Agree Dog - don't think you took shots at him. I was more just tagging onto the overall posts and reflecting that even those fields were wicked soft, Greg was a bright spot in a sea of donks (relatively speaking). I suppose there is debate around Hachem that is worth having for sure. For the most part though, winners from 2002-2007 largely were/are donks

For me, i would go with WSOP 2003, mainly because the price was high and there wasn't many player in it, in this pokernew article: https://www.pokernews.com/news/2020/....com-37504.htm
It says there was only 839 players on the main event which gives us more chance winning this. Around this time the MTT strategy hasn't been fully developed yet and a lot softer than what we have right now. so for a time traveler this should be one of the easier wsop to win.
Plus if you can stay in this time line, you can also get the sponsors he is getting right now

Why not the first one with the smallest field ?

honesty, i was thinking of the secondary earning(sponsorship,show ups and interviews) from the exposure of winning it and around 2003 got a high tv rating

which i think maximize your return from the entry fee

Hands also played out a lot faster. Amateur players didn't tank like the semi-pros do now in every hand.

The 06 and 07 main event had an ESPN PPV where every hand at the final table was streamed on delay. I really wish someone would dig deep because I know torrents of those existed. Gold was entertaining throughout that whole final table. The Yang year the amazing thing was how he just bulldozed that final table. Out of like 200 hands he won something close to half the hands that were dealt, it was insane how everyone clammed up 5-6 handed.

I think one of the things that doesn't get talked about is how back in those days they played all day and all night. There was no Nov 9 timeout, I don't think they even got a day off once the FT hit. They played those massive field ones until sunrise the next day. Now you get breaks for Final Table, a break when it hits six handed a break for three or heads up play. If someone gets in Yangs, Golds, or even Hachem ear, they might have played that final table totally differently. You take a break 6 handed in 2005 Scott Lazar might not monkey tilt out. Players today get a ton of rest and time to study.


EDIT: Picking the 03-06 years because online operators were tossing big bucks just to wear a patch let alone win the main.

Imagine how ****ing stupid people were playing poker in the 70s and 80s? There was probably zero math involved - they probably just looked at people and said this guy is bluffing or this guy has it.

Yes they were very simple in the theory. However the good players had a high accuracy at people reading which in a live game is more important. Bluffing the proper percentage is negative ev against a player that isn't playing a range vs range game but is 80% accurate or better at reading when you are bluffing.

Imagine thinking people are "stupid" because they havent been force fed theory.

The ole' limp early position then jam the raise would have got you back then too.

In fairness people had to actually figure stuff out for themselves back then. There was definitely math- but you couldn't hit a button and get the exact math for any situation in a second.

There are people who are really good at figuring things and adjusting to different situations and there are people who are really good at studying, memorization and regurgitating outputs.

When odds calculators,books,training sites,tracking software and eventually solvers became easily obtainable it makes it easy to learn quickly in a way that wasn't possible in the 70s and 80s. It wasn't a matter of all of those people being stupid.



If you invented a brand new poker variant tomorrow someone like Shaun Deeb will be the best in the world in a few weeks while solver boys will sit there with their thumbs up their ass bc they don't have a way to study the strategy for the new game.

And if you've ever wondered why they have Badugi, short deck, etc you know now why.