Best Pros for Various Categories

Who would you consider... (all questions relate to NL texas holdem tournaments)

Best player?

Most aggressive player?

Best at making correct reads?

Best at post-flop decision making?

Most feared?

Unreadable?

Best heads up?

Best at large fields?

[A_Junglen]

Most Aggressive is easily Tuan Le.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

I'm answering Phil Ivey for 90% of those.

As far as best at large fields, Harrington would be a leading candidate because of his performance in the 2003 and 2004 ME.

[Aceshigh7]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as best at large fields, Harrington would be a leading candidate because of his performance in the 2003 and 2004 ME.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gotta go with Raymer on that one.

Raymer came in like, what, 25th this year. Obviously impressive, but there is something to be said for final tables, of which Harrington made two in a row.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
Raymer came in like, what, 25th this year. Obviously impressive, but there is something to be said for final tables, of which Harrington made two in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can be said that greg raymer outlasted about 7000 people in his two years and Harrington outlasted about 3500 in his two years.

Two things: First, the results over a span of two tournaments don't really tell you anything. Second, if you are going by results, Raymer is the clear answer.

[ QUOTE ]
Who would you consider... (all questions relate to NL texas holdem tournaments)

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I scoffed this off at first, but now I think it might be kind of fun, so long as we realize that we're mostly just guessing, and don't put too much stock in the little we've seen on tv, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Best player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil Ivey. John Juanda is a very close second. Juanda has pretty much inarguably the best tournament record of anyone in the last five years, but Ivey appears not to play in as many events. Daniel Negreanu, Barry Greenstein, and Paul Phillips have all said that Ivey is at or near the top of their respective lists for touranment nlh, and his record in big tournaments is like something out of a nightmare. I mean it's so good that it's way beyond the limit for how good it's possible to be at poker; he has to be getting lucky to some degree. But even so.

[ QUOTE ]
Most aggressive player?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is tricky because I'm sure there's some psycho we've never heard of who never wins anything, but among the top pros, I'm inclined to say John Phan. There are lots of players who are known for being totally fearless, raising lots of pots, etc., but you never hear anybody even mention Phan without bringing up that he tries to run over every table. It really seems like he's in overdrive mode 100% of the time. Tuan Le and Hon Le also come to mind, but Phan's my pick.

[ QUOTE ]
Best at making correct reads?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard anybody praised more explicitly for their reading ability than Jennifer Harman. I suspect that there are players out there who are basically coasting by with little-to-no fundamental knowledge on their ability to read perfectly, but Jen's still my pick.

[ QUOTE ]
Best at post-flop decision making?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gus Hansen. Lots of other names come to mind, but when you think about people who play phenomenal post-flop poker, you have to imagine that someone who plays as many hands as Gus must be pretty good at knowing when his third pair is good, etc. Negreanu's also made a point of being proud of his post-flop skill, and he'd probably be my second choice.

[ QUOTE ]
Most feared?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ivey. It's amazing what shutting the hell up will do for one's mystique. Johnny Chan also comes to mind.

[ QUOTE ]
Unreadable?

[/ QUOTE ]

This one's almost impossible, having never played with any of them. I'll default to Ivey, because it's hard for me to imagine that someone who's supposed to be so focused and studied would be predictable.

[ QUOTE ]
Best heads up?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not even going to venture a guess. I remember Negreanu writing that he'd be most scared to play Ivey and John Hennigan, so, whatever.

[ QUOTE ]
Best at large fields?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say anybody who knows the math very well. It seems like mathematical players, like maybe Chris Ferguson or Andy Bloch, would have a more fundamental understanding the strategy in a huge field. Like the need to gamble early, I guess.

[TheBlueMonster]

[ QUOTE ]
Raymer came in like, what, 25th this year. Obviously impressive, but there is something to be said for final tables, of which Harrington made two in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]
No offense, but that makes no sense. YOu have to look at the field size in relation to how they placed. 2003 the field size was around 800 and Harrington made the final table. 2004 the field size was around 2500 and both made the final table and Raymer won it. 2005 the field size was around 6000 and Raymer came in 25th (after a really dumb beat).
Frankly this whole "best at..." debate is silly because you can make a legit argument for any player. You could legit. make an argument that Matasow is better at post-flop decisions than Jen H. Or that Chip Reese is better all around than the OP's man crush Phil Ivey.
Armchair poker players just aren't qualified to make these type classifications.




that's what Barry Greenstein is for [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I love posters like you. You can't contribute anything to the discussion, which will obviously be subjective, and so you pretend to be smart and tell everyone that they do not have the credentials to post.