Daniel sets up a straw dog in his new blog that’s very misleading. In his effort to prove that the WPT is a greater indicator of skill then the WSOP he presents the argument that if you look at the WPT top 10 list vs the WSOP top 10 list anyone can see that the WPT list is a more skilled group. Unfortunately although this is true, it is of course grossly misleading. The fairer way to compare these 2 groups is to look at the top bracelet winners or to take out the biggest WSOP cash of each player to eliminate the distortion of the main event. I’m not going to take the time to make the WSOP cash list but I think the probability is high that it will result in a list of people that would be both a cash and a tourney favorite vs. the WPT Donkastars. I’m not saying that each of the individual smaller buyin WSOP event rewards skill more then a WPT 10k event, only that the collective results of the WSOP has produced a pretty tough and skilled group that would likely be a money favorite vs. the shorter term results of the WPT.

TL ; DR

Straw man not straw dog

WSOP > WPT.

OP sucks

I didn't provide those statistics as proof of my point at all. The proof is simply in the fact that the levels are longer, you start with more chips, and the buy ins are bigger.

The stats were just an added bonus since I was surfing the net. Having said that, if you wanted to put up the top ten WSOP point producers versus the top ten WPT point producers, I think the WPT players would crush the WSOP players in both cash games and in deep stack tournaments. It's possible that the WSOP top ten might be better at playing in tournaments with faster structures, but I'm not so sure.

Shouldn't you some how take into account players per tourney to get an accurate comparison? Seems like WPT field sizes are much smaller.

..with arguably a lot less dead money and a greater average of poker ability per player.

First of all, it's great Daniel that you're posting on 2p2 so I ask/encourage/beg that you post more often and in topics that don't just relate to you.

Second, yes I agree that the structure of WPT is way better and any WSOP event BUT I I don't think you can compare a $1500 WSOP event with a 10K or 15K WPT event. Apples with apples and oranges with oranges. The problem is that the preliminary events of WPT tourneys don't have the prestige that the preliminary WSOP events have.

Third, i think we should measure in number of titles (or number of final tables) but definitely not in money.

DN might be right about the quality of competition in the WPT v. WSOP. However, his example of the leaders is incorrect. The WSOP list should be based on number of bracelets won. This list begins with Phil Helmuth, Johnny Chan and Doyle Brunson. I believe that Phil Ivey might be somewhere on that list. IMO it is more indicative of the quality of WSOP leaders and champions than a money list which is very skewed by the annual poker lottery aka the WSOP main event, which I greatly enjoy watching on ESPN.

WSOP NO DOUBT! Daniel is being results oriented lol

For those of us who don't know, what are the differences in structure between your typical WPT and typical WSOP tournament?

what about field sizes...this argument can be pointed in two ways...ala raymer or like gold and yang. so you really can't compare unless you weight all the results over time and by amount of attempts

I read somewhere (I think McManus' book) that the shorter a level, the more luck it takes. Does this hold true for tournament size, but in the opposite sense. In other words, does it really take more luck to win a large tournament and is there a baseline of entrants we can use to scientifically figure in the luck factor?

Well, I cannot edit my last post so I have to do a new one. I wish you could edit your posts for an unlimited amount of time. Anyway.

Daniel's argument about the WPT tournament taking more skill to win than a WSOP tournament was not the impetus for his blog entry. He actually started talking about how special tournaments count toward the all time money lists and he does not think they should. I understand his point that someone could win a high buy-in invite only tournament and supplant the current top money earner, Jamie Gold, but I don't agree that they should not be counted. These lists show who has won the most money and do not show who the best player is. If these lists are to show who has won the most money in tournaments, the lists need to count all tournament winnings.