All time list loses meaning ? - Poker News

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion News, Views, and Gossip

All time list loses meaning ?

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 2

1 2

Page 1 of 2

1 2

07-21-2018 , 10:24 PM

amarri

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2017 Posts: 397

Wondering if you guys agree ?
The All Time earners list is quickly losing its prestige.
Guys putting up a one million dollar buy ins to face fields as small as 30 guys.
I mean like a 1st and 2nd place finish probably puts you instantly in the top 25 all time.
It really really skews the playing field when 99% of players (even good ones)
cant afford One Fourth that kind of buy in.

Quote

07-21-2018 , 10:30 PM

KrazyKris

GOAT PEEHS Drehpehs

Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 14,268

Takes money to make money.

Quote

07-21-2018 , 10:48 PM

illdonk

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,997

I’m just upset that the powers that be refuse to recognize the pair of heads-up $50-million buy-in tourneys that my friend and I split, giving us each $100 million in career winnings and the co-#1 spot on the list.

Quote

07-21-2018 , 11:24 PM

unlucky4me

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 4,079

None of them playing their own money

Quote

07-22-2018 , 03:47 AM

magking1

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,464

Its just a number, so that people can have something to talk about
to hype players and promote the game.

It never had any real meaning or prestige in my book anyway
because it doesnt reflect the reality of poker tournaments.

Quote

07-22-2018 , 05:17 AM

Elite Rounder

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,291

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UZ3h2OvqzI

Doug Polk says it well 9:10.

It's a joke. Anyone who plays high rollers will be top of the list.

Quote

07-22-2018 , 07:30 AM

Mr.Jones

grinder

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 527

The *real* all time money list should be:

The buy-in can't be more than $10,000

The field has to be atleast 100 players.

imo this would should a better representation of the all time money winners, but even then it's bogus because it won't show the buy ins.

Also, if you luckbox the main the numbers are skewed, or people who travel to other countries to play 10k's.

So I guess I can't think of a truly fair way to do it.

Last edited by Mr.Jones; 07-22-2018 at 07:45 AM.

Quote

07-22-2018 , 07:34 AM

yasuo

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 2,105

it has never been an accurate way to assess a player's ability anyway

Quote

07-22-2018 , 08:36 AM

PeteBlow

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 14,550

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Jones

The *real* all time money list should be:

The buy-in can't be more than $10,000

The field has to be atleast 100 players.

imo this would should a better representation of the all time money winners, but even then it's bogus because it won't show the buy ins.

Also, if you luckbox the main the numbers are skewed, or people who travel to other countries to play 10k's.

So I guess I can't think of a truly fair way to do it.

Agreed, apart from the bolded. You’re saying non-Americans travelling to Vegas skews the numbers.

Quote

07-22-2018 , 10:44 AM

#10

illdonk

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,997

It's not going to be a good "best players" list, but it should at least show tournament success beyond who did well at the One Drop.

"Net vs. Gross" is a common complaint about the list in general, but it seems workable for the high rollers. Why give $2M credit for a $1M buy-in event? Why not deduct earlier losses?

I understand that whoever makes the lists don't want to try to retroactively determine the hundreds/thousands who didn't cash for every WSOP event, but determining net profits/losses for a small number of high buy-in tournaments with a known and publicized field can be done.

Last edited by illdonk; 07-22-2018 at 11:04 AM.

Quote

07-22-2018 , 11:13 AM

#11

A_C_Slater

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 8,343

In the future there will be a supercomputer that knows the GTO solution to any hand at any stack depth. Everyone in the world will be able to take THE TEST to see how close they can play to the GTO solution. The supercomputer will offer a percentage readout of the names that were closest to achieving 100% GTO play. Only in this way can we ever find out who is the best poker player in the world.

Quote

07-22-2018 , 12:10 PM

#12

harkin

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 4,858

Anyone have a favorite index on success in poker (NLH, stud, PLO etc.) and does anyone have a link for such a thing?

Quote

07-22-2018 , 12:47 PM

#13

Fletch F. Fletch

centurion

Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 124

It would be great if some site (maybe already does) would filter out results so you can see who has the most winnings based on a buy-in parameter. The super high buy-ins obviously skew the results, but as many have already said, total winnings has never been that good of a judge. It is a fun way of keeping track though, but there are a lot a holes in, people selling their stakes, people who play in many more tournaments than others. Never was perfect, but with the large buy-ins, it has made it a much worse metric.

Quote

07-22-2018 , 01:07 PM

#14

Ten5x

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 359

hendon mob has this list too, which excludes invitationals and buyins of >50k:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/ranking/5/

I'm sure if enough people asked, they would provide a list for excluding events > 10k or so. It shouldn't be too hard to compute, but I would guess the difference between the >10k list and >50k list wouldn't look altogether too different. The main event skews these all time lists big time.

Last edited by Ten5x; 07-22-2018 at 01:13 PM.

Quote

07-22-2018 , 01:13 PM

#15

davmcg

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,535

yeah I would still be in the all time top 100,000 if it wasn't for these jokers.

Quote

07-22-2018 , 01:31 PM

#16

TheJacob

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,862

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Jones

The *real* all time money list should be:

The buy-in can't be more than $10,000

The field has to be atleast 100 players.

This basically gives a huge edge to anyone who played from the late nineties to mid 2000s. Everything was a 10k then and lots of those events were 800k-1Million+ for first.

How many 5k-10k buyins exist now that have 800k+ for first?

It was obviously more impressive to win multiple WPTs/WSOP circuits,etc with hundreds of players and a 10k buyin, but those tournaments largely don't exist anymore. You'd have to win a lot of circuit rings and HPT events to compete with guys who won multiple 10ks in the boom era.

Quote

07-22-2018 , 01:35 PM

#17

bipolarbearclaw

journeyman

Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 340

It might be interesting to filter for all buyins 10k and below.

Quote

07-22-2018 , 02:36 PM

#18

inmyrav

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 1,719

KidContrived is really impressive here as he (claims) he is not staked, can we say that for anyone else?

The list is a great yardstick regardless of it's flaws. It's documented public information and who cares if you are staked? The tournament awarded x dollars, and the people on the list took it down. The stakers didn't play!

Quote

07-22-2018 , 10:54 PM

#19

cockpit

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,370

PGA Career Earnings: Jack Nicklaus $5.7 million, Tiger Woods $111 million.

Quote

07-23-2018 , 12:18 AM

#20

BDHarrison

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 4,529

Inflated all-time lists are probably good for tournament poker because they make more people dream of big pay days and enter tournaments when they are -EV to do so.

Quote

07-23-2018 , 09:48 AM

#21

JoeDiego

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 4,820

How has the all time list lost meaning?

It has always been a list of who has cashed for the most amount of money in tournaments.

It is only "losing meaning" if for some inane reason you used to see it as a ranking of the best tournament players.

When I was starting out in poker, number 1 on the all time tournament money list was Jamie Gold.

Now it's Justin Bonomo.

I would claim that the list is a more accurate reflection of skill levels now than it was a decade ago.

PS. in 1971 the Main Event was a $60k Super High Roller according to historical inflation.

Quote

07-23-2018 , 11:42 AM

#22

MicroRoller

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 2,533

Quote:

Originally Posted by amarri

All time list loses meaning ?

Implies it had meaning to begin with which it didn't.

Quote

07-23-2018 , 12:00 PM

#23

swissodds

adept

Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 1,103

Quote:

Originally Posted by MicroRoller

Implies it had meaning to begin with which it didn't.

pretty much this.

still looking at it on occasions for the lol's

Quote

07-23-2018 , 02:08 PM

#24

festivegorgon

newbie

Join Date: Oct 2017 Posts: 25

my thoughts are the great poker players are the ones that have been playing high stakes cash games on their own roll for 20+ years.. gross tournaments wins are just a bad way to judge relative skill..