How should we view pre-2003 WSOP bracelets?

[Salva135]

[TruePoker CEO]

..... with envy ?

[Freudian]

Old wins are of course as legitimate as new ones. Just harder to win the main event these days.

And those that want to argue that it is unfair that the old bracelets count as much as new ones, we have to remember that the new ones give more money, more attention and more opportunities to make money. So it evens out.

[nuclear500]

I would say there was less luck involved in the pre-Varkonyi days, but otherwise just as legitimate, if not a little more prestigious as it was mostly pros vs pros.

You have to win a lot more races when the field is 5600 then when the field is 360.

[illegit]

Winning one today is tough because the fields are larger, but the fields are much weaker. Winning one back in the day was tough because even though the fields were small a bigger % of the field were good players. So on balance I think these factors cancel each other out.

[DDH]

[ QUOTE ]
Winning one today is tough because the fields are larger, but the fields are much weaker. Winning one back in the day was tough because even though the fields were small a bigger % of the field were good players. So on balance I think these factors cancel each other out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. They mean the same to day as they did 20 years ago.

[El Ishmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Winning one today is tough because the fields are larger, but the fields are much weaker. Winning one back in the day was tough because even though the fields were small a bigger % of the field were good players. So on balance I think these factors cancel each other out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. They mean the same to day as they did 20 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

No and it's not close.

WSOP bracelets of the past are not completely worthless, but they are worth far less.

What an awfully designed poll

"Just as legitimate as winning one today; a bracelet is a bracelet"

True, but I'm not sure you understand the word 'legitimate'... of course they are just as legitimate, but they are also not as impressive.

"Impressive, but winning one today is more impressive - the old records should be asterisked"

Well the first part is true, but then I can't vote for this option because what the hell are you thinking with the remark about old records being asterisked?

"Totally worthless -- the game has changed and the fields have grown so much in the past 2 years that all pre-2003 records should be tossed out, and are little indication of someone's greatness"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... wow, okay, I voted for this option because all the options sucked.

[Saddlepoint]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Winning one today is tough because the fields are larger, but the fields are much weaker. Winning one back in the day was tough because even though the fields were small a bigger % of the field were good players. So on balance I think these factors cancel each other out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. They mean the same to day as they did 20 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

No and it's not close.

WSOP bracelets of the past are not completely worthless, but they are worth far less.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're all wrong.

The concept of any achievement in poker being "impressive" is fundamentally flawed. Poker is a game of long-term results, so any short-term achievement is almost entirely due to luck. I don't really understand where you're all coming from, and I suspect you haven't really thought it through. Dan Harrington, for example, did not do anything impressive - he was just the recipient of extraordinary positive variance. That's just as true for winning any one bracelet.

The fact that a great player has to play, on average, a greater number of tournaments to win one creates the illusion of them being more "difficult," but that's not the case.

Now, big-field tournaments might require a different set of skills than small-field tournametns, I really don't know, and someone who has experience with both might argue that the former is more difficult than the later. If so, fine. But just because it takes 50 tries to win the latter, and 500 tries to win the former, doesn't in and of itself make it "harder" or more "impressive."

I mean, seriously guys: when someone wins the lottery, are you impressed? How "hard" do you think it is to do that?

Edit: About Dan Harrington. I said he was "was just the recipient of extraordinary positive variance." That doesn't mean I don't think Dan Harrington is an incredible player, he clearly is. I'm just saying that many, many other pros, if they got his exact cards and his exact situations, would have been just as capable of equalling his achievement. What he did was 99% luck.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

To those saying that the fields back them were much stronger, this is true, but not totally true. While the fields were a higher percentage of pros, the fish were even more clueless back then than they are now. So dead money still was a big factor in those tournaments.