If you had the choice between winning the WSOP Main Event then disappearing into obscurity and never winning anything again or being a respected pro player who regularly cashed in big events for a number of years?
Lets assume both win the same amount of money. One has the ultimate poker win (but might be considered lucky) where the other is a more respected, better player who's never taken a big win down but is consistent.
Yeah donk WSOP main all the way, then retire early and play lower stakes away from the spotlight when I'm not busy wasting my new found wealth trying to live like a geekier Dan Bilzerian.
Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey would be the better example.
Ivey has never won the world series main event and probably never will do given the huge numbers of runners that play it but that doesn't matter - he has won shed loads, proved himself time and again and has consistently been called the best player in the world for years by both his fellow pros and the general fan base and I'm pretty sure it must be a lot better being Phil Ivey than being Jerry Yang or Robert Varkoni (Quantum Leaping into Phil Ivey for a day would be pretty cool but Quantum Leaping into Yang or Varkoni would be the most boring episode ever).
A snooker analogy came to mind in that Jimmy White has never won the World Championship but for decades so many young snooker players aspire to be him - I doubt many young kids when first picking up a snooker cue aspire to be Shaun Murphy or John Parrot (and can anyone even remember that they actually both did win the World Championship).
With the snooker analogy though I'd rather win the World Championship than just be Mr consistent whilst never winning one! Just because it's more prestigious. But with poker I think I'd rather be the respected pro. Means I'm still making money and playing a game at which I'm good at - and there's always still time to win a WSOP main event, or another big tournament.
Worst example of the former surely has to be Jamie Gold. Ok didn't disappear but just plays on and is mocked constantly for his game and his general attitude.
Why choose the worst example? Back to snooker and who would want to be Steve interesting Davies even with all his wins rather be a nexus 6 any day Posted by GELDY
Sigh.
It's Steve Davis, mate - one of my sporting idols when I was a wee nipper. A lot of people didn't like/appreciate him in the eighties when he was winning everything... primarily because it's a peculiarly British phenomenon to knock someone who is doing well in their chosen field. Only when he was no longer dominating the sport - circa the early nineties - did the public take to him and his dry sense of humour
But, as for the question:
I wouldn't want to fade into obscurity. I'll take the bunch of second/third/fourth places please.
Definitely the latter. Worst example of the former surely has to be Jamie Gold. Ok didn't disappear but just plays on and is mocked constantly for his game and his general attitude. Posted by Lambert180
im not worried about examples this is my view i would take the wsop win because this fits with my (extremely bad brm) poker playing when it comes to poker i just enjoy the game and like to play whereas in real life im as tight as a ducks rear end so what this question is saying to me is could you live comfortably off of that one win for the rest of your life or are you a serious money spender who would need to keep topping up his real life with smaller wins all the time so the answers are a view into the way people think
dont you just love philosophy lol have fun and good luck
Comments
Easily the latter for me.
Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey would be the better example.
Ivey has never won the world series main event and probably never will do given the huge numbers of runners that play it but that doesn't matter - he has won shed loads, proved himself time and again and has consistently been called the best player in the world for years by both his fellow pros and the general fan base and I'm pretty sure it must be a lot better being Phil Ivey than being Jerry Yang or Robert Varkoni (Quantum Leaping into Phil Ivey for a day would be pretty cool but Quantum Leaping into Yang or Varkoni would be the most boring episode ever).
A snooker analogy came to mind in that Jimmy White has never won the World Championship but for decades so many young snooker players aspire to be him - I doubt many young kids when first picking up a snooker cue aspire to be Shaun Murphy or John Parrot (and can anyone even remember that they actually both did win the World Championship).
It's Steve Davis, mate - one of my sporting idols when I was a wee nipper. A lot of people didn't like/appreciate him in the eighties when he was winning everything... primarily because it's a peculiarly British phenomenon to knock someone who is doing well in their chosen field. Only when he was no longer dominating the sport - circa the early nineties - did the public take to him and his dry sense of humour
But, as for the question:
I wouldn't want to fade into obscurity. I'll take the bunch of second/third/fourth places please.
dont you just love philosophy lol
have fun and good luck