You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!

Would you rather...?

edited August 2014 in Poker Chat
No brainer really, WSOP main 

Comments

  • edited August 2014

    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.
  • edited August 2014
    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.
  • edited August 2014
    WSOP - easy life :-)

  • edited August 2014
    In Response to Re: Would you rather...?:
    WSOP - easy life :-)
    Posted by NoseyBonk

    So Jerry Yang rather than Tom Dwan? (for example)
  • edited August 2014
    In Response to Re: Would you rather...?:
    In Response to Re: Would you rather...? : So Jerry Yang rather than Tom Dwan? (for example)
    Posted by Sky_Poker
    Who? ;-)

  • edited August 2014
    The media circus and attention wouldn't really interest me anywhere near as much as the money so it's a no brainer WSOP win please.
  • edited August 2014

    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).

  • edited August 2014
    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.
  • edited August 2014
    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.
  • edited August 2014
    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
  • edited August 2014
    In Response to Re: Would you rather...?:
    No brainer really, WSOP main 
    Posted by alex1229
    +1
  • edited August 2014
    In Response to Re: Would you rather...?:
    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.
  • edited August 2014
    In Response to Re: Would you rather...?:
    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
    His Hendon Mob page is hilarious.
  • edited August 2014
    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
  • edited August 2014
    WSOP win, easy decision.........who needs or cares about being "respected" when you have just won millions of dollars?
Sign In or Register to comment.