Quote:
Originally Posted by highlandfox
Does this only include recent results, I guess? How am the 118th ranked player on your all-time list but my team is in last place? Also, while I'm not sure if I completely understand your methodology, it does not seem to include both strength and size of field as well as buyin adequately. I have more points for Texas Holdem than either Calvin Anderson and Ben Lamb but less than Brent Jungblut. Cal has some of the most impressive online results in HSMTTs in both NLHE and other forms of poker the last few years and Ben Lamb got 3rd in the WSOPME in a massive and tough field and has a SCoOP NLHE title while Jungblut does not play online anymore to my knowledge and his good online results were in much more value filled online environment. I applaud what you are trying to do but if Cal and Benba are lower on your all-time ranking than me and Danny Dang and Gene Fisher both of whom I've never heard of are ranked higher than me, your methodology is seriously flawed.
For anyone reading this except Mr Finne, I must explain that highland is talking about 2 different things here: the Mixed Game Challenge and my blog that has player rankings (including an all-time ranking which is what highland is refering to).
Firstly, the Mixed Game Challenge is just a short term snapshot of what is happening on PokerStars whereas the the all-time list on my blog is totally different. It is all-time (back to 1973) and also includes live play. They are totally different.
Now the rest of the discussion is about the all-time ranking on my blog.
Firstly, the list is all-time so yourself, Brett, Calvin and Ben have no hope of being ranked ahead of Gene Fisher! Gene Fisher cashed in live tournaments from 1980-2011. He made the WSOP Main Event final table in 1981!
Here's a
YouTube video showing Gene Fisher in action at the 1981 WSOP. Gene is the fellow in the cowboy hat and red shirt.
Another reason that Gene is so far ahead is that all buyins are converted based on the cost-of-living index. A $10,000 tournament in 1981 would be the same as a high roller today.
And another reason is that 99% of money today is wagered on NL Holdem. It's very hard to find high limit non-NL Holdem today. The 50K WSOP Player's Championship is the most important tournament each year. The 10K 8-game at PokerStars is a big one too. On the other hand, the 5K Main Event coming up on Sunday is totally meaningless. Everybody can only use as many points from each game as your cap. Almost everybody has way more NL Holdem points than their cap. For example, you have over 22,000 NL Holdem points but you can only use 2900 because that's your cap. Calvin Anderson is in even worse shape: he has over 39,000 NL Holdem points but can only use 2696 of it (his cap). And the only way to increase your cap is to keep cashing year after year and game after game.
Naturally, I think my methodology is perfect - but it's only perfect for the ranking that I'm looking for. If you're looking for something different (your definition of best all-time poker player is different that mine) then my methodology is flawed.
One big flaw in any ranking of all-time best is that we're missing half the data - we have only cashs but none of the OOTMs. That's quite a important chunk of missing data. And that's where the Mixed Game Challenge does have an advantage - all data is used, wins and loses.
