Winky:
Excellent choice at a great price. Expect to see him at the final table.
As for the reason for this explosion in hold em, I believe it has more to do with the televising of not only the WSOP the last few years, but more so, the WPT on the Travel Channel and the Celebrity Poker Tournaments shown as well. With Ben Affleck leading the way, everybody thinks they can sit down and play the game and win. Agree that CM winning by virtue of gaining a seat through an internet tournament helped but it also looks like Hollywood is enticed by the game as well. The game has exploded not only on-line but in the casino poker rooms as well. Used to be you could find a seat almost at will. Now, often times, you have to put your name down and wait in line to be called. As nysports said at the start of this thread. Incredible!!
Excellent choice at a great price. Expect to see him at the final table.
As for the reason for this explosion in hold em, I believe it has more to do with the televising of not only the WSOP the last few years, but more so, the WPT on the Travel Channel and the Celebrity Poker Tournaments shown as well. With Ben Affleck leading the way, everybody thinks they can sit down and play the game and win. Agree that CM winning by virtue of gaining a seat through an internet tournament helped but it also looks like Hollywood is enticed by the game as well. The game has exploded not only on-line but in the casino poker rooms as well. Used to be you could find a seat almost at will. Now, often times, you have to put your name down and wait in line to be called. As nysports said at the start of this thread. Incredible!!
How can you expect to see anyone in particular at a final table with a potential for 2400 players? Even if Ivey is 10 times better than the field, he still is only about 1 in 25 to make it to the final table. With this many players the field bet has gone up in value infinitely and those odds of even 500-1 for some good players aren't sufficient. With a field this big the requirement to be lucky just keeps going up. Yes talent can and will play some role, but luck will be far more important in what is now just a big whopping crapshoot.
Ivey is going to be a lot better than 10 times better than a lot of players there. This will be the first real live tourney for a ton of players there as at least 600 or so of these players qualified through online tourneys. Ivey holds many titles and has played tons of live tourneys. Yes, luck does have a lot to do with it. Moneymaker had unreal luck last year twice drawing out as a 9-1 dog, both times with almost all of his chips in. Once when he knocked out Ivey. But Ivey played solid poker the whole way through and got 10th or 11th.
In this oldmans opinion, Phil Ivey is one of the best 10 players in the world and while it is true that with nearly 2400 players possibly starting the tournament, most will be dead money, and yes I know all about Moneymaker, who was extremely lucky to advance given his play. The odds for Ivey would not be 1 in 25 given his ability. Yes, he could get knocked out by anyone in the right situation. But, that being said, it is more likely that he will grind away as players fall by the wayside and should find himself approaching the final table. Although the best certainly don't always win, and particularly in an event such as this, they do rise toward the top as their play is far superior to but a handful of their competitors. That's why it would be of no surprise to see him reach the final table. Time will tell.
Ask any top notch tournament poker player about this and they will all tell you the same things. Sklansky did an article on this as well, he asserts that the best player might have 3 or 4 times the chance to win a tourney over the average field player. If you add in the length of this and the likely dead money here you might make an argument to double that, but even my 10 times math is something I highly doubt any person wise to the ways of tournament poker would endorse. This field is so big at 2000 or 2500 players or whatever that is in without a doubt a crapshoot. There is just no way a player can get to that final table without being lucky. Luck obviously is far more important than skill in a one-tournament scenario. Ivey is a great player and undoubtedly is miles ahead of the game in terms of money won and skill, but it is just so hard to believe people would be willing to take those kinds of odds and be happy with them. Even if you hit the jackpot and he wins the thing, you will be getting shortchanged from the "true" odds.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt24:
Ivey is going to be a lot better than 10 times better than a lot of players there. This will be the first real live tourney for a ton of players there as at least 600 or so of these players qualified through online tourneys. Ivey holds many titles and has played tons of live tourneys. Yes, luck does have a lot to do with it. Moneymaker had unreal luck last year twice drawing out as a 9-1 dog, both times with almost all of his chips in. Once when he knocked out Ivey. But Ivey played solid poker the whole way through and got 10th or 11th.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Matt24-
Buddy...I think you are way off here.
You never mention or forget that Ivey hit a 2 outer to re-suckout on Moneymaker. In that infamous hand which you LOVE to bring up MM had AQ, Ivey had 99, and another guy had TT....IVEY WAS IN 2ND PLACE preflop!!!!
Flop came QxQ...so MM sucked out on both of them and IVEY WAS NOW IN 3RD PLACE!!!!!!.
The rest is history. Turn comes 9...Ivey has a boat...chips go in...river comes Ace and MM drags the pot.
Ivey is my fav of the famous pros too but he is worse than 140-1/14-1 (or whatever it is to win/make the final table). You know how many coin flips a player must win to get to the final table?!?!?! Even Slim was quoted in today's Wall St. Journal saying that the tourney these days is a crapshoot.
Oh btw, when was the last time Ivey or any of the other pros played a tourney with >1000 people in it. You and I know that the online qualifiers play those things WEEKLY and MANY of them are at the WSOP because they waded through hundreds of players just to get there.
These guys are dead money but betting is about value and there is NO VALUE in taking the big pros at the odds the books are posting. Even if a pro wins it it still will NOT be vindication that winning a 2000+ player poker tourney is all skill. Hell, dead money has won 2 years in a row.
Ivey is going to be a lot better than 10 times better than a lot of players there. This will be the first real live tourney for a ton of players there as at least 600 or so of these players qualified through online tourneys. Ivey holds many titles and has played tons of live tourneys. Yes, luck does have a lot to do with it. Moneymaker had unreal luck last year twice drawing out as a 9-1 dog, both times with almost all of his chips in. Once when he knocked out Ivey. But Ivey played solid poker the whole way through and got 10th or 11th.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Matt24-
Buddy...I think you are way off here.
You never mention or forget that Ivey hit a 2 outer to re-suckout on Moneymaker. In that infamous hand which you LOVE to bring up MM had AQ, Ivey had 99, and another guy had TT....IVEY WAS IN 2ND PLACE preflop!!!!
Flop came QxQ...so MM sucked out on both of them and IVEY WAS NOW IN 3RD PLACE!!!!!!.
The rest is history. Turn comes 9...Ivey has a boat...chips go in...river comes Ace and MM drags the pot.
Ivey is my fav of the famous pros too but he is worse than 140-1/14-1 (or whatever it is to win/make the final table). You know how many coin flips a player must win to get to the final table?!?!?! Even Slim was quoted in today's Wall St. Journal saying that the tourney these days is a crapshoot.
Oh btw, when was the last time Ivey or any of the other pros played a tourney with >1000 people in it. You and I know that the online qualifiers play those things WEEKLY and MANY of them are at the WSOP because they waded through hundreds of players just to get there.
These guys are dead money but betting is about value and there is NO VALUE in taking the big pros at the odds the books are posting. Even if a pro wins it it still will NOT be vindication that winning a 2000+ player poker tourney is all skill. Hell, dead money has won 2 years in a row.
Yeah but Ivey didnt put all his money in until he had the full house on that hand. Ivey bet 70,000 out on the flop, was called, then bet again once he hit it, if he missed that turn, then he could have slowed down on the turn and he would have never had all his chips in. That is my point on that. Moneymaker though put his chips in recklessely a lot, 88 vs AA comes to mind after the flop.
Theswami- Think about this one for me. I have a positive expected value at single table tourneys and at limit, but at no limit multis, I'm not that good. I got 21st once I think and that was my best. Would I fall under an "average
" player coming into the WSOP? What I am getting at here is dont you guys think that Ivey would at least be 15 times more likely to win the whole thing than myself. I know there is no way I believe he is only 3 or 4 times more likely than me.
" player coming into the WSOP? What I am getting at here is dont you guys think that Ivey would at least be 15 times more likely to win the whole thing than myself. I know there is no way I believe he is only 3 or 4 times more likely than me.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt24:
Theswami- Think about this one for me. I have a positive expected value at single table tourneys and at limit, but at no limit multis, I'm not that good. I got 21st once I think and that was my best. Would I fall under an "average
" player coming into the WSOP? What I am getting at here is dont you guys think that Ivey would at least be 15 times more likely to win the whole thing than myself. I know there is no way I believe he is only 3 or 4 times more likely than me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Matt24-
Just saw your post.
I'm not going to pick apart your results and even if I did I couldn't tell you if you are "average" since I do not know the histories of the players at WSOP. My guess is that at no-limit you are likely a below average player. There are a few things you must remember:
1) You've said that you are not so good at NL.
2) At last check, you are playing at Party Poker which is a fish farm. Your results there may be decent but remember that the "average" Party Poker player will NOT be playing at WSOP. The players there are far better than your "average" poker player. From experience playing in maybe 6-10 tourneys with >1200 players, no one gets lucky for 7 hours straight (read as some skill involved) BUT you do need to get lucky to win.
Regarding Ivey's odd versus yours (if you were in it)...you are O-T-B!!! My understanding is that the books did not post odds on EVERY player. If they did, the you would see that the difference in odds would be much larger than say 15x. I also don't think you would be 2000-1 (assuming 2000 entries)...you would be worse than that. Just like even though the Cards are just 1 of 32 teams in the NFL their odds (posted by the book) of winning the Superbowl (to get action) would be far worse than 32-1.
So....comparing your odds to Phil's you would see > than 15x difference. With that said, for me to make a bet on Ivey to win a 2000+ player no-limit holdem tourney, the odds would have to be far better than 140-1. There's too much luck involved and too many hands to be played. IMHO, taking a pro with 140-1 is taking the worst of it from a book.
You've played with guys you know you could beat in your sleep but they just keep catching cards. Your edge is gone as a result of the way the cards are falling. The point is Phil has to go through 2399 people to win, some of whom may be cacthing cards. That is one reason why a book would have to give me better than 140-1. The margins on any one hand are generally so small that one bad play or bad beat will cost you the tourney.
There is nothing wrong with gambling with the worst of it, I do it at times even when I know the odds (like when I go to casinos and play blackjack or craps with my buddies so we can play at the same table and chat over a few cocktails in what can be an exciting game). When the odds are known and I'm gambling to win (not for entertainment or some other purpose) I try to play the odds. This is coming from someone who wouldn't DREAM of buying a lottery ticket unless the game was offering a better return than what the true odds are.
I think betting on various WSOP players to win is a fun way to enjoy the tourney and a chance at a decent payday for a small bet but I wouldn't think that I'm getting the best of it.
Theswami- Think about this one for me. I have a positive expected value at single table tourneys and at limit, but at no limit multis, I'm not that good. I got 21st once I think and that was my best. Would I fall under an "average
" player coming into the WSOP? What I am getting at here is dont you guys think that Ivey would at least be 15 times more likely to win the whole thing than myself. I know there is no way I believe he is only 3 or 4 times more likely than me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Matt24-
Just saw your post.
I'm not going to pick apart your results and even if I did I couldn't tell you if you are "average" since I do not know the histories of the players at WSOP. My guess is that at no-limit you are likely a below average player. There are a few things you must remember:
1) You've said that you are not so good at NL.
2) At last check, you are playing at Party Poker which is a fish farm. Your results there may be decent but remember that the "average" Party Poker player will NOT be playing at WSOP. The players there are far better than your "average" poker player. From experience playing in maybe 6-10 tourneys with >1200 players, no one gets lucky for 7 hours straight (read as some skill involved) BUT you do need to get lucky to win.
Regarding Ivey's odd versus yours (if you were in it)...you are O-T-B!!! My understanding is that the books did not post odds on EVERY player. If they did, the you would see that the difference in odds would be much larger than say 15x. I also don't think you would be 2000-1 (assuming 2000 entries)...you would be worse than that. Just like even though the Cards are just 1 of 32 teams in the NFL their odds (posted by the book) of winning the Superbowl (to get action) would be far worse than 32-1.
So....comparing your odds to Phil's you would see > than 15x difference. With that said, for me to make a bet on Ivey to win a 2000+ player no-limit holdem tourney, the odds would have to be far better than 140-1. There's too much luck involved and too many hands to be played. IMHO, taking a pro with 140-1 is taking the worst of it from a book.
You've played with guys you know you could beat in your sleep but they just keep catching cards. Your edge is gone as a result of the way the cards are falling. The point is Phil has to go through 2399 people to win, some of whom may be cacthing cards. That is one reason why a book would have to give me better than 140-1. The margins on any one hand are generally so small that one bad play or bad beat will cost you the tourney.
There is nothing wrong with gambling with the worst of it, I do it at times even when I know the odds (like when I go to casinos and play blackjack or craps with my buddies so we can play at the same table and chat over a few cocktails in what can be an exciting game). When the odds are known and I'm gambling to win (not for entertainment or some other purpose) I try to play the odds. This is coming from someone who wouldn't DREAM of buying a lottery ticket unless the game was offering a better return than what the true odds are.
I think betting on various WSOP players to win is a fun way to enjoy the tourney and a chance at a decent payday for a small bet but I wouldn't think that I'm getting the best of it.
