WSOP ME Bracelet unreachable for Ivey? |
|
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:51 pm GMT by MasterMike
With the field in the WSOP ME growing by the thousands, and more and more 'cinderallas' coming to enter in the tournament, is there any shot for a truly notable player (ivey, jesus, matasow, helmuth etc) to actually win this thing anymore?
I really want ivey to get to a final table in it, but the next time he can, he will probably have to beat out 10,000 people. Obviously when you deal with 1 vs 1000+ people odds are you wont win, which makes it really shitty to see someone so good get beat by some guy who just took 10 grand and thought he would 'give it a shot'.
Ivey is still very young and has dozens of MEs to still go to, but does anyone see him winning it all?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:53 pm GMT by zinn0
Unless the fields shrink considerably, probably not.
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:54 pm GMT by Hungry4Knowledge
If Cunningham made it this year it's still possible for the other pros to make it.
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:55 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| MasterMike wrote: | | Ivey is still very young and has dozens of MEs to still go to, but does anyone see him winning it all? |
Ultimately, it won't matter. The $50K HORSE event will be the one the pros will focus on.
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:55 pm GMT by mooseontheloose
He's got a ton of talent and ONE person WILL win, it can be ANYONE. So, Ivey surely has a chance as do all the other pros. Is it likely? I'd say not. These days the WSOP probably takes the least skill and the most luck of any tournament. Not that those who win are bad as most who make it far do have skill, but skill doesn't shine at the WSOP as it does at the smaller tournaments. Those are often full of pros and if you're an internet qualifier and have little clue as to what you're doing, you'll get crushed. In the WSOP, the luck/chance factor is in every hand due to how many people register and how many people win on suckouts.
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:37 pm GMT by snoogins47
| mooseontheloose wrote: | | He's got a ton of talent and ONE person WILL win, it can be ANYONE. So, Ivey surely has a chance as do all the other pros. Is it likely? I'd say not. These days the WSOP probably takes the least skill and the most luck of any tournament. Not that those who win are bad as most who make it far do have skill, but skill doesn't shine at the WSOP as it does at the smaller tournaments. Those are often full of pros and if you're an internet qualifier and have little clue as to what you're doing, you'll get crushed. In the WSOP, the luck/chance factor is in every hand due to how many people register and how many people win on suckouts. |
Skill doesn't 'shine' at many tournaments. It's just much more of a longshot to win the ME. In fact, though I don't know the structures and makeup of every major live tournament, but given the supposedly weak-as-hell field and the fact that it's a pretty slow, deep structure, skill might actually have more of an impact in the ME than in most other live tournaments (in that the skilled players probably have more of an edge than in a lot of other tourneys)
With the current size of it though, pick your top 10 most skilled players, and chances are not a single one will win the ME before they all pass on. Silly game we play.
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:51 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
In my personal opinion Ivey has the wrong attitude when it comes to huge field tournaments.
Yes, who am I to say that?
But i think Ivey has the attitude where if he doesn't have a boat load of chips he loses interest and makes wild moves thinking "ach well If this gamble doesn't work I'll go make a fortune in a cash game"
For me, he needs more patience for these huge fields.
I also think a lot of people are totally underestimating Allen Cunningham's achievements! The guy has a crazy amount of cashes and final tables in Major tournaments in the last few years!
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:55 pm GMT by Moon_Child
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | MasterMike wrote: | | Ivey is still very young and has dozens of MEs to still go to, but does anyone see him winning it all? |
Ultimately, it won't matter. The $50K HORSE event will be the one the pros will focus on. |
agreed 100%, the ME is just like any tournment except the field is by the 1000s... still 10k buy in... i think pros are now more focused on the 50k HORSE too...
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:13 pm GMT by mooseontheloose
| Moon_Child wrote: | | Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | MasterMike wrote: | | Ivey is still very young and has dozens of MEs to still go to, but does anyone see him winning it all? |
Ultimately, it won't matter. The $50K HORSE event will be the one the pros will focus on. |
agreed 100%, the ME is just like any tournment except the field is by the 1000s... still 10k buy in... i think pros are now more focused on the 50k HORSE too... |
Yeh for sure. The ME is like a $10,000 lottery.
BTW I wasn't saying skill doesn't matter in the ME, but think about it like this...
- You're a strong player sitting with 8 other strong players
- You work hard to get a few pots but since most of the people at your table are smart, you don't make much
- Meanwhile, a smart player is seated with 8 moronic, rich people playing the WSOP and within no time he's busted out most of the table and has a ton of chips
Something like that is why the WSOP is more about luck than skill these days. It all depends on the cards you get over the entire tournament (what/when you get cards, what others have, etc.) as well as your luck in who you're seated with. If one table has 3-4 pros at it and another has one sitting with a ton of mediocre players, it's likely those 3-4 pros will have a hard time keeping up in chips. Also, think about how many mindless idiots make terrible calls online and suckout to a 1 or 2 outer? From what I've read, the WSOP last year (this year too I assume) was basically the same thing. You have rich people, those who qualified for cheap, etc. and are just trying to make it big but don't play the game well and end up sucking out with their terrible calls.
Put all these things together and it's tough for anyone, even a pro, to make it to the final table. I think once at the FT skill is a big deal but making it there has so many variables. I'd LOVE to see more pros at the FT and more pros winning this event, but I seriously doubt it'll happen and as noted the HORSE event is the big deal for pros now.
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:11 pm GMT by mindgame
Well how can I resist offering an opinion on a subject I am completely unqualified to address????
Some statisician or other gave his opinion that the winner would have to go all-in as the underdog and win at least 6 times in his quest for the final table. No the whole point of being world class is that you are very, very good at not doing that. So either they come out of their game and make mathematically poor moves, or they lose to players who will. I don't see much hope for the best players--which is going to start making this thing a joke.
I thought it had ceased to identify the best players in the world about 10 years ago.
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:54 pm GMT by MasterMike
Whats the 50K HORSE tourney?
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:30 pm GMT by mindgame
I think they mean H.O.S.E = Hold 'em, Omaha, Seven Stud-Eight or better.
This used to be the biggest action game around, rarely played for stakes lower than 25/50 and frequently 100/200 and higher in the Chicago area. This is a big-bankroll, high-rolling gambler game.
The last time I played HORSE it was a grade-school basketball game.
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:34 pm GMT by supafrey
No, they mean H.O.R.S.E.
An event in the WSOP...
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:36 pm GMT by mooseontheloose
The R is for Razz I believe
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:37 pm GMT by mindgame
Well please don't keep us in the dark....
I'ts been years since I even played in the WSOP, so bring me up to speed.
Is it HOSE with Razz added???
Sounds like it.
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:49 pm GMT by crack
Yes.
Posted Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:54 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
One level limit Hold'em
One level limit Omaha 8-or-Better
One level limit Razz
One level limit Seven-Card Stud
One level limit Seven-Card Stud Eight-or-Better
Repeat.
That's HORSE.
Posted Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:16 pm GMT by JackKingOff
I definately feel srry for the guy... he cant even win WPT and hes made it to the FT 5 times i think?
Posted Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:39 am GMT by rugger48
Like to add my 2 cents, Im not the poker genius that some of you are, but here it goes. I just see it the as the evolution of a sport or game. As a sport becomes more popular so do the number of skill players and the level of skill they bring. In other words Imagine that we have 5 times as many top notch players with twice the skill as we do now. The current ones will have to adapt and become better with the times or in 5-10 years will be talking about how some of them havent won anything in a long time.
Posted Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:03 am GMT by Incognito129
Yeah but this is poker. Poker is a gambling game not chess.
Posted Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:37 pm GMT by mindgame
Must take exception here. Poker and chess may be less different than you think.
And played correctly, it simply isn't gambling.
Posted Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:32 pm GMT by golddog
I think Dan Harrington put it best a couple of years ago. (paraphrasing, of course)
We start with a field of 10,000 players. Since skill is a large factor, but can be overcome by luck, he has a few more tickets to this lottery than you or I.
So, his odds might be 1,000 to 1 or 1,250 to 1 or some such.
Still long odds to beat.
So, can Ivey win it? Of course--he's (let's say) 800 to 1 against. Is he likely to (in other words, should you wager on him or any other specific person)? No.
Although I wonder if they have Calcutta-like action in those events.
Posted Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:16 pm GMT by mindgame
Can't leave this alone. Let's be rational here:
An event doesn't have to be "likely" in order to justify a wager. It just has to be more likely than the pay-off odds. Let's take Ivey's putative 800 to 1 shot. If you bet $1 you should win $800 to break even. But say they're paying 3200-1? Then if your bankroll is deep enough you make the bet. The payoff is 4x higher than it should be. You make the bet 800 times an you lose $799 while winning $3200, netting $2401. Your expectation is 2401/800 3.0--an excellent wager. My contention is that this is just sound money management--not gambling.
It's exactly what banks do when they set a higher interest rate for a person whose credit is less than perfect. The make a very educated guess about the likelihood of default and cover the costs by juicing the interest. It's money management. You can bet it's sound. In fact, you can take it to the bank.
Posted Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:54 pm GMT by snoogins47
The fact that a skilled player can have an edge doesn't really stop it from being gambling in most other contexts, why would it do so in poker?
Posted Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:02 am GMT by mindgame
Well that goes to your definition of gambling.
If you define it as any activity that be a source of revenue whose outcome is not certain, well you would put playing poker in there. But what would you leave out? If it's 1929 and you put money in the bank with the expectation that you would earn interest....I guess that was gambling, but a lot of people didn't think so. Buying stocks or bonds would SURELY be gambling. Going to work would be gambling, inasmuch as there is no 100% certainty of getting paid.
I am using a definition of gambling as wagering on events whose outcome is exclusively a matter of chance. Playing roulette or craps is gambling. Poker is decidedly not.
|
|
