World Series Main Event Evolution: Harder Then Or Now?

[NYCNative]

Let's look at the World Series ME winners in years gone by. They won by beating a fraction of the players that are playing in the event these days but arguably all of the players they did beat were pretty damn good. There was no "dead money" to contend with.

So what was harder? Winning the tournament where every table had pros who were among the best in the game? Or going through many, many more tables, many of which had zero pros?

I can see the merits in either argument.

I would like if any of the pros here who HAVE played in both situations (pros who play in invitation-only events that guarantee quality players and of course the bigger tourneys open to all or pros whose careers at the WSOP extend on either side of the explosion) give their unique perspective.

[diddle]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's look at the World Series ME winners in years gone by. They won by beating a fraction of the players that are playing in the event these days but arguably all of the players they did beat were pretty damn good. There was no "dead money" to contend with.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. How do you think Ungar won 10 of 30 big buy in events?

There was tons of dead money. The players back then hardly understood the game or the odds. The average player today is much better than the average player of yesteryear, no matter what the old coots want you to think.

[donny5k]

Do you have any evidence to back up what is most likely just a wild misapplication of logic?

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
The average player today is much better than the average player of yesteryear, no matter what the old coots want you to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true without doubt, but even if it weren't true I don't get how people can imagine that a huge field is easier to get through than a small field just because the average skill in the smaller field is higher. You still have to win many times as many chips! Unless you think today's non-pros are so bad that they are always drawing dead, then it's pretty obvious that winning in huge fields is harder.

Was annie duke winning the 10-player TOC was arguably more difficult than raymer winning the main event? No, it's insane.

The difficulty of winning a multi-table tournament is almost directly proportional to the field size, with all other factors nearly invisible by comparison.

[r3vbr]

today is much much much much harder
there are still lots of pros who play the ME and there are 6500 playing
thats like 100 TIMES more than the first events//

[r3vbr]

how can you even compare [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[The Armchair]

I think he's being entirely fair. Watch some of the old WSOP matchups or their kin, and you'll see some mindbogglingly awful plays -- stuff that you'd expect on Celebrity Poker Showdown. My favorite was one hand where a guy goess all in for just over two big blinds, and both the small and big blind fold. (We don't know their hands b/c this is before the pocket-cam, but who cares!)

Now, you have people who just came away from 100 player tourneys and won the whole thing. The number of compulsive gamblers who pony up $10k for the chance at a few years' salary is proportionally lower.

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]

There was tons of dead money. The players back then hardly understood the game or the odds. The average player today is much better than the average player of yesteryear, no matter what the old coots want you to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the big difference is "average" players didn't play in the WSOP back then.

But as far as the question goes of course it is a whole lot harder now to win then back then. Field size is a much bigger difference. You not only have more bad players to go though you also have more average and above arevage players in the tournament as well. It is alot harder all the way around.

RZ

[TM1212]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's look at the World Series ME winners in years gone by. They won by beating a fraction of the players that are playing in the event these days but arguably all of the players they did beat were pretty damn good. There was no "dead money" to contend with.

So what was harder? Winning the tournament where every table had pros who were among the best in the game? Or going through many, many more tables, many of which had zero pros?

I can see the merits in either argument.

I would like if any of the pros here who HAVE played in both situations (pros who play in invitation-only events that guarantee quality players and of course the bigger tourneys open to all or pros whose careers at the WSOP extend on either side of the explosion) give their unique perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't played in both so take this for a grain of salt... It's really hard to compare then and know. I would say back then with the competition being so strong, only the best player could win, and a much higher level of skill was required. But then again, now the tourtamnets a lottery! Now requires alot more luck to win. Which is harder... I dont know!

[A_C_Slater]

Let's say you play in a tournament with 39 of the top pro's today.

And let's say next week you play in a tournament with 3999 players who are all so bad that they don't even understand the hand rankings. They simply move their chips in randomly and wait to see if the dealer tells them that are a winner or not. In other words, they just treat the game like a pure gamble.

Which tourney would be harder to win?