basically anyone who has destroyed online or live for a sustained period of time then.....

Anyone who plays online and wins big above everyone else over same sample with equal skill levels. The only thing that separates overrated from underrated is who has been ****ing blessed by the RNG

Considering that he's as far as I know the biggest winner in the history of online poker, and that these winnings have come from playing a far lower # of hands than other top earners have played, I can't see how anyone could dispute his being the most profitable online poker player of all time


Lol yeah right

theoretically ivey can be the best in the world by a very small margin, BUT people actually think he's the best by a large margin. That= overrated.

when we are rating players, it's not just in terms of rankings such as #1, #2, #5 in the world etc, it's more of a qualitative thing than a quantitative thing. skill level between theoretical #1 and #2 is prob not the same between #4 and #5.

not even saying there are defined rankings, just pointing out how ivey could be the best and still be overrated

I think its really hard to say Galfond is overrated, hes sooooo respected by top players in PLO, which in 2011, is the main game we are "rating" him at because he doesn't play NL anymore. I can see the argument that durrrr is overrated tho

his low # of hands could actually mean he's been on the nice side of variance at those ridiculously high stakes, meaning he might still be a huge/good sized winner, but variance helped him win 20 mill (insane). No one knows, but just saying its a reasonable possibility.

I'd say that it is essentially a statistical improbability that it's just "the nice side of variance" when it's over 300,000 hands (out of the Results section of Highstakesdb I was able to get the number of hands they've tracked of his since Jan 1st 2008 as 269 680, it won't show all the way back to 2007) and the results match his achievements in live cash games & tournaments. He is the best player in the history of online poker, there's really no point debating that fact

And don't link me to the variance simulator thingy, I know that it's _possible_ to run way above EV over even as many as 300k hands but it's a negligible chance

as far as durrrr as a person, he is one of the most UNDERrated

girah

95% of video makers. The game develops so fast,good high stakes player in 2007 might not beat 1/2 6max now.

FullFlush lol. EPT London 2k Side;

lsildurr1 or how ever u spell the donks name.

gtd he will be broke playing 1/2c with me soon.

I would agree with you if my original argument was saying he could be an overall loser in the games and just be on the nice side of variance, but I was just saying he may not be as big of a winner (EV/edge wise) as his 18ish mill profit suggests.

Are you saying that after 300,000 hands everyone runs at EV??? It is obv most likely to even out and get closer to that number with more hands, but I'm sure many are above or below after 300K hands. If Ivey even ran 20 BI over EV (not far fetched), that could be 2 million dollars over at 500/1000 level, which is over 10% of his online profits.

He's obv still great and def has best online results, 16 mill profit would still be best I think lol

Elky's graph doesnt give you the impression of a solid winning player. Guess its just his style.

Harrington25/10. Guys a cheat and huge bumhunter. Know someone close to him thats sais he cheats almost every session.

Uh yeah, this might be true, but if you are a micro/small stakes player like me, you have to learn from somebody right?

Daniel "KidPoker" Negreanu
Chris "Jesus" Ferguson
Jennifer Harmon

this.

have only met 5 or 6 who can play live high stakes cash worth a damn. So my vote is NONE