Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Dorkus Malorkus, post: 406890, member: 6020"]
The main problem with this is poker is inherently largely luck-based in the short run. If you want the WSoP to be a true judge of skill then each event would have to be run over, hmm, about 10 years.

Err, oops! ;)

What you're saying is loosely akin to someone saying "Tennis games should be played over 20 sets because 5 sets is too little and the best players might lose", or "Baseball is too luck-based, matches shouls have 300 innings to make sure the best team always wins". Doesn't that sound ridiculous?

Err, you obviously had your head in the sand around about the time Moneymaker won the WSoP, considering that an "Average Joe" winning caused a huge boom in the poker industry.

Yes, it may get repetitive, but the powers that be will always find stories behind the players. Besides, I for one find the "anyone can win" nature far more exciting than, hmm, Tiger Woods winning every golf tourney he entered back in his heyday, or Australia winning every cricket match they play etc etc.

On a side note, the $50k (I think) HORSE tourney would be a far better event to use at the WSoP in crowning the 'world champion'.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us