then, that he (or some other youngster) could win 10 over the next 30 years?

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is even quite possible that Phil will win number 10 before he's done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it's WAY more than possible. Less a question of if than when.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

PH is still fairly young in poker terms, look at TJ, still going strong.

I think today though the World Series is very different to its origins in some respects.

Back in the 70's, 10 G's was alot more than it is now, and the whole concept was "the best of the best" duking it out ... guys that lived and died by the turn of cards, out on their own makin' a living the best way they know how.

Now it's changed, you got the kids who most of them don't have to play for their food and rent (most ... not all) and with the Internet and satellites, any disciplined player with a computer and a bit of luck can sit there next to Doyle & co.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the WSOP doesn't mean anything anymore, it's a very hard field and anyone who makes it through day 1 has serious bragging rights IMHO, it's just that now its harder for the pro's, and the WSOP is so different these days I think in a couple of years they may be forced to raise the buy-in to keep it inline with the original concept.

My 0.2

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
to reiterate the scott fischman issue:

after playing in one wsop plus one even this year, he had 2 bracelets and a second place. why does it seem so unlikely, then, that he (or some other youngster) could win 10 over the next 30 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's too unreasonable for one of the top 10 players in these tournaments, who plays almost every event, could win a bracelet on average once every 3-4 years. That would be sufficient to break double-digits.

This is not to say that Fischman is one of the top 10 players in the world, but I just threw that in as a requirement.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
My 0.2

[/ QUOTE ]

WHOA there, buddy, that's TWENTY cents worth!

That's fully ten times more than you are entitled to give!

[Spook]

It is also possible that with these new larger feilds, we will get actual better players.
There might be an amazingly good Stu Ungar type player who would have never thought to play poker, but because of all the hype, started a home game with friends. Eventually this player turns out to be amazing and wins a ton of events.

[freemont]

I thought the same exact thing myself, Dali, when I read that statement from Paul Phillips. Since I can't remember exactly how he worded it, I'd be curious to hear him explain what he meant in more detail.

If he truly believes that no one will win more than nine bracelets (excluding Helmuth, Chan and Brunson of course,) I would gladly bet against that, it just seems likely that with the number of relatively young players, who already have multiple bracelets, and play (almost) every event one of them will wind up with 10 or more.

[dogmeat]

I don't know what tournament you are thinking of that might attract 80 top pros (except the WSOP) in a field of 1000 - and believe me, there aren't 800 dead money spots in any of the WSOP tournaments I've seen so far this year. Now in the main event, there will probably be more, but then we might be looking at a field of 6600.

The first event this year with 2300 and the next with 1500 might have had 800 spots of dead money between them, but then again that's just 22% - not 80%.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[InfernoLL]

It was an off the cuff statement. If you think PP believes that it's impossible for anyone to ever reach 10 bracelets you should think harder. I didn't see the quote you're talking about, but I'd guess that he was just saying that it would be much harder to amass bracelets now that the fields are so much larger. This implies that Helmuth's 9 will remain the best for a longer time than Helmuth deserves. Also, you overestimate the difference in skill of the "top pros" and the average non professional player in tournament poker, a subject which PP has written a lot about.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
to reiterate the scott fischman issue:

after playing in one wsop plus one even this year, he had 2 bracelets and a second place. why does it seem so unlikely, then, that he (or some other youngster) could win 10 over the next 30 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because your method is wrong. Of course if you take the most winning young player in the past years and extrapolate his result you will find that he will have more than 10. Sample bias.