Posted Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:18 pm GMT by aaronw
As the title suggests, I am wondering who you all think is the best poker players in the world. I am looking for ALL AROUND best players, not just best tourney player, etc. So, who do you think are the best all around poker players in the world? Say the 5 best?
Here is my list:
Phil Ivey (Voted by his peers as the most feered player and best all around player)
Chip Reese (Considered the best cash game player in the world)
Barry Greenstein (Plays in the biggest cash games in the world and plays all games well)
Gus Hansen(Plays in the highest cash games. Plays well in all the games. Also does excellent in no-limit hold 'em tourneys.)
Jennifer Harman (Considered the best woman poker player in the world. Plays the highest cash games regularly. Possibly one of the best limit hold 'em players in the world)
(I am sure something like this has been done before on the forum but I couldn't find anything)
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 Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:41 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
I'd mostly agree with you there, the possible substitution of Doyle for Gus, and maybe Daniel for Barry (although I honestly think Daniel isn't as good as he was in 2004 due to his many outside interests now).
Doyle is still a regular winner in all the big games and has great tournament success as well.
Gus is a great guy to watch on TV, but to tell you the truth, most pros like to see Gus in a game because his "wild man" tendencies can often pay off in a big way. Sometimes his aggression gets out of control and costs him money.
I think your list would probably be a decent as far as cash players go, particularly in the mixed games, but you always have to qualify a "best" list. I wouldn't pick these 5 guys for the best NL tournament players today (well, maybe Ivey and Daniel), nor for just the best pure NL players.
Posted Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:10 pm GMT by tame_deuces
I think the select few best players play mainly online, and I never really recall their nicks...Stox, Aba and Spirit Rock comes to mind, but there are many others too.
Posted Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:32 pm GMT by aaronw
For the best pure NL players I would probably have to look at players like Barry Greenstein, Doyle and then probably have to look to players online.
And tame, I think if you were looking for the best players at a certain game, you would more than likely look online, however I don't think the best all around players would be online. Do you think they would be?
Posted Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:54 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Most of the "top" online players would be far outclassed in the big, higher limit Vegas pro games.
Posted Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:37 pm GMT by aaronw
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | Most of the "top" online players would be far outclassed in the big, higher limit Vegas pro games. |
I think it would depend on the game. If you took some of the top 25-50NL online players, I would bet that they would fair quite well against some of the pros.
Posted Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:06 pm GMT by tame_deuces
For me its just about the numbers.
1. An online pro plays an incredible amount of more hands, which equals much more experience.
2. The online player pool is much bigger. A bigger base means that the good players at the top are likely to be much better than the good players gathered from a smaller player base like the live scene the last 20 years.
3. The difference in stakes is starting to get minimal, you'll find 1k/2kFL games and uncapped betting 300/600NL spread online and ttogether with the typical speed of online play they probably move money just as fast as any live game there is, excluding special games like the Beal game and such.
So no I don't think the 'top' online players (whoever they are, I don't think it is possible to find out anyway) would get eaten alive by the oldskool live players we see in WSOP shows and HSP, I think it is the other way around. But we'll never know, because they would have to play tens of thousands of hands versus one another. And all we will ever see at best is 30-40 live hands with TV value.
Posted Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:33 pm GMT by aaronw
| tame_deuces wrote: | For me its just about the numbers.
1. An online pro plays an incredible amount of more hands, which equals much more experience.
2. The online player pool is much bigger. A bigger base means that the good players at the top are likely to be much better than the good players gathered from a smaller player base like the live scene the last 20 years.
3. The difference in stakes is starting to get minimal, you'll find 1k/2kFL games and uncapped betting 300/600NL spread online and ttogether with the typical speed of online play they probably move money just as fast as any live game there is, excluding special games like the Beal game and such.
So no I don't think the 'top' online players (whoever they are, I don't think it is possible to find out anyway) would get eaten alive by the oldskool live players we see in WSOP shows and HSP, I think it is the other way around. But we'll never know, because they would have to play tens of thousands of hands versus one another. And all we will ever see at best is 30-40 live hands with TV value. |
I think you are still looking at it from the point of view that the online players are better at one particular game whereas some of the players previously mentioed are better all around players. I would agree that some of the specialized players online are better at a specific game than most of the "TV pros" we see on a day-to-day basis. However, I believe that the live cash game pros are better in more games.
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:18 pm GMT by tame_deuces
Could be, I don't know how much top end players dabble. It would be natural that currently unpopular online games which has/had alot of live spread would be weak points.
Posted Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:13 am GMT by UrAteUp
How come no one has mentioned me in this post? ...damn I feel hurt now.... 
|
|
