Johnny Chan. Never mind the # of entries. Once you hit the final table, its a whole different game. Winning 2 in a row then placing 2nd the following year puts Chan on a whole other level.
Johnny Chan. Never mind the # of entries. Once you hit the final table, its a whole different game.Â
Yeah, you're right. The EASY part is wading through the 2300 or 5600 other players.Â
INSANITY!!!! Â
Granted, the end stage of a tournament IS a whole new game...thus Harrington's 2nd book devoted to the subject. However, your implication that getting there isn't hard is, like I said, INSANE!!!!!!!
The EASY part is wading through the 2300 or 5600 other players.
Personally I'm on the JC 1st, 1st, 2nd bandwagon as well. I think too many of you are getting hung up by the massive fields of players that Raymer and Hachem had to go through to win it. Remember that there's an incredible amount of luck involved in such a big field tournament. Winning a $1 buyin tournament with 10 million entrants would be difficult as well, just from the mathematically slim chance of getting enough luck to wade through such a massive field. You can't say beating 2000 players is necessarily more impressive than beating 100-200 of the TOP players in the world. I'm sure in the "old days" you didn't have donks that would call allins with top pair no kicker vs. your flopped set with deep stacks. In short the ratio of players today who are dead money is in all probability significantly higher than in the older days. I still think Raymer's back to back performances is astounding, but you can't simply say "Raymer had to beat 1000 players, Doyle or Johnny Moss, or Phil Hellmuth or Johnhy Chan only had to beat a few hundred, so they had it easy".
Think of it this way. If you had 2 tournaments, one a $10 entry with a million opponents, the other with a 100 entrants and a $100,000 entry, which winner is more impressive? The $100,000 buyin of course because the caliber of players is going to be better...period.
Thank you Scooby. IMO going though table after table of players before the bubble is a lot easier than going through a handful at the final table simply because each spot you move up is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. That being said... Anyone who wins or makes is to the final table at the WSOP has done something very impressive. Until I do the same, who am I to say otherwise? Ask me mid-august when my opinion might mean something
My original argument for Raymer was based not ONLY on the size of the Field that he won (obviously Hachem, and even Moneymaker did similar) but rather on the fact that he did it not once, not twice, but THREE times...not to the win each time, but he went very deep in the three biggest tournaments in history, and won one of them.  That has to show that the initial win wasn't luck. Having said that, obviously luck is a factor whenever you win a big tourny. Johnny Chan said it when he won his tenth bracelet last year, you have to be lucky to survive the amount of "all in's" as you have to push to win. But everyone who says Raymer's win is luck is, IMO, instantly proven wrong as soon as he played, and placed high, in the other two tournaments I mentioned earlier.
Personally i have to go with my favorite player of all time. Stu Ungar, i think hands down, he is not only a great poker player but can be argued the best card player in the world.
It's too bad Stu allowed his compulsions etc take over his life. I agree he was one of the best card players (not just poker players) around. It's too bad a lot of gamblers seem to fall into the alcohol and drug induced haze.
I totally agree about Stuey, after I read One Of A Kind, I really wished he was still playing. I haven't seen any footage of him, just what I've read. I wonder if he would still be as much of a force if he was still around?
I do not question either player's skill in NL at all. The question was which is the more impressive feat? There is a lot of good points going back and forth. The luck factor has to be higher now to do well in field of thousands. Still the more impressive feat is Raymer, luck or not. The are so many more obstacles to conquer and the style of play has changed. To accomplish what he did is more impressive IMO.
Comments
He has a new book coming out at the end of the month:
Yeah, you're right. The EASY part is wading through the 2300 or 5600 other players.Â
INSANITY!!!! Â
Granted, the end stage of a tournament IS a whole new game...thus Harrington's 2nd book devoted to the subject. However, your implication that getting there isn't hard is, like I said, INSANE!!!!!!!
sstar
Personally I'm on the JC 1st, 1st, 2nd bandwagon as well. I think too many of you are getting hung up by the massive fields of players that Raymer and Hachem had to go through to win it. Remember that there's an incredible amount of luck involved in such a big field tournament. Winning a $1 buyin tournament with 10 million entrants would be difficult as well, just from the mathematically slim chance of getting enough luck to wade through such a massive field. You can't say beating 2000 players is necessarily more impressive than beating 100-200 of the TOP players in the world. I'm sure in the "old days" you didn't have donks that would call allins with top pair no kicker vs. your flopped set with deep stacks. In short the ratio of players today who are dead money is in all probability significantly higher than in the older days. I still think Raymer's back to back performances is astounding, but you can't simply say "Raymer had to beat 1000 players, Doyle or Johnny Moss, or Phil Hellmuth or Johnhy Chan only had to beat a few hundred, so they had it easy".
Think of it this way. If you had 2 tournaments, one a $10 entry with a million opponents, the other with a 100 entrants and a $100,000 entry, which winner is more impressive? The $100,000 buyin of course because the caliber of players is going to be better...period.
sstar
sstar