How many of the BIG GAME players are the real deal?

[Lurshy]

But now that Ivey is in the big game, and has been there a while, and has been profitable, and has earned the respect and adulation of the likes of Greenstein, at what point do you cut him slack and say wow Ivey is world class?

You may not begrudge Ivey the money he has won, but you give him less credit because he won a bunch of money in tournies and landed himself in the big game. Seems he should get some credit for winning a bunch of money in tournies, and then being succesful at the higher levels. I understand how you don't believe that being succesful at the higher levels is an indicator of higher skill, but money earned is the best proxy for that we have going.

With so many people with the 'same skill' - mastering the lower limits, and occasionally hitting big in tournies, why have so few gone on to be winners long term in the big game? Seems that those that do should be afforded some credit. And it is also interesting that Big ring game players also have found success in large buy-in tournies. Now maybe they can better afford the buy-ins but with the abundance of satellites live and on-line, I think Bankroll is hardly a limiting factor to large buy-in tournies for successful middle limit players.

I am a succesful low limit player. I think I am great. SOmetimes when I step up, I am so focused I do really well. Othertimes when playing outside my comfort zone, it is a distraction. I certainly do not play well at micro limits. To much yawn factor. To think godzillionaires could play their best at middle limits as a showcase of skill is asking a lot.

Until their is a better proxy than bankroll growth, I gotta give the guys at top their due.

And though you may have mastered the 15-30 level, without knowing anything other than what I read, I would have to give more credit to those that have mastered the 4k-8k level. Sorry.

BTW what did you think of the Greenstein comments on the 5 best?