|
|
|
|
#1
12-01-2005, 03:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Worst WSOP Final Table Ever
[ QUOTE ]
I think you guys are mostly arguing context. Obviously, the final tables from the early seventies can't stack up, much in the same way Babe Ruth pales in comparison to Barry Bonds in terms of the actual skill set thanks to technological and strategic advances. Game theory back then was mostly instinctual and the players didn't have the benefit of the ten thousand of books today's players have, nor the number of peers with which to discuss the game for improvement purposes. That said, if you're arguing which tables are the best/worst of their time, a big part of the reason those early tournaments were so small is because everyone knew not to mess with the Rounders, who were way further ahead of the field than today's stars. Personally, I link 'best' with greatness and greatness with dominance. As a result, for me, '70 and '71 are among my best. [/ QUOTE ] Oh come on, even in those terms the 70's final tables just a few years later are more impressive. Get the thing up to 18 participants, two full tables, with all the cream of the NL world there... --Zetack 
|
|
#2
12-01-2005, 04:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Worst WSOP Final Table Ever
[ QUOTE ]
No he was literally the best player you never heard of, similiar to Allen Cunningham before this year... [/ QUOTE ] If you hadnt heard of Allen Cunningham....well your not much of a poker aficianado. Allen is a better cash game player than ANYONE at the 2004 final table and very well might be better at tourneys than anyone there as well. The guy is a serious contender for top 25 players in the world and possibly top 10.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
