Originally Posted by JCHAK
Conversely you could make the argument that all the "sick live pros" are nothing more than fish on a heater. If Phil Ivey's or Phil Helmuth's lifetime achievements in the live arena are indicative of absolutley nothing in terms of absolute skill, then anyone can claim that any one pro's success is completely based on dumb luck.
I'm actually sick and tired of the following:
Recognized NVG loved Pro wins a tourney: "It's 100% skill and they are God and this is evident in their 30 tourney wins"
Intelligent Avid Player/Pro wins a tourney: "Fish on heater, a monkey could win 10 tournies in a row, go play online 100,000,000 tournies and then talk to me"
It's the same canned responses every time. Even when a player has good explanations and rationalizations behind unconventional moves, people don't even want to hear it, axe is already in the car and they are out for blood. And quit comparing live MTT's to online MTT's; just by the fact that the sample size is miniscule relative to online MTT's, live mtt's are completely different in nature to online tournies.
Did you even read my post? I literally just said, the better a player is the more likely it is that they'll win live tournies. Quit making everything black and white, there's a continuum.
Succeeding over 1-2 years in the live arena doesn't necessarily mean you're a great player. It probably means you at least have a decent positive ROI in the games you're playing, but you might not be any better than half the other guys in the field. Succeeding over 5, 10, or 20 years is quite obviously a different matter, so comparing Ivey or Hellmuth's record to Frankenberger's is obviously ****ing retarded, which is the reason I didn't do it.
You can never state anything with absolute certainty in poker, but it doesn't take much of a leap to say that those players who have succeeded over the longest time against the toughest fields are likely to be the best players. Similarly, those who have succeeded greatly over a short period like Frankenberger are likely to at least be competent, but you really cannot deduce anything at all from 47 tournaments. There are probably hundreds of online and live players out there who would be entirely capable of replicating Frankenberger's results if they ran good enough, and there are probably thousands of recreational players who would **** it up even if they did run good enough.
I'm not saying Frankenberger is a terrible player or whatever. I'm just saying that his results indicate nothing more than he probably has a positive ROI in the games he's playing. We have to use other info to deduce his ability, and that info (coming from hands he's played on TV) doesn't do him any favours.