• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are unknown poker players going to keep winning the WSOP main event?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I find it interesting that internet poker skills can transfer to the physical table so well. I would think that controlling your tells would be difficult against pros when you have very little real life table experience. Yet, there are these guys that claim they only play online, or mostly play online and they go far in these events. I guess they are good about hiding their patterns and physical tells.
 
Playing poker online translates well into real life because playing online you gain massive amounts of valuable experience. I have seen every imaginable situation in the game and that definitely helps when I play live.

Tells are definitely something a good pro can use against you if you're not careful of inexperienced playing live. However, after you get over your initial "live" jitters just sit there and stare or look away, no need to act all dramatic like on TV.
 
Originally posted by: Random Variable
The field for the main event is now so large that it is understandable that pros won't be able to win every single year. But a pro has not won since Carlos Mortensen won in 2001. And this year's final table is once again chock-full of unknown internet players. Are poker "pros" becoming a myth?
Click to expand...
You do know that the "knowns" were at one time "unknowns" don't you.
 
It's mathematics, experience, etc. You wouldn't know if you haven't done it 🙂

I think between 4-6 tables is the sweet spot. 8 tabling is pushing it for my limits, as you do tend to make more mistakes.

Look at it this way, yes you could sit at 1 or 2 tables and make 10/hr per table really focusing and analyzing every play.


You could however sit 6 tables, your hourly rate would decrease to 7.50/hr per table but you'd still be making more money so it makes sense to do it.

 
Yea, when you play poker with the math, the more tables you play, the more you'll make. Playing less hands, there are times when that 10% card comes out and the guy hits the straight or three of a kind to beat you on the river. The more hands you play, you'll still lose those couple of times, but you'll win the rest. The math starts working out and you can make more money.
 
You're arguing that playing more tables is more lucrative from a probabilistic point of view, an argument that would apply to both amateurs and pros.
 
Most pro's don't multi table like many of the people who started playing online because much of the analysis is taken out of the game.
 
Pro simply means they make a living out of playing.
They don't have any advantage over regular players.
I remember a while ago, some no name internet players won two major events totaling close to $1m back to back.
 
Originally posted by: Epic Fail
David Rheem certainly qualifies as a pro and a big name pro just won the WSOP main event, albeit the European version with 362 entrants.

Pros also turned the table on the amateurs with a change of structure, more than half the bracelets were won by pros this year.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports...19-hellmuth-pros_N.htm
Click to expand...

I used to go to church with David "Chino" Rheem when he spent a year in Atlanta (he lived in Florida), another bracelet winner named David Woo went to the same church... but none of us played poker back then. :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: Ne0
Originally posted by: Epic Fail
David Rheem certainly qualifies as a pro and a big name pro just won the WSOP main event, albeit the European version with 362 entrants.

Pros also turned the table on the amateurs with a change of structure, more than half the bracelets were won by pros this year.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports...19-hellmuth-pros_N.htm
Click to expand...

I used to go to church with David "Chino" Rheem when he spent a year in Atlanta (he lived in Florida), another bracelet winner named David Woo went to the same church... but none of us played poker back then. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Woo told me that "Chino" asked him to sponsor him for this year's Main Event as he didn't have the funds. Woo declined. :laugh: Woo lost out on lot of money.
 
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: bananapeel42
Originally posted by: QueBert
no they're not pros, if you take a good online player who makes a living playing on pokerstars and put him in a heads up game against Daniel Negreanu or Phil Ivey they are going to get their asses handed to them 9/10 times if not more. Online players can be good, but they're winning the huge events because there are so many of them entering the tournaments. A good online player could win heads up against a true pro, but it wouldn't be the normal. Daniel is about 500 times better than any on-line player.

It's not hard to win at online poker, people make idiot calls all the time. If you could handle having 5 tables going at once you could make a living playing online at the $20 tables.They showed a guy on the news who plays 6 or 7 tables at the same time and comes out well ahead every day. He would be stomped against Doyle or Hellmuth though.
Click to expand...

Playing online is easy? You do it, and show me your profitability using a software tracking program. Playing online takes tons of time, and is extremely difficult to win in the long run.

I play at FullTilt (easier to get money in / out than Stars ) and generally 4 table .25/.50 or 50 dollar buy in NL holdem or sometimes .15/.25 which are 25 buy in tables while playing 4 SNG's.

I do that to make money on the side, but in NO way would I try to make a living off of it, even at low stakes, you're going to have wild swings and you'll find strong players even at those small 25 / 50 dollar limits.
Click to expand...

playing online is easy, without trying I can typically make it to the final table when I play on pureplay. 500 person tournaments will be down to 250 in no time, 15 people will go out in the first hand. if you sit back and watch you can make it to where it's down to 50 people without even playing a hand. I don't do cash games online, so I don't know how those go online. Maybe easy isn't the right word, but I win online far easier than I do at any casino when I play tournaments.
Click to expand...

It does seem to matter which site you're on as I can have an easier time at cash games on FullTilt than on Pokerstars, but as bananapeel said it would be difficult to make a living at it.
 
Originally posted by: QueBert
no they're not pros, if you take a good online player who makes a living playing on pokerstars and put him in a heads up game against Daniel Negreanu or Phil Ivey they are going to get their asses handed to them 9/10 times if not more. Online players can be good, but they're winning the huge events because there are so many of them entering the tournaments. A good online player could win heads up against a true pro, but it wouldn't be the normal. Daniel is about 500 times better than any on-line player.

It's not hard to win at online poker, people make idiot calls all the time. If you could handle having 5 tables going at once you could make a living playing online at the $20 tables.They showed a guy on the news who plays 6 or 7 tables at the same time and comes out well ahead every day. He would be stomped against Doyle or Hellmuth though.
Click to expand...

This couldn't be more wrong.

A moderate-skilled online player (3/6, 5/10+) would be even money against a live pro in a live match, and would have a huge edge online.

A ultra-high stakes player (durrr, etc.) would and has crushed live pros. There's a reason in challenge matches that online pros request a certain amount of hands or try to play a freezeout format, so the live pro can't quit when he's losing.
 
Yup, pro "edge" in tournament poker is now nearly nil. After the donkeys get knocked out in the first day, the remaining players have pretty much similar skill levels. And even with that there's still a pool of thousands of players. At that point it's more luck than anything else.

What they need to do for WSOP main event is to increase the buy in to $20k to weed out the donks (or make it more expensive for them). 8000 player pool is just retarded.

However, where a "pro" does have a true edge is in high stakes cash games.
 
Originally posted by: JS80
Yup, pro "edge" in tournament poker is now nearly nil. After the donkeys get knocked out in the first day, the remaining players have pretty much similar skill levels. And even with that there's still a pool of thousands of players. At that point it's more luck than anything else.

What they need to do for WSOP main event is to increase the buy in to $20k to weed out the donks (or make it more expensive for them). 8000 player pool is just retarded.

However, where a "pro" does have a true edge is in high stakes cash games.
Click to expand...

Doubling the entry fee just doubles the prize pool, so in the long run this just might make the WSOP bigger IMHO.
 
Originally posted by: JS80
Yup, pro "edge" in tournament poker is now nearly nil. After the donkeys get knocked out in the first day, the remaining players have pretty much similar skill levels. And even with that there's still a pool of thousands of players. At that point it's more luck than anything else.

What they need to do for WSOP main event is to increase the buy in to $20k to weed out the donks (or make it more expensive for them). 8000 player pool is just retarded.

However, where a "pro" does have a true edge is in high stakes cash games.
Click to expand...

Won't make a difference since the majority of players get in by winning low buy-in satellite tournaments.
 
Originally posted by: JS80
What they need to do for WSOP main event is to increase the buy in to $20k to weed out the donks (or make it more expensive for them). 8000 player pool is just retarded.

However, where a "pro" does have a true edge is in high stakes cash games.
Click to expand...

WSOP has a big buy in tournament for pros already, it's the $50k HORSE, pros won all three editions so far.
 
$20k was just a hypothetical number. I meant they should figure out the amount that would reduce the player pool to around 1,000 - 2,000 whether the buy in be $10k or $50k.

But I get the appeal as is that it's cheap enough for the average Joe to be able to afford it, but like people said before they would win through satellites anyway so I think it still works.
 
Originally posted by: dakels
I find it interesting that internet poker skills can transfer to the physical table so well. I would think that controlling your tells would be difficult against pros when you have very little real life table experience. Yet, there are these guys that claim they only play online, or mostly play online and they go far in these events. I guess they are good about hiding their patterns and physical tells.
Click to expand...

Tells are pretty overrated in poker. Betting patterns trump tells every day of the week. Of course, the more information you have about an opponent the better, and sometimes people will tip off their hands by the way they act, but things like a guy twitching his upper lip before every time before making a bluff is made for Hollywood.
 
Originally posted by: DayLaPaul
Originally posted by: dakels
I find it interesting that internet poker skills can transfer to the physical table so well. I would think that controlling your tells would be difficult against pros when you have very little real life table experience. Yet, there are these guys that claim they only play online, or mostly play online and they go far in these events. I guess they are good about hiding their patterns and physical tells.
Click to expand...

Tells are pretty overrated in poker. Betting patterns trump tells every day of the week. Of course, the more information you have about an opponent the better, and sometimes people will tip off their hands by the way they act, but things like a guy twitching his upper lip before every time before making a bluff is made for Hollywood.
Click to expand...


I quite agree. The more personal data you have the person the better. It so much easier to let slip at the table that you have pictures of their wives in compromising positions. They always have a hard time with that gambit.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top