Online Poker Room
Our Poker Players
Texas Hold Em Download
How To Play Poker
Full Tilt Poker
Real Money Poker Games
News & Promotions
Poker Store
Online Poker Affiliates
Full Tilt Poker
Online Poker Forum at Full Tilt Poker
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch    RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile  Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages  Log inLog in 

Online Poker Forum - Are pro's over-rated?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Online Poker Forum Home -> General Discussion
Author Message
IRON LEE
High Card


Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 7
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rmharris wrote:
ok iron lee.. y did u ask ur question then if you dont care about any of our responses. The pros also invited him to thier high stakes games as well because he is easy money for them. Doyle was even gonna stake him some more when he went bust because they all wanted his easy money.

He is no pro. plain and simple... That was not his source of income.. one week doesnt make him a pro. get it through ur skull.


I meant I don't care if you flame me because it's just my opinion.
Back to top
dmoore1998
Message Board Junkie


Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 1154
Location: Iowa

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IRON LEE wrote:
If you beat all the "Pro's" that compete in the WSOP, I'd say you are now a PRO also. You can now compete in the Proffesional Poker Tour, which is Pro-only. So that means you are Pro. Plain and simple.
I think deep down, Pro's are cheering thier luck that they can skate through the rest of thier lives being "Pro" after getting lucky and winning the WSOP. That's my opinion. I know no other sport or game where a pro can be beat so easy and often.
I just think they are over-rated. Some have real knowledge of the game... I've read the Harrington on Hold em' books... he is one that I could call "Pro"... but some of these others... I don't know...whatever...


Who says the PPT is pro only? Just because they slap that name on their own product doesn't make it true. If I started my own poker league and called it Professional Poker League does that make everyone who plays in it a pro?
Back to top
prolifik0119
Royal Flush


Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 646
Location: Snitches Get Stitches

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nothing against you, I just think my last post summed it up. If you read Rafe's tip or listen to his podcast, I think the answer to you're question would be answered.
Back to top
junkbutton
Message Board Junkie


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 4052
Location: Gutterrock, NY

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The King65 wrote:
THIS THREAD SUCKS!!!


We should stop talking about poker... it's just confusing KING...
Back to top
IRON LEE
High Card


Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 7
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmoore1998 wrote:
IRON LEE wrote:
If you beat all the "Pro's" that compete in the WSOP, I'd say you are now a PRO also. You can now compete in the Proffesional Poker Tour, which is Pro-only. So that means you are Pro. Plain and simple.
I think deep down, Pro's are cheering thier luck that they can skate through the rest of thier lives being "Pro" after getting lucky and winning the WSOP. That's my opinion. I know no other sport or game where a pro can be beat so easy and often.
I just think they are over-rated. Some have real knowledge of the game... I've read the Harrington on Hold em' books... he is one that I could call "Pro"... but some of these others... I don't know...whatever...


Who says the PPT is pro only? Just because they slap that name on their own product doesn't make it true. If I started my own poker league and called it Professional Poker League does that make everyone who plays in it a pro?


Actually it is pro-only. Check it out for yourself. You have to have certain wins and records to compete in it.
I knew this would be a hot topic! Twisted Evil Not bad for a first post Razz
Back to top
deadmoney314
Message Board Junkie


Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 3228
Location: grunching through reply posts

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IRON LEE wrote:
If you beat all the "Pro's" that compete in the WSOP, I'd say you are now a PRO also. You can now compete in the Proffesional Poker Tour, which is Pro-only. So that means you are Pro. Plain and simple.
I think deep down, Pro's are cheering thier luck that they can skate through the rest of thier lives being "Pro" after getting lucky and winning the WSOP. That's my opinion. I know no other sport or game where a pro can be beat so easy and often.
I just think they are over-rated. Some have real knowledge of the game... I've read the Harrington on Hold em' books... he is one that I could call "Pro"... but some of these others... I don't know...whatever...


Ahem, this thread does not suck, people who flame every thread they enter suck. It has obviously started a debate that goes deeper than what the OP was intending.

In your example that you are using you didn't account for the ratio of pros to amateurs. For instance, 8000+ people entered this years WSOP, how many professional entered? Prob around 300 at best, that's a ~27 to 1 ratio so if even one pro makes it to the final table let alone gets in position to win it, it is lucky. If none get there, that is expected.

Look what happened though, Allen Cunningham not only made the final table but got into position at one point to win the whole thing, but suckouts etc conspired against him.

When you play enough poker you begin to realize that only about 5-10% of players take home the dough, and about 1% of those that do win are pros that you will never want seated at your same table (if your intent is to make money) because they will consistantly make higher quality decisions and are extremely resiliant to the common poker cold called "tilt" (far more than you will be anyway).
Back to top
dmoore1998
Message Board Junkie


Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 1154
Location: Iowa

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IRON LEE wrote:
dmoore1998 wrote:
IRON LEE wrote:
If you beat all the "Pro's" that compete in the WSOP, I'd say you are now a PRO also. You can now compete in the Proffesional Poker Tour, which is Pro-only. So that means you are Pro. Plain and simple.
I think deep down, Pro's are cheering thier luck that they can skate through the rest of thier lives being "Pro" after getting lucky and winning the WSOP. That's my opinion. I know no other sport or game where a pro can be beat so easy and often.
I just think they are over-rated. Some have real knowledge of the game... I've read the Harrington on Hold em' books... he is one that I could call "Pro"... but some of these others... I don't know...whatever...


Who says the PPT is pro only? Just because they slap that name on their own product doesn't make it true. If I started my own poker league and called it Professional Poker League does that make everyone who plays in it a pro?


Actually it is pro-only. Check it out for yourself. You have to have certain wins and records to compete in it.
I knew this would be a hot topic! Twisted Evil Not bad for a first post Razz


No, there might be some standards that the league made up, but that in no way denotes that all of the players are pros. Professional means that you do it for a living. Also besides that you can just be voted in by a panel which totally negates "needing" certain wins or records. There are also sponsor exemptions to get in. Sounds a lot more like the PGA to me which is comprised of professionals but NOT requiring that only professionals compete in events. Amateurs compete in many events on the PGA which means an amateur can win an event and still remain an amateur.

Back to my professional poker league analogy, i could make up my own standards there too, doesn't mean that the players are professional. Are you a professional if you randomly enter a WPT event and win but never play poker again? You're eligible for the PPT, but if you're not making a living off of poker your'e still not a pro.
Back to top
01baz
Message Board Junkie


Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 1904

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

take moneymaker for example, hes supposedly a "pro" but he makes his money doing commercials and promotions etc, he probably makes more money doing that then he does playin poker
Back to top
junkbutton
Message Board Junkie


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 4052
Location: Gutterrock, NY

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

01baz wrote:
take moneymaker for example, hes supposedly a "pro" but he makes his money doing commercials and promotions etc, he probably makes more money doing that then he does playin poker


To be fair, Phil Hellmuth probably makes more money from endorsements and appearances than poker too... And I would wholeheartedly consider him a pro.
Back to top
deadmoney314
Message Board Junkie


Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 3228
Location: grunching through reply posts

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Gypsy said something about all of this depending on your definition of pro, and that definition is beginning to blur with the advent of online gaming and I'm not talking about poker. Yes there are traditional definitions of professional that would depict Moneymaker as a "pro". But are now finding the use of this word in WoW users and activities that don't involve making a living or cash at the activity necessarily. Albeit it is an incorrect use of the term, someone will still have a different meaning when they say "that Korean is pro at starcraft" instead of "he makes his living playing starcraft". If you don't think the term is blurring into another definition fine, then there are some people who would fall into your pro classification that I would not be afraid of, Jaime Gold and Moneymaker would fall in that category. If a newer definition of the word is used, then I don't want to see any of the people I consider "pros" at my table other than to get an autograph.
Back to top
dcoles11
Straight


Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 111

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think there are so many players that are all about the same or very close to the same as far as abillity that it just comes down to who gets better cards or who gets in the right situations.

I'm of the mind that if you put Phil Ivey, Doyle Brunson, Allen Cunningham, John J., ect ect.. at the same table that the winner is basically going to be the player that gets the right cards in the right situations.

Thats why I really don't believe anyone is really the best player in the world. Someone may have the most accomplishments but I don't think that makes he or she the best in the world. I think many players are all in the same class.

As far as do pros get too much credit. No I don't think so. I think books and the internet have created alot of very good players that never would have existed before thats for sure.

And these players can definately compete pros but there are some other factors.

I think bankroll is a huge factor, if you are playing scared or playing with money you really can't afford to lose you aren't going to play as well.

To put what im saying in a real world situation this is what I mean.

If you take a very good $5 - $10 NL Hold'em player and his $10,000 bankroll and put him in a $200 - $400 NL game vs some pro players that have the bankroll to absorb bad beats at this level, that $5 - $10 player isn't going to do very well.

Not because he is out classed, but just because he really can't play his game at that level when you consider his bankroll.

Now if you put that same very good $5 - $10 player with a $10K bankroll at a .25 - .50 cent NL table with the same pros I bet he would be able to hold his own.

Just remember, even the top pros had to start somewhere and i'm sure atleast some of them started at fairly low levels.

So don't assume that just because someone is playing .10 - .25 NL or $1 - $2 that they aren't any good.
Back to top
01baz
Message Board Junkie


Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 1904

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

junkbutton wrote:
01baz wrote:
take moneymaker for example, hes supposedly a "pro" but he makes his money doing commercials and promotions etc, he probably makes more money doing that then he does playin poker


To be fair, Phil Hellmuth probably makes more money from endorsements and appearances than poker too... And I would wholeheartedly consider him a pro.


lol junk i feel some deja vu, havent we had this discussion before? any way i cant be bothered to get into this debate because its pointless... to the op, are pros overrated? well if u mean pro by "brunson, negreanu,ivey,ungar, harman" etc etc then no they are not over rated, if u take the likes of "moneymaker, gold, raymer" then yes i would say they are overrated but maybe I will be proven wrong in 10 years time
Back to top
junkbutton
Message Board Junkie


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 4052
Location: Gutterrock, NY

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

01baz wrote:
junkbutton wrote:
01baz wrote:
take moneymaker for example, hes supposedly a "pro" but he makes his money doing commercials and promotions etc, he probably makes more money doing that then he does playin poker


To be fair, Phil Hellmuth probably makes more money from endorsements and appearances than poker too... And I would wholeheartedly consider him a pro.


lol junk i feel some deja vu, havent we had this discussion before? any way i cant be bothered to get into this debate because its pointless... to the op, are pros overrated? well if u mean pro by "brunson, negreanu,ivey,ungar, harman" etc etc then no they are not over rated, if u take the likes of "moneymaker, gold, raymer" then yes i would say they are overrated but maybe I will be proven wrong in 10 years time


Did we have a discussion about this before? I don't remember... I was probably right... 8)
Back to top
01baz
Message Board Junkie


Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 1904

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

junkbutton wrote:

Did we have a discussion about this before? I don't remember... I was probably right... 8)


haha, u wish u were right lol... if i remember correctly, it was 2 do with moneymaker, cant quite remember what.. but i think its time to realise that apples have no bones
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Online Poker Forum Home -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group