I don't like the way this question is phrased. You are basically asking if any of the regular winners in the live game are mainly internet players. It's very hard to be both (and I don't mean skill wise). The top winners online generally keep playing online, especially now that there are very high stakes games online. They would have to move to Vegas to become mainly live players.

Guys like SBrugby, OMGClayAiken, etc. would obviously be winners at the Venetian (if they were invited) or at Bobby's room (if it was NL only).

lol @ David trying to increase web hits

[quote]

This seems like such a strange debate to me. Isn't it safe to assume that many internet greats would have a hard time adjusting to the live Big Games (and that many live pros would have a hard time dominating the big internet games), and that many wouldn't (and vice versa)? Why bother dividing everyone into some kind of gene pool areas?

There Is No Need To Write Like This In My Opinion, Also Lol At Trying To Get Some Attention In The Interwebz.

Its because they are afraid. I'll play virtually any of them HU LHE (probably not PA though, I think his game is actually a good counter to mine and not sure if I'd have an edge there). The rest of those live [censored] likely suck as much as DB does. So bring it

The question was worded so as to illicite that response from PA as no big internet players play in that game so obviously the answer is zero.

I do however think there is some merit to the online players doing what Sklansky is suggesting and playing live in these games, sure it wont prove who is the best because of the small sample size but im sure the live players will have a lot more respect once they play with the top online pros in a live setting. You dont have to play a million hands with a guy to tell whether hes good or not, it all depends how much the online pros care about what the live guys think, i think they probably do care though.

is this abnormal or something?

Maybe at the stakes YOU play.

Although the question is poorly phrased, I think it's somewhat clear that he's asking a hypothetical question (If a live high stakes deep stack NLH game were held and everyone played in it, how many of the top 20 players in that game would be internet pros?) not asking for the best 20 players currently playing big live games. While it could be read differently, the OP implies it was asked aloud, which makes it much more likely that Patrik's answer indicated his belief that 0 internet pros would be among the top 20 players playing high stakes full ring, deep stacked live NLH. I don't think this is a "that depends what the meaning of is is" situation.

solid level, right?

Curious what his answer would be if he were asked of the top 20 TOURNAMENT players how many would be internet players

John Voight is a very hard man to read, sometimes I think 90% of his posts are total levels, but idk.. I like his videos.

thats even easier , another 0 though, it's also probably the only time these HU/6 maxers play 9-10 handed too

Lol this thread is great.

Hopefully most people are levelling when they say things like live players would have an advantage etc.

Internet pros are by far the better players. They play so many more hands and study so many hand historys etc.

Most of the ''Big Name'' live pros made all their cash years ago when nobody knew how to play poker.

Poker is about betting patterns, hand ranges and equity. Live tells are way over exagerated.

What really surprises me is when people say they "aren't allowed" to sit down. I can understand this in a private game, but surely in a casino anyone can play who has the buyin ? Do the other players all say "we're not playing if he sits down ?" That would be super weak and would pretty much clinch the whole argument for me.

me: david [grey]...Regarding the
very big, live game, full table NLH games, how
many players who are, or were, considered mainly
internet players, would be among the top twenty
best players, playing that game?



his answer was
David Grey: 0

wtf?

This has to be a level, right ?

Has anyone tried to make a list of these top twenty players? Can we find out who everyone thinks is the twenty best live full ring deep high limit players or whatever.

Also then can we flip this around and see how many of them would make it in an online 200/400 6max game.

then there would be less attention for OP ducy

the problem with this question/thread is that it is in anyone's best interest who has a "spot" on this list to say what the people who create this game would want to hear.

if you were patrik antonius or brandon adams, and you had access to a very juicy game, and telling the rest of the world just how juicy it was and how bad people play might put at risk your invitation to the game and/or cause better players to show up to the game, what would you say??

i'm just speculating here, as all of us are, but i mean i wouldn't blame these guys for protecting their seat in the game and the reputation of the people who are just giving them money.

all that said, i will try to get into the game at the 5 diamond. i'm going to get in contact with gabe and see if i can get a session in. i'll post on here or on my blog about my thoughts on the game. i'm cetainly not going to be making anyone look bad, but i'll give my opinion on the overall strength of the game/players.

tc

ps - i might sell off some of my action. PM if interested (must know you).

Of course. I'm sure that was his goal in the first place. I imagine Sklansky almost certainly does not think that the games actually happening will prove anything one way or the other; however, if they happened, people would probably talk about them a [censored] on here, and then that's more views.

wouldnt they just say no comment then or not post...i dont see how giving a false statement or making a false post would have any more benefit then staying quiet

Aren't you a live player primarily David? Why are you stirring the internet pot when i certainly don't see you sitting in the internet games?