A true amateur will never win the Main Event
Someone like Moneymaker/Raymer/Gold/Yang will never win the Main Event. The caliber of play is too strong, and too many smart tough players are using GTO strategy.
We saw in the heads-up how Griff, despite having the chip lead, was badly outplayed. Heads-up NLHE has been solved by computers, and Tamayo has GTO down to a science.
One can argue that it's bad for poker, as poker needs a charismatic likable amateur (and/or a woman!) to win the Main Event in order to experience another poker boom.
What evidence there is -- e.g. Lon McEachern's anecdote of how he had won $18,000 one night in the Bay 101 80-160 LHE game -- suggests that while Griff might not actually play for a living, he is definitely a serious player, not a casual one.
I wonder where someone like Bill Perkins would fall in the OP's notion of "amateur"?
Right but nobody would consider you an amateur skill wise. You've never been lumped in with Gold Yang or Moneymaker.
I don't think the OP would consider someone similar to you in 2024- full time job but very good at poker an amateur for the purposes of this thread.
An aside:
I think about how people use Yang as the main Amateur example, and they are right to do so, but we sometimes forget that the 07 final table play was so bad (even by that era's standards), that Jerry may have somehow been the best player that day.
What evidence there is -- e.g. Lon McEachern's anecdote of how he had won $18,000 one night in the Bay 101 80-160 LHE game -- suggests that while Griff might not actually play for a living, he is definitely a serious player, not a casual one.
I wonder where someone like Bill Perkins would fall in the OP's notion of "amateur"?
I've always said "pro" is poorly defined since the most common definition is someone who plays for a living but there's shitregs who play 1/2 for $40k a year and live with 8 roommates, and guys who may have crushed the game and then moved onto careers in finance or tech who would technically be "recs" even if they're great players. Is Doug Polk a "rec" if he makes his primary income from Upswing and The Lodge?
My definition of pro is something like "treats it professionally with things like record keeping and studying, and other pros would have a reasonable expectation of the player winning in most games". By that definition Griff might quality, I didn't watch enough to see.
I don't think it's so bad if the poker championship is won by a good player. I also think there's fantasy in poker that I lack a term for, perhasp the "MoneyMaker delusion", that if we just do X, where is X is something like "an amateur wins" or "the Main Event is streamed for free" it'll be 2003 again. People just don't understand that it wasn't one thing, there was lightning in in a bottle of hole cams, legal online, and a general novelty to the game that can not be recreated no matter what. Moneymaker was one small detail.
I also think people underestimate that an amateur might also prefer to see a good player winning. They might not have seen Moneymaker as a bad player who got lucky but as a very good player who was "undiscovered" and that they might too have a hidden innate talent. The skill aspect of the game can be appealing even to unskilled players. If you want something that anyone can win, the lottery already exists. And for people who want something in between, the Mystery Bounties seem to have scratched that itch.
One question I have is about the old structure sheets, they don't seem to be available anymore, I'm curious if any change to them has caused less mediocre players to advance.
The reason the wsop has hit ridiculous numbers is because all the people who began playing around the boom are old enough to afford it. Those players stuck around and there were a lot of them, with a lot of them being pros or strong recreational players who moved on.
It's likely peaked at this point if there isn't something that sparks the younger generation but I fear that the guys in their 50s-70s were the last true "gambling" generation and kids in the 25-15 age will either want to approach it from like a GTO perspective (bad) or won't have interest in a game like poker.
it's older school and the allure isn't there for them like it was for guys my age 35-45 during the boom. I think poker is on the brink and it's a troubling time for getting fresh meat.
I'm on my phone so I apologize if this doesn't seem to make sense. I'll be curious what others think about my theory though.
Also. 10k is a lot of money for a poker tournament you have a low chance of recouping money from even in 2024. And the main is the best because of the 2 hour levels, however I agree with someone above that while I can't buy straight in right now I didn't even consider a satellite because it's too long to commit away from work.
The reason the wsop has hit ridiculous numbers is because all the people who began playing around the boom are old enough to afford it. Those players stuck around and there were a lot of them, with a lot of them being pros or strong recreational players who moved on.
It's likely peaked at this point if there isn't something that sparks the younger generation but I fear that the guys in their 50s-70s were the last true "gambling" generation and kids in the 25-15 age will either want to approach i
I think that plays a role and I believe the average of the WSOP entries has been trending a bit upwards which would corroborate that theory. Also, with heavy inflation 10k is just less than it used to be, even compared to 2006.
But I think poker has more of a sign of life than you realize because of YouTube, and to a lesser extent TikTok. Huster Casino Live has been the best thing for poker in the last decade, along with younger vloggers like Wolfgang . This is also why I laugh when people complain about the lack of ESPN coverage, given how few younger people are even watching TV compared to spending time on apps. It's a new world and good short-form content is much more important than being on some stodgy old cable package.
I don't see people approaching it with a GTO perspective as so bad, particularly in live games where executing GTO without RTA is effectively impossible. The kids who learned poker in 2003 were studying equity calculators and using HUDs as well. Doyle took a year to write Super/System. This idea that sharps are new to poker and it was always pure gambling is wrong. It's always been a mix of sharps and degens. And I can speak with authority that so many people will talk about GTO, will talk about solvers, will read about all this stuff, then they go to the table and punt anyway. I see it every weekend. I never talk strat at the table but I do secretly laugh at the guys who do then play as far from GTO as possible. It's very similar to cases where casinos would encourage people to count cards at blackjack, knowing the vast majority of them would mess it up anyway.
It's still unfortunate that the barrier to entry to play micros is so high . When I was 19, 1/2 was a massive game, and even with inflation would still be a big game to many young guys. But back then you could easily play 10NL. Now you can but it involves confusing steps like Bitcoin if you don't live in the right state. And the ability of a sharp 19yo to win significantly is much much smaller than back then. These days theyd probably be better off networking their way into a juicy private 5card PLO app game than trying to beat the online micros.
Still, I think poker is in a much brighter spot than a decade ago. Youtube and Tiktok are key.
Yea, a decade ago we were all confused as to what was happening with online because that's where all the extra money came from. I'm not a supporter of all the gto, solver, rta bullshit but I mention it as a catch-all. Sorry to confuse. I'll make it clear, I don't want to get into this, it's just my opinion.
I agree about playing online today. I play on an app but not for overly serious money and when a buddy told me to sign up with another site I ran into the bitcoin stuff and it completely turned me off. Poker will go strong for a while but I question how profitable it'll be for a lot of people in the near future and more importantly how entertaining it'll be for those who play recreationally. So many games I played in in vegas during WSOP (1-3, 2-5) were just awful.
a thread from 15 years ago here was exactly titled a pro will never win the ME again LOL
Link or it didn't happen.
The reason the wsop has hit ridiculous numbers is because all the people who began playing around the boom are old enough to afford it. Those players stuck around and there were a lot of them, with a lot of them being pros or strong recreational players who moved on.
It's likely peaked at this point if there isn't something that sparks the younger generation but I fear that the guys in their 50s-70s were the last true "gambling" generation and kids in the 25-15 age will either want to approach i
They're out there. Nicholas Seward, Myles Mullaly, Cole Ferraro, Jeremy Becker, etc. There's a young generation already starting to make their mark. I don't know how these guys are finding the game because it's not like the 2000s where you could watch it on ESPN and then jump on PokerStars to try your luck, but somehow young people are discovering poker. I've played with many of them in the last few years. I don't think poker is going to die out any time soon.
If there's a difference, it's perhaps not interest, but mobility. A young kid like Cada or Eastgate could go online in the 00s and grind up a bankroll. With the state of online in the 2020s, it's tougher to go from zero-to-liquid. That may slow the ascent of the next durrrr or Deeb. The innate appeal of poker is still strong though. People love games and they love to gamble. Now as much as ever.
home game hanks came close to winning the main
statistically this is obviously wrong
We're never getting another poker boom like we had. People who weren't around poker back then don't understand how widespread poker was. Everywhere you went everyone was playing poker.
And everyone was terrible at it.
These days even most bad players have a decent amount of experience and are light years better than bad players back then.
You're just never gonna get that influx of tons of brand new players all at the same time again.
It's possible an amateur wins again it's just extremely unlikely.
I like Limon's stipulation that pro poker is dying. Was in Detroit on the weekend. They have lots of casinos. The biggest games were 3/3 plo and 2/5 hold em.
These discussions remind me of similar ones on boxing forums. Boxers were once among the most famous people on earth. Big fights were global events. Now like 1/20 people can name the HW champ. But people would insist the sport is thriving based on a few PPVs.
Maybe WSOP is thriving because poker sucks.
You want to play poker for a good chunk of money. You are not a pro and want to enjoy yourself. You don't want to be cheated in a home game. You don't want to play vs HUDs, Bots and RTA online. You do not want to be carved up in a game with 7 Euros who won't talk to you and one other fish.
The ME fits the bill. Not much else does.
That would be a good argument if turnout wasn't high across the board. WSOP had strong turnout for most events. Non-WSOP venues like Aria, MGM, and Wynn seemed to do well with their summer series.
Wynn crushed it in December with their WPT stuff. The concurrent WSOP Paradise in Bahamas did well enough to be brought back again this year.
NAPT at Resorts World did well enough in November to be coming back again this year.
Live tournaments are doing well. It isn't a WSOP thing.
No it's not possible. The pros will stop it. If not by collusion, they will work together with their friends on the rail to stop it.
I was technically an amateur when I won in 2004, as I got the majority of my income from my full-time lawyer job. But, I was already filing my taxes as a part-time pro. Also, given the level of knowledge at that time, I was likely in the top 1% of all poker players when it came to poker knowledge, specifically tournament knowledge. I was fully aware of concepts like ICM, and used plays that are common now but almost unknown back then (e.g., floating, stop-and-go, etc.). Many of these ideas w
Thanks for popping in, Greg. Stop yelling at dealers. It's not a good look.
Did Tomayo "crush" Griff though? Seemed like Tomayo was on the right side of variance at the end, and that at best, his rail full of coaches using solvers may have only improved his prospects slightly.
In all the discussion and hand-wringing which followed, my takeaway was that Tomayo SHOULD have been able to crush Griff, decisively, and quickly. Like, a pro vs an amateur, where the pro has a team of coaches, including a former main event winner and big tournament crusher, and the coaches are using solvers - how does Tomayo not dispatch Griff with ease?
People are hung up saying it's a bad look for the game, but I think it's a bad look for solvers. All that computing and brain power, and Tomayo got his money in as a slight dog, and happened to suck out. What's the best argument they can make in defense of what they were doing, that had they not been using solvers, Tomayo might have folded his hand pre, which would have been an EV mistake?
I think a better argument for solvers would be if they said Tomayo was actually a terrible player, but with the help of solvers and a team of coaches giving him real-time guidance, he was able to win the game's most prestigious title, outlasting his more skilled competition.
My understanding of GTO is that it ultimately leads to an EV stalemate, if and when both players are playing a theoretically optimal game. If one player is playing an exploitable style, the better player should be able to exploit his opponent's mistakes, but only if he deviates from GTO, opening himself up to exploitation.
The bulk of the field in a large tournament is probably playing exploitable, not GTO. I'd think the inherent variance in the game and the higher number of exploitable players would make it likely that a true amateur is going to be the most likely winner, unless and until the proportion of players shifts more towards GTO.
We're never getting another poker boom like we had. People who weren't around poker back then don't understand how widespread poker was. Everywhere you went everyone was playing poker.
And everyone was terrible at it.
These days even most bad players have a decent amount of experience and are light years better than bad players back then.
You're just never gonna get that influx of tons of brand new players all at the same time again.
It was amazing how many stripers would drop in on a limit hold'em game at the Mirage or TI around 2005.
Did Tomayo "crush" Griff though? Seemed like Tomayo was on the right side of variance at the end, and that at best, his rail full of coaches using solvers may have only improved his prospects slightly.
In all the discussion and hand-wringing which followed, my takeaway was that Tomayo SHOULD have been able to crush Griff, decisively, and quickly. Like, a pro vs an amateur, where the pro has a team of coaches, including a former main event winner and big tournament crusher, and the coaches are usi
I agree that using the solver is pretty braindead when you are playing against a rec. Your goal is never to try and play equillibrium against recreationals. However, to make grand conclusions like these based on a tiny sample of hands (one relatively short stack heads up battle) is pretty silly.
I agree that using the solver is pretty braindead when you are playing against a rec. Your goal is never to try and play equillibrium against recreationals. However, to make grand conclusions like these based on a tiny sample of hands (one relatively short stack heads up battle) is pretty silly.
All of this. Your edge isn't that big in HU 30 blind poker with escalating blinds especially against an aggressive player. Variance is super high.
I think a long time ago Doyle said if in this situation an amateur player just went all in or folded preflop every hand they'd win about 35 percent of the time.
I agree that using the solver is pretty braindead when you are playing against a rec. Your goal is never to try and play equillibrium against recreationals. However, to make grand conclusions like these based on a tiny sample of hands (one relatively short stack heads up battle) is pretty silly.
Not sure what you mean by "grand conclusions".
I spent my career in sales. If Tomayo's coaches are trying to sell people on the value of their coaching, it doesn't seem to me that Tomayo's performance is a good case study, unless they told the world he was terrible and would have been dead money without their help.
The online chatter is that the solver on the rail "isn't a good look" for the game. My perspective is that it's a terrible look for their business, if he's supposed to be the poster boy for solver dominance. All that computing and brain power, and he barely eked out a victory. THAT is not a good look.
I'm not suggesting that solvers haven't advanced our understanding of the game. I'm certain they have. I'm suggesting that the OP's premise, that an amateur can never win the main, won't be true until such time as enough of the player pool are using these tools effectively, such that at that time, we should expect the winner to be a truly expert pro, and a true amateur winning should be a rare occurrence.
This debate just seems like basic math to me. If 90% of the field are amateurs, even if the 10% of pros are using solvers on the rail, the sheer preponderance of amateurs should make it more likely an amateur will win, despite the pros "cheating". I don't know what the mix needs to be before the odds tip in favor of a pro winning. Maybe it's as low as 20% pros w/ solvers and 80% amateurs.
But the field was over 10k people. It seems unlikely that the fields will get smaller, and also somewhat unlikely that the number of pros using solvers (and using them well) will rise to the proportion that makes it a statistical near-impossibility for an amateur to win.
As long as the amateurs greatly outnumber the pros, the odds of an amateur winning should remain high enough for it to not be a shock when it happens.
