|
|
|
|
|
|
by ThomPete
5854 days ago
|
|
|
Wouldn't that would mean an accumulation of grand masters that would then by an large win all tournaments in the long run. Is that in fact what is happening? Gus isn't winning every tournament. That might be due to the fact of other better players entering the game. But if your theory is correct wouldn't it mean that the more you play the better you become? It would seem to me that a game where so much information is hidden from you and that information was randomly distributed luck is a bigger part than skill. |
|
|
Doyle Brunson and Johnny Chan have 10 bracelets as well as 33 and 42 ITM finishes, respectively
Erik Seidel has 8 bracelets and 57 ITM finishes
Phil Ivey has 7 (two of which he got last year, and he final tabled at the main event as well) and 36 ITM finishes.
Daniel Negranau has 4, and 42 ITM finishes
and this is just in the WSOP. I'll leave the WPT tournaments to you to look up :-)
I don't know what's going on with Gus, I don't really follow poker much anymore, but I know he's still a formidable player, even if he's not winning as much as he used to. That being said, Gus isn't someone I'd consider a "grandmaster"
Playing alone does not make you better unless you strive to improve (this, at a high level means, learning. playing != learning in the game of poker. playing is definitely crucial, but you really need to review and study the hands and the players post mortem. This is very similar to chess, imo.)
The younger players coming in (i.e. Tom Dwan) have the stamina and energy to put in _serious_ hours that allow them to improve and adapt much quicker and faster than older players, it's just the nature of the beast.