|
|
|
|
#1
12-02-2005, 02:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Worst WSOP Final Table Ever
[ QUOTE ]
and that wouldn't be good because I really really want to make 2002 the worst ever. Thus, the top seven instead of top nine. [/ QUOTE ] Dude, you should seriously consider going into science. 
|
|
#3
11-30-2005, 12:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Worst WSOP Final Table Ever
Amusingly (or not amusingly) enough, by the very fact that the players on the 2005 final table were on the 2005 final table they will now be considered by John Q. Sixpack to be some of the best players of the game.
Many don't realize just how many people have gotten into the game in the last year -- and, for them, this is their first main event so those players are THE players of the year. Right or wrong, perception is oftentimes reality. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
|
#5
11-30-2005, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Worst WSOP Final Table Ever
[ QUOTE ]
The worst WSOP final table ever was either 2002 or 2005. 2002 top seven: Robert Varkonyi Julian Gardner Ralph Perry Scott Gray Harley Hall Russell Rosenbloom John Shipley 2005 top seven: Joseph Hachem Steve Dannenmann John Barch Aaron Kanter Andrew Black Scott Lazaar Daniel Bergsdorf I challenge you to find a worse WSOP final tables than these two. Here is a link where the final table finishers are listed. [/ QUOTE ] A challenge? Worst final table ever? This was really really easy. 1971. Only six participants in the damn thing. Everybody made the final table and there wasn't even a full table. Not only that, the buy-in was $5000 Its not just the quality of the competition on the final table its the difficulty involved in getting to the final table. Only 1972 rivals 1971 as far as ease of making the final table and that one edges 1971 for not quite being the worst final table ever because the buy-in went up to 10k and Amarillo Slim one and then went on Carson and other outlets and gave the tourney the Pub it needed to put it on the track to where it is today. I don't care if Johnny Moss did beat Puggy Pearson in 1971 and Puggy himself went on to win in 1973. That 1971 final table was much worse than 2002 and 2005, without a doubt. --Zetack
|
|
#6
11-30-2005, 06:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Worst WSOP Final Table Ever
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The worst WSOP final table ever was either 2002 or 2005. 2002 top seven: Robert Varkonyi Julian Gardner Ralph Perry Scott Gray Harley Hall Russell Rosenbloom John Shipley 2005 top seven: Joseph Hachem Steve Dannenmann John Barch Aaron Kanter Andrew Black Scott Lazaar Daniel Bergsdorf I challenge you to find a worse WSOP final tables than these two. Here is a link where the final table finishers are listed. [/ QUOTE ] A challenge? Worst final table ever? This was really really easy. 1971. Only six participants in the damn thing. Everybody made the final table and there wasn't even a full table. Not only that, the buy-in was $5000 Its not just the quality of the competition on the final table its the difficulty involved in getting to the final table. Only 1972 rivals 1971 as far as ease of making the final table and that one edges 1971 for not quite being the worst final table ever because the buy-in went up to 10k and Amarillo Slim one and then went on Carson and other outlets and gave the tourney the Pub it needed to put it on the track to where it is today. I don't care if Johnny Moss did beat Puggy Pearson in 1971 and Puggy himself went on to win in 1973. That 1971 final table was much worse than 2002 and 2005, without a doubt. --Zetack [/ QUOTE ] I know it seems paradoxical, but the final table when there were only 6 or 8 entries was much stronger than the final table with 5700 entries. When there were 6 entries, they were all very strong players. With 5700 entries, most of the field is amateurs and grinder-type pros. The players making it to the final table with 5700 are not all top players. I wouldn't even put Black and Barch in the same league with Brunson and Moss.
|
|
#7
11-30-2005, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Worst WSOP Final Table Ever
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The worst WSOP final table ever was either 2002 or 2005. 2002 top seven: Robert Varkonyi Julian Gardner Ralph Perry Scott Gray Harley Hall Russell Rosenbloom John Shipley 2005 top seven: Joseph Hachem Steve Dannenmann John Barch Aaron Kanter Andrew Black Scott Lazaar Daniel Bergsdorf I challenge you to find a worse WSOP final tables than these two. Here is a link where the final table finishers are listed. [/ QUOTE ] A challenge? Worst final table ever? This was really really easy. 1971. Only six participants in the damn thing. Everybody made the final table and there wasn't even a full table. Not only that, the buy-in was $5000 Its not just the quality of the competition on the final table its the difficulty involved in getting to the final table. Only 1972 rivals 1971 as far as ease of making the final table and that one edges 1971 for not quite being the worst final table ever because the buy-in went up to 10k and Amarillo Slim one and then went on Carson and other outlets and gave the tourney the Pub it needed to put it on the track to where it is today. I don't care if Johnny Moss did beat Puggy Pearson in 1971 and Puggy himself went on to win in 1973. That 1971 final table was much worse than 2002 and 2005, without a doubt. --Zetack [/ QUOTE ] I know it seems paradoxical, but the final table when there were only 6 or 8 entries was much stronger than the final table with 5700 entries. When there were 6 entries, they were all very strong players. With 5700 entries, most of the field is amateurs and grinder-type pros. The players making it to the final table with 5700 are not all top players. I wouldn't even put Black and Barch in the same league with Brunson and Moss. [/ QUOTE ] I don't believe the original question was which was the weakest final table, it was which was the worst. For my money, a final table with a smaller buy-in, where none of the finalists had to beat a single player to make it, is a table that hasn't displayed any skill, stamina, luck, or ability to outplay a soul. Its a table where the only displayed skill is the ability to plunk down $5,000 dollars. A table full of players who have been lucky, skillful, and mentally resilient enough to outlast a huge field of other players including dozens of the top tourney players and cash game players in the world is a far superior table to one full of players who have demonstrated the ability to sit down. --Zetack
|
|
#8
12-01-2005, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Worst WSOP Final Table Ever
[ QUOTE ]
A challenge? Worst final table ever? This was really really easy. 1971. Only six participants in the damn thing. Everybody made the final table and there wasn't even a full table. Not only that, the buy-in was $5000 Its not just the quality of the competition on the final table its the difficulty involved in getting to the final table. Only 1972 rivals 1971 as far as ease of making the final table and that one edges 1971 for not quite being the worst final table ever because the buy-in went up to 10k and Amarillo Slim one and then went on Carson and other outlets and gave the tourney the Pub it needed to put it on the track to where it is today. I don't care if Johnny Moss did beat Puggy Pearson in 1971 and Puggy himself went on to win in 1973. That 1971 final table was much worse than 2002 and 2005, without a doubt. --Zetack [/ QUOTE ] If you are basing it on the ability to sit down vs weeding through the crown then obviously the 1971 table is last, and the 2005 final table is the greatest of all time as they outlasted more than anybody. I however would disagree and would base it on if you had to play a single table tourney against the players of any years final table (at that time) who would it be. I would wager that you would have a much tougher time against the 1971 table then the 2002 or 2005 table for example.
|
|
#9
12-01-2005, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Worst WSOP Final Table Ever
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] A challenge? Worst final table ever? This was really really easy. 1971. Only six participants in the damn thing. Everybody made the final table and there wasn't even a full table. Not only that, the buy-in was $5000 Its not just the quality of the competition on the final table its the difficulty involved in getting to the final table. Only 1972 rivals 1971 as far as ease of making the final table and that one edges 1971 for not quite being the worst final table ever because the buy-in went up to 10k and Amarillo Slim one and then went on Carson and other outlets and gave the tourney the Pub it needed to put it on the track to where it is today. I don't care if Johnny Moss did beat Puggy Pearson in 1971 and Puggy himself went on to win in 1973. That 1971 final table was much worse than 2002 and 2005, without a doubt. --Zetack [/ QUOTE ] If you are basing it on the ability to sit down vs weeding through the crown then obviously the 1971 table is last, and the 2005 final table is the greatest of all time as they outlasted more than anybody. I however would disagree and would base it on if you had to play a single table tourney against the players of any years final table (at that time) who would it be. I would wager that you would have a much tougher time against the 1971 table then the 2002 or 2005 table for example. [/ QUOTE ] Those early final tables had pretty strong self selection. How many people were willing to play in a $10K (at least $25K in today's money) cash game with Johny and Doyle where you couldn't cash out until one person had all the money. Anyone with $100K or whatever to buy in can play at the "big game" at Bellagio, but I would wager that on any day it has a stronger field than any recent WSOP final table.
|
|
#10
11-30-2005, 11:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Worst WSOP Final Table Ever
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.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
