[Limit Breaker]

Looking at the final 27 players at the WSOP, about 1/3 of them started playing poker in the last 2 years. A few of them has only been playing for a few months. Luck definately plays a part but they all have to be decent players at least. It's weird seeing novice players eliminating poker giants. So how true is the old saying?

I've been playing 4 years. However, I do remember that I caught the mathematics side of poker pretty easily compared to people I've played with when I started. I knew pot / implied odds within the first 3 months of my playing nearly memorized.

I think Poker is like any sport. Some people are just born with certain abilities. I'd say my biggest weakness is reading people's tells, and it took me a while to spot them. While I know a kid I taught a few months ago, pick out tells quite easily.

[yeltzen]

Tiffany Williamson is a horrendous player (based on the hands that have been posted), but she made the final 27. She was pushing all in with AQ when she had 50 x the big blind. Wtf?

I shouldn't talk, though. I've been playing for over a year, have read all the books, and I still get my ass whipped by the pros in the .25/.5 games.

[dad604]

I'll agreed that there are natural born players. I know a few young guys who were playing and winning over 100 grand a year after only 6 months of learning to play holdem. They are not flash in the pan, this is 2 year later and they are adding to their bankroll every month. A couple of them were at the WSOP but bust out early.

[VARoadstter]

It's probably not a big stretch to consider the WSOP as a mini-lottery. Since there were approximately 5000 entries (for simplicity's sake), then the base odds of picking a winner at random is 1/5000.

The question becomes how much value can you place on experience. I can't remember where I read it but a top pro (I think it was Hellmuth but really can't recall) said that he could consider his edge in experience worth about 5x the buyin. So for a given top pro they are still staring at a 1/1000 chance of winning. Tournies typically pay out the top 10% of finishers, so even making the money would only be even money.

On the whole I would simply say that even though there has been a rash of unknown winners this is actually the more likely result since they simply outnumber the top players by a huge margin. Does winning the WSOP in 2003 mean Moneymaker is as good as the top pros? Hardly - the guy is a stiff. Whatever talent he had was aided in large measure by chance events.

[KYBill]

Originally Posted by VARoadstter

Does winning the WSOP in 2003 mean Moneymaker is as good as the top pros? Hardly - the guy is a stiff. Whatever talent he had was aided in large measure by chance events.

whos Moneymaker?

[yeltzen]

I think Moneymaker is way better than people give him credit for. Raymer got very lucky last year and most people consider him to be very good. Why? Cause he's a math guy and Moneymaker isn't. They had the 2003 final table with Moneymaker's commentary and it seemed to me like he knew what was going on a lot more than everyone thinks. He also should have won the Bay 101 WPT tournament that year. Phil Gordon made probably the dumbest call ever and got lucky. But Phil's a math guy so it was a great play, nevermind. HIS M WAS LOW ENOUGH HE COULD CALL WITH ANY TWO CARDS ITS ALL ABOUT THE M BABY

[coyote]

I think another thing to consider in relation to that quote, is the advent of online poker. Serious players are able to play 4-8 times as many hands per hour as those who learned in the live games.

Now, online experience isn't the same, you don't get the same feel, or ability to make reads but, just the high volume of hands certainly has to help your progression, if you review your hands and try to learn from them.

[SpeakEasy]

Originally Posted by Limit Breaker

Looking at the final 27 players at the WSOP, about 1/3 of them started playing poker in the last 2 years. A few of them has only been playing for a few months. Luck definately plays a part but they all have to be decent players at least. It's weird seeing novice players eliminating poker giants. So how true is the old saying?

These players are not yet masters. They had one good tournament.

[Niagara_All_In]

Originally Posted by VARoadstter

The question becomes how much value can you place on experience. I can't remember where I read it but a top pro (I think it was Hellmuth but really can't recall) said that he could consider his edge in experience worth about 5x the buyin. So for a given top pro they are still staring at a 1/1000 chance of winning. Tournies typically pay out the top 10% of finishers, so even making the money would only be even money.

Harrington said something like this at one of the final tables of the WSOP. "My chances are 1/9, I think I am more experianced then the rest so add a few points, that puts me 4/9"

Or something like that its been awhile since I watched that episode lol.

As for fossilman and Moneymaker well I would have to say they both played good games there year but what have they done since? They might take $$ off of grandma at the $1/$2 tables but you never hear about them. last I saw them was a Europe game and they both busted fast.

One Tourney should never make someone that kind of champ, player of the year would be something alot more important if they started treating it different in the poker world.

[Murf]

Originally Posted by Niagara_All_In

Harrington said something like this at one of the final tables of the WSOP. "My chances are 1/9, I think I am more experianced then the rest so add a few points, that puts me 4/9"

Or something like that its been awhile since I watched that episode lol.

As for fossilman and Moneymaker well I would have to say they both played good games there year but what have they done since? They might take $$ off of grandma at the $1/$2 tables but you never hear about them. last I saw them was a Europe game and they both busted fast.

One Tourney should never make someone that kind of champ, player of the year would be something alot more important if they started treating it different in the poker world.

I saw Raymer tear up a few rounds of Poker Royale: Battle of the Sexes. But I agree with what has been said: Good Players? Yes. Lucky? Yes. Masters? No.