|
|
#13
06-06-2005, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Cream Continues to Rise to the Top (WSOP Results)
I think this is going to be interesting to track. In the end, the final results are probably likely to mirror the results from every year - the pros are going to win a lot of bracelets, and there may be a few unknowns who take a couple as well.
The influx of "non-pros" certainly increases the chance that unknowns will win some events. But the other side of the coin is the fact that based on the large number of pros, at least a few of them in each event are going to accumulate a ton of chips from these players. It's just a matter of being the one who happens to survive a lot of all-ins when necessary IMO. 
|
|
#14
06-06-2005, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cream Continues to Rise to the Top (WSOP Results)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "asenine" [/ QUOTE ] Well that's a first. Never seen someone mis-correct someone else's spelling. [/ QUOTE ] yeah that was pretty asinine of me
|
|
#16
06-06-2005, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cream Continues to Rise to the Top (WSOP Results)
[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree w/ Jax on this one. Its more likely that someone who $s in the ME and wins a bracelet the following year is more skilled than not. [/ QUOTE ] But Jax wasn't just saying that player X is skilled... he's saying the cream rises to the top--only proven players are placing high in these events (so far). But you shouldn't look at THIS YEAR'S bracelet as proof that "cream continues to rise to the top". You can't use THIS result as an argument in the analysis of THIS result. If Erin Ness wins a bracelet, you wouldn't argue that "it just goes to show that only proven players win bracelets... she moneyed in last year's ME and won a bracelet, you know." That said, I am impressed with the current performance of proven players in these first two events, whether the count is 5/6 or 6/6 in the top three. -Z
|
|
#17
06-06-2005, 03:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cream Continues to Rise to the Top (WSOP Results)
Forgive me if my post does not meet with your threshold criteria for worthiness.
But, to answer your question, the topic underlying the point of my post - that being the impact of large numbers of inexperienced tourney players on the likelihood of skilled players making the big money - is one that is brought up on this (and other) forums very often. I have not seen a post tracking event outcomes (which, I think, is a relevant measure of the impact), I think it is interesting, and I posted on it.
|
|
#18
06-06-2005, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cream Continues to Rise to the Top (WSOP Results)
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no? [/ QUOTE ] Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes). Please back up your statement.
|
|
#19
06-06-2005, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cream Continues to Rise to the Top (WSOP Results)
The thing that speaks of this guy being good is that he cashed in the main event and then won a big event that nobody outside the poker world has heard of. (Does the average ESPN viewer even know the NL part of the WSOP is more than one tourney?)
But OK, he got lucky twice...look at the final tables. The pros are dominating, not close, etc.
|
|
#20
06-06-2005, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cream Continues to Rise to the Top (WSOP Results)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no? [/ QUOTE ] Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes). Please back up your statement. [/ QUOTE ] For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
