Doyle's Win More Impressive Than His Two Championships

[Joseph Busti]

Cool.

[HighStakesPro]

As far as the tougher fields go, it made me wonder, and maybe you or other pros know this from experience; do the pros try as hard in the PPT freerolls (since only 6 get paid and 1st pays only 225K) as they do in big buyin, big prize pool tournaments? Is it much harder to make a PPT final table than, say, a $2000 tournament with the regular mix of pros and amateurs and the same size field? Maybe for some people it's easier since they know the tendencies of the players at their table?

Anyone who's played in a PPT event I am interested in your feedback on this issue, thanks.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]

Other gossip overheard at the table - McEvoy told Seed that Phil Ivey thought he was good enough to win 30 bracelets in his career. McEvoy scoffed at such egotism and Seed kind of laughed too.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bob,

Ivey actually said that in the interview with Norman Chad after he won his bracelet this past week. It was after a question Chad asked referring to the fact that Ivey has won five at such a young age and how many more he thinks he can win.

When I heard him say that, I didn't think much of it. I figured if he played until he was 70, who knows?

I watched Doyle's final table in its entirety and I must say, I feel privileged to have just been present.

[Easy E]

Johnny's 1st-1st-2nd or Dan Harrington's two final tables?

[Scooterdoo]

It's definitely impressive. However, it just amazes me how lucky one needs to be down the stretch (and for that matter throughout the tournament) to win these things. I'm not trying to say at all that Doyle isn't extremely skillful, but the % of luck to win is just incredible.

I followed a few hands from the final table. Layne Flack was the chip leader when they were four handed and Doyle was about 100k behind. They had preflop action where Doyle had KK and Layne had AQo and they got all of their chips in. Doyle was the favorite and won the hand. The point is that if the hands were reversed I believe that they still would have gotten all their chips in preflop. A while later Layne managed to build his stack up quite a bit and they both see a flop of T93. Again they both get their chips in, and Layne has KT and Doyle has K9. The turn brings a 9 and Layne is out.

Please don't flame me because you think I'm saying that Doyle isn't a wonderful player and didn't deserve it. I'm just commenting how much luck plays in these things.

David, to actually win a poker tournament what % do you attribute to luck and what % to skill?

[HighStakesPro]

In Harrington's first book, he talks about the "hidden luck factor" in no limit hold'em. I could not agree moore, because no matter how good you are, you could very easily be confronted with a situation where even making the absolute best play possible, you will still lose all of your chips. For example, you are in the cutoff with an above-average chip stack at the 9-handed final table of the WSOP, you get kings, there's a raise in front of you and a call, and because you are an expert hand-reader you have deduced that one of the players is raising with a small pocket pair and the other player is calling with a medium-to-big ace, like A9,AT,AJ. You certainly don't want action from both of these players, although you could manage with just one, but because the raise was to 25% of your stack, you decide that the best move is to go all in and hope that either both fold or just one calls, in which case you are a large favorite. But wait! The player in the small blind (who even chosen at random has a very good chance of being close or higher than you in chips) looks down to find pocket aces! He moves all in over the top, the others fold, you are dead to two outs and don't hit. You didn't get a bad beat, you were just unlucky that he acted after you and that the action in front of you forced you to raise all in.
There is literally nothing you can do to prevent something like this, although it is a sequence of events.

At one recent final table (I don't remember all of the details of this hand) on Pokerstars, I had KJ on the button when the action was 6-handed, There was a raise and a call in front of me, so I decided to call, although I was slightly below average in chips. The flop came QTx rainbow, and it was checked around. The turn was the ace, the first player checked, the second player made a bet, I smooth called, the first player checkraised all in, second player called, and I call with the nuts.

1st player: A8
2nd player: AJ

The river bought the case ace but my straight beat their trips and I tripled up, going on to win the final tble by virtue of my dominating stack. Hitting one of the two remaining aces is really no less lucky than Brunson hitting a two-outer against Flack, even though all the money was already in. There is no way I would have gotten all of that action if the 9 had hit, and if a king had come I surely would have busted because the AJ would have had the nuts. So there is a great deal of luck in No Limit Hold'em, even before all the money has gone in.

[Quicksilvre]

So would the '65 Bears. Still, the point that the level of play has increased dramatically is correct.

[benkahuna]

I think the average skill level is better, but that the average pro is better too. In some events, particularly the main event, there was a very large number of simply weak players. I'm talking guys calling raised preflops against tight players w/ small aces or connected cards and chasing for any amount on a flop w/ a weak ace or middle pair. I suspect you simply didn't have players this weak back in the day.

The sheer numbers in this case make it harder to win, but I think it could very well be the case that the competition to get to a particular level of money is easier, though you do need more like to go against the much larger field. Many players have commented about the large amount of dead money attracting them to tournaments these days.

I'd say Doyle's bracelet win today, not even considering his age, was more impressive than a single win of the main event in the 70s, but not more impressive than winning 2 of them. I think even 2 consecutive wins in the 70s shows a domination that is more impressive than a single bracelet win today. It probably took less skill, but I think poker skill is clearly relative in a temporal sense.

[MonkeeMan]

[ QUOTE ]
So would the '65 Bears.

[/ QUOTE ]

The '65 Bears did have arguably the all time greatest 1st round of the draft, but I think you meant the '85 Bears could beat the Pats.

[psyduck]

[ QUOTE ]
In Harrington's first book, he talks about the "hidden luck factor" in no limit hold'em. I could not agree moore, because no matter how good you are, you could very easily be confronted with a situation where even making the absolute best play possible, you will still lose all of your chips. For example, you are in the cutoff with an above-average chip stack at the 9-handed final table of the WSOP, you get kings, there's a raise in front of you and a call, and because you are an expert hand-reader you have deduced that one of the players is raising with a small pocket pair and the other player is calling with a medium-to-big ace, like A9,AT,AJ. You certainly don't want action from both of these players, although you could manage with just one, but because the raise was to 25% of your stack, you decide that the best move is to go all in and hope that either both fold or just one calls, in which case you are a large favorite. But wait! The player in the small blind (who even chosen at random has a very good chance of being close or higher than you in chips) looks down to find pocket aces! He moves all in over the top, the others fold, you are dead to two outs and don't hit. You didn't get a bad beat, you were just unlucky that he acted after you and that the action in front of you forced you to raise all in.
There is literally nothing you can do to prevent something like this, although it is a sequence of events.

At one recent final table (I don't remember all of the details of this hand) on Pokerstars, I had KJ on the button when the action was 6-handed, There was a raise and a call in front of me, so I decided to call, although I was slightly below average in chips. The flop came QTx rainbow, and it was checked around. The turn was the ace, the first player checked, the second player made a bet, I smooth called, the first player checkraised all in, second player called, and I call with the nuts.

1st player: A8
2nd player: AJ

The river bought the case ace but my straight beat their trips and I tripled up, going on to win the final tble by virtue of my dominating stack. Hitting one of the two remaining aces is really no less lucky than Brunson hitting a two-outer against Flack, even though all the money was already in. There is no way I would have gotten all of that action if the 9 had hit, and if a king had come I surely would have busted because the AJ would have had the nuts. So there is a great deal of luck in No Limit Hold'em, even before all the money has gone in.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> Poker takes more skill than luck because you have to be skilled to get into situations where you can UTILIZE luck. Like the AJ vs A8 hand, you picked your spot to get lucky. That takes skill. </font>