Cream Continues to Rise to the Top (WSOP Results)

[Jax_Grinder]

Where is the evidence so far of the demise of skill and rise of luck in the WSOP now that your average donk thinks he has a legitimate shot at a bracelet?

Event No. 1 (2300+):

1: Allen Cunningman - $1,482,037 since '98 (1 Bracelet - now 2);
2: Scott Fischman - $866,938 since Sep. '02 (2 Bracelets);
3: Devilfish - $2,732,946 since '93 (1 Bracelet);

Event No. 2 (800+):

1: Thom Werthmann - 179th in 2004 WSOP ME (1st Bracelet)
2: Layne Flack - $2,561,475 since '98 (5 Bracelets)
3: Tony Ma - $1,885,504 since '96 (2 Bracelets)

Boy, it sure looks like the "pros" have NO shot at the big spots in a field full of fish. Or is that just an excuse for getting run over....?

Skill - 6
Fishes - 0

[bestcellar]

How do you know Werthmann isn't a fish and just did well in a couple of tourneys?

[Wes ManTooth]

Yeah, look at 2+2er Tyler Durden (126th in the WSOP ME 2004) he is a fish.

[Tyler Durden]

Two events of the WSOP isn't enough to prove your theory correct. Certainly you don't expect the top 3 of every event to have similar track records. But your point is taken.

[Jax_Grinder]

Sigh.

If you money in the WSOP ME in '04 and then win a Bracelet the following year, the paradigm should be that you are believed skilled until proven otherwise.

You, however, seem to believe that no one has proven that negative (i.e., "I am not a fish"') until they provide you with a complete data set of all tournaments they ever entered so you can perform a regression analysis to determine whether luck is a significant factor in their results. That is asinine.

My definition of "fish" certainly includes 2+2ers who respond to a thread about a Bracelet winner by saying "How do you know he's not a fish?"

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh.

If you money in the WSOP ME in '04 and then win a Bracelet the following year, the paradigm should be that you are believed skilled until proven otherwise.

You, however, seem to believe that no one has proven that negative (i.e., "I am not a fish"') until they provide you with a complete data set of all tournaments they ever entered so you can perform a regression analysis to determine whether luck is a significant factor in their results. That is asinine.

My definition of "fish" certainly includes 2+2ers who respond to a thread about a Bracelet winner by saying "How do you know he's not a fish?"

[/ QUOTE ]

"asenine"

You say this guy's a good player based on TWO TOURNAMENTS? C'mon. Who's being asenine now?

Good players = 5
unknown = 1.

fixed.

[Jax_Grinder]

[ QUOTE ]
Two events of the WSOP isn't enough to prove your theory correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess I didn't intend to put it out as a "theory" per se (more of a statement of fact), but Event 2 is about as good a test of the "theory" as were likely to see until the ME.

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly you don't expect the top 3 of every event to have similar track records.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. My interest in tracking this is quite simply borne of the incessant discussion about how the massive fields make it so difficult for skilled players to make the top money. I don't believe that to be the case, so this is my way of trying to add a little substance to the conjecture.

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh.

If you money in the WSOP ME in '04 and then win a Bracelet the following year, the paradigm should be that you are believed skilled until proven otherwise.

You, however, seem to believe that no one has proven that negative (i.e., "I am not a fish"') until they provide you with a complete data set of all tournaments they ever entered so you can perform a regression analysis to determine whether luck is a significant factor in their results. That is asinine.

My definition of "fish" certainly includes 2+2ers who respond to a thread about a Bracelet winner by saying "How do you know he's not a fish?"

[/ QUOTE ]

ps I love the two or three personal shots fired for asking what I perceived as a harmless question. Sorry to have stirred your [censored] or whatever. Jeez.

[Jax_Grinder]

I only count one personal shot (the "fish" one). Sorry if I made it personal.

On the other hand, it really is spelled "asinine" - not sure where you got the "e" from. You should check such things before posting, I guess.

Finally, I'll simply say that I disagree that we cannot put Mr. Werthmann into the "skilled" category based upon these two results. I did not imply that he is on par with any particular player (and thus did not employ a qualitative descriptor like "good") or range of players. I simply believe that if you cash in the ME and win a Bracelet within one calendar year, it is a small subset of people who are qualified to suggest that you do not have skills commensurate with those results (absent further evidence). Again, I default to the result until proven otherwise.

[bestcellar]

Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?