Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="DS3, post: 5893747, member: 407846"]
This debate has been going on for a while but I think most are happy to accept the simplistic take of something like the Global Poker Index. Pinning down who is the best is difficult for a number of reasons.

My own personal opinion is that players should be measured against their buy-ins. Those that have made the most prize money with the least investment regarding buy-ins should be ranked as the best players. But obviously, few are willing to reveal the extent of their buy-ins. Many players who have made several million in a given year might be at a net loss after buy-ins are taken into consideration.

Further, another factor to consider in pure rankings is we have no idea who is being backed by who with many pros said to have a minority stake in themselves at any given tournament. On paper they might have won 'x' amount but we have no idea whether their real winnings were a fraction of this after the backers got their share. Additionally it is seldom revealed who has swapped a 'piece' with other players.
Players are unwilling to be open with these issues. So the best anyone can expect is a compromised and simplistic take of wins and placements in tournaments with precious little reveal of what is taking place in the background.

The reason I am picky about this is because the high buy ins, the backing and swapping pieces are all specific (in the main) to elite players - those which we would like to rank as accurately as possible ...but the conditions render it difficult to do.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us