Was Paul Phillips *GASP* WRONG?!? - Page 3

ohgeetee · #21 06-17-2005, 02:23 PM

I don't think he said more than 10 bracelets, i believe he said more bracelets than Hellmuth. And the statement wasn't really a dig, it just makes sense that with increased fields, and a 9 bracelet head start that was largely earned in much smaller fields, the likelihood is low that someone will catch up.

sexdrugsmoney · #22 06-17-2005, 02:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My 0.2

[/ QUOTE ]

WHOA there, buddy, that's TWENTY cents worth!

That's fully ten times more than you are entitled to give!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to read this post through Phil Hellmuth's sunglasses and translate it to:

"WHOA there, buddy, that's TWENTY cents worth!

That's fully ten times more than you are entitled to give, yet you went out of your way to impart a great post to us, you are a legend!"

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Daliman · #23 06-17-2005, 03:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what tournament you are thinking of that might attract 80 top pros (except the WSOP) in a field of 1000 - and believe me, there aren't 800 dead money spots in any of the WSOP tournaments I've seen so far this year. Now in the main event, there will probably be more, but then we might be looking at a field of 6600.

The first event this year with 2300 and the next with 1500 might have had 800 spots of dead money between them, but then again that's just 22% - not 80%.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I played in event #2, and had about a total of 18 players come and go at my table, and 16 of them were dead money. Absoutely horrendous, raise-with A9o-UTG, call-that-raise UTG+1 w/ 44, call-from-MP- with- 97o morons were EVERYWHERE.

And OF COURSE I mean the WSOP when I say 80 top pros, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WSOP! If you think there aren't 80 top pros, you are either sorely mistaken, or have a WAY different threshhold of "top pros" than I do. I am a pro. I am not a TOP pro.

Daliman · #24 06-17-2005, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It was an off the cuff statement. If you think PP believes that it's impossible for anyone to ever reach 10 bracelets you should think harder. I didn't see the quote you're talking about, but I'd guess that he was just saying that it would be much harder to amass bracelets now that the fields are so much larger. This implies that Helmuth's 9 will remain the best for a longer time than Helmuth deserves. Also, you overestimate the difference in skill of the "top pros" and the average non professional player in tournament poker, a subject which PP has written a lot about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said he said specifically that no one will ever get ten, but that WAS the insinuation, so I really don't need to think harder. And the difference betweeen MY play and the average WSOP player was huge when I played in it, why wouldn't the difference between actual TOP pros be less?

Seriously, if you haven't played in a large field WSOP event, you just dont know. The overall skill of the average player is pathetic. Now, maybe my table was just bad, but seriously, even Kristy Gazes made a TERRIBLE play on my table, and she's considered a top pro,(kinda, she's a name pro at least.)

OrangeKing · #25 06-17-2005, 04:39 PM

It seems like everyone who has played in these tournaments remarks on just how bad the competition is. What amazes me is that people actually think this is bad for the top pros (well, in monetary terms - obviously it's "bad" in terms of bracelet accumulation).

Dacoops3 · #26 06-17-2005, 04:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
even Kristy Gazes made a TERRIBLE play on my table, and she's considered a top pro,(kinda, she's a name pro at least.)

[/ QUOTE ]
After seeing almost every televised poker event she has been on, I have come to the conclusion that she is WAY OVERRATED. She sucks.

Daliman · #27 06-17-2005, 05:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
even Kristy Gazes made a TERRIBLE play on my table, and she's considered a top pro,(kinda, she's a name pro at least.)

[/ QUOTE ]
After seeing almost every televised poker event she has been on, I have come to the conclusion that she is WAY OVERRATED. She sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more. Imagine being recognized mainly for being the ex-wife of a third-tier pro.

JohnG · #28 06-18-2005, 12:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the WSOP doesn't mean anything anymore, it's a very hard field and anyone who makes it through day 1 has serious bragging rights IMHO, it's just that now its harder for the pro's, and the WSOP is so different these days I think in a couple of years they may be forced to raise the buy-in to keep it inline with the original concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original concept was to promote the casino and make money.

Daliman · #29 06-18-2005, 02:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the WSOP doesn't mean anything anymore, it's a very hard field and anyone who makes it through day 1 has serious bragging rights IMHO, it's just that now its harder for the pro's, and the WSOP is so different these days I think in a couple of years they may be forced to raise the buy-in to keep it inline with the original concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original concept was to promote the casino and make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell, the CURRENT concept is too. You Poker players are a bunch of gambling degenerates.

sexdrugsmoney · #30 06-18-2005, 03:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the WSOP doesn't mean anything anymore, it's a very hard field and anyone who makes it through day 1 has serious bragging rights IMHO, it's just that now its harder for the pro's, and the WSOP is so different these days I think in a couple of years they may be forced to raise the buy-in to keep it inline with the original concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original concept was to promote the casino and make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct, actually.

*wanders down street to ponder mysteries of life*