GCA "Cadillac is a Dump Truck"
Newgca
this game. It is sold as being the Cadillac of Poker, when it really is a dump
truck. It's all publicity and parity to enable those not qualified to have a
chance.
The $10,000 WSOP Championship is basically a JOKE. A NL Holdem tournament,
while more skillful than limit is also a joke. When played again the deaf, dumb
and blind, one has a big edge, problem not many play who fall into this
criteria.
This game was introduced back in the 60's when most didn't have a clue what to
do. It really isn't that complicated in a tournament format. Coin flip
situations abound and the winner is determined by who is the luckiest, with
skill playing a very small role.
Cash game NL is a far different animal. Here the blinds don't keep going up and
all beats are basically equal. Even cash game NL isn't the most skillful way to
play Holdem, PL is.
IF the WSOP were like other events instead of being 'sort of a lottery,' the
pro's would always win. This isn't good for the powers behind the scenes. Do
you think it would matter if Tiger Woods played in a 2000 man field? His
results would hardly change at all, as most wouldn't have any chance.
Given the WSOP, any fool can win and does. Only fools think there is so much
skill in this venue. If they played NL 5 Card Stud, 99% of these fools would be
elimiDATED, but this wouldn't make it so attractive to the fish or the
promoters.
Fools who think those players who won a Championship back when the fields were
less than 20 qualify as winning a Championship are confused. When I was 21,
they didn't even have a WSOP and if you saw what I did in those days, you would
have been a fool to play in those events when they started them in the early
70's.
Basically the WSOP championship comes down to a crapshoot. Obviously some crap
players have a big edge over others since they don't go against the house vig
with the highest odds. But as usual in the short run, the luckiest will get
there.
The fools who believe this is a game of 'rocket science' should invest in
craps. Look at things in this perspective. Have 2000 players flip coins for
10K. Have the 1000 winners flip coins for 20K. Have the 500 winners flip coins
for 40K. Have the 250 winners flip coins for 80K. For simplicity, we'll have
128 winners flip coins for 160K. Next we'll have the 64 winners flip coins for
320K. Next we'll have the 32 winners flip coins for 640K. Next have the 16
winners flip for ONE MILLION plus. You have just completed the Championship
Event of the WSOP, short version. Just don't let THE FLIPPER play:). Yes, there
is a cheat known as the FLIPPER. NO, you don't have a chance flipping coins
with him. This means anyone.
Someone has to win.
Russ Georgiev
Stan Walker
Is Flipper a cheat or does he have some special ability to tell the
outcome by the rotation of the coin?
If he is a cheat, he is the greatest that ever lived.
Thanks,
Stan
On May 26 2004 2:13AM, Newgca wrote:
> is a cheat known as the FLIPPER. NO, you don't have a chance flipping coins
> with him. This means anyone.
>
> Someone has to win.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
GW2G
outside, it sounds like someone who is bitter. And bitter about what? Because
you feel lesser players are making big money in the WSOP.
You are right, there is a crap shoot aspect to the WSOP, especially with all
the internet players thrown in. But to discount the ability of the pros is
wrong to. I would bet, most of the final table will be pros...and there are
far fewer pros in the tournament than amateurs. That speaks well for the pros.
Another thing is the Tiger Woods analogy, I think it is good and flawed at the
same time. Take Tiger Woods, week-in and week-out against the other top 200
players in the world and he will win many tournaments. Often thought, he won't
win, One of those players will do better than he does over those four days.
That is why even though he has played hundreds of tournaments he has won a
rather small portion of those.
Now, take Tiger and instead of playing just the other 200 pros, add in 2500
guys who won their local country club tournament. Sure, Tiger is better player
than them 99 days out of 100, but the likelihood of one of them playing the
game of their life is quite high and lowers Tiger's chances. One of those many
no-names may finish high, but the main money spots will still likely be taken
by the top pros. Sure, some pros will fail to make the cut, and some no-names
will be high on the money board, but the pros will still control the day.
It's the same with the WSOP. A Moneymaker may win...but remember, there were 7
or 8 pros out of 9 at the final table last year. Everybody remembers to
no-name (at the time) who won, but nobody remembers all the no-names who went
home with nothing.
Dave013
GW2G
haven't effectively countered one critical comment, only made inane responses
or comments about semantics. When will you back up your talk or really engage
in comment? Or are a simpleton?
Dave013
(no not a professional...I have a job) a decent/winning poker player I
can tell you this: a successful poker player has many attributes of a
successful athelete -- disciple, knowledge of the game, practice, focus,
mental toughness, awareness of their mistakes and the ability to learn
from them, the ability to assess his/her opponent(s) and exploit their
weaknesses, control of their emotions/ the ability to excel in stressful
situations, competitiveness...the list of traits goes on; however, while
the mental game is a very large (and often overlooked) portion of being
a professional/successful athelete it is the entirety of poker.
Athletes must train and discipline their minds as well as their bodies
to be successful and luck is much less a factor in sport than it is in
the game of poker.
I will give you 100:1 odds on the following:
Choose 50 good weekend/recreational hockey/baseball/soccer/football
(whatever you like) teams or 50 recreational
tennis/squash/whatever-individual-sport-you-like players (lets say the
first place team/athelete in a league for a given year) and pit them in
a tournament which contains 5 top pro teams/atheletes as the case may be.
Now do the same with poker players.
Now wager me at 100:1 that the pro poker players will win 1/2 as many
times as the pro atheletes.
Poker is a game, not a sport. You cannot directly compare the two.
Success in both requires the same mental traits and discipline, but that
is where any comparison ends.
Dave013
GW2G wrote:
I can back up everything that I say; however, the inane and mundane get
no such responses.
ruylopez
>
> I can back up everything that I say; however, the inane and mundane get
> no such responses.
It remains that 95% of your posts the group would be better off without.
However I will grant you these last two posts represent real progress for
you. The first one actually contained a few complete sentences. In the
second one you managed to not top-post for the first time I can remember.
Keep working. There may be hope for you yet. But, I'm not betting on it.