Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="OzExorcist, post: 2076731, member: 23910"]
^ this.  Sure there are five times as many bracelets awarded now compared to years gone by, but it's also much, much harder for any given individual to win one of those bracelets with the increases in player skill and field size.

I'd say that more than offsets the increase in the number of bracelets that are given away, and makes winning one at least as prestigious as it always was.

Ivey winning his ninth bracelet in an event with a low buyin AND a small field size in this day and age was obviously an anomaly - I expect the same event probably would've drawn at least 3-400 entries if it were held in Vegas.

But as followers of the game we're all pretty good at keeping mental track of those anomolies and accounting for them in our own estimation of what a given player's bracelet count really means.  How long were we holding "but he's never won in anything other than hold 'em" over Phil Hellmuth's head, for example?  How many people probably thought that despite Hellmuth having more bracelets, Doyle was the better player - despite the fact that, I'll state it again, most of Doyle's bracelets came from three-table SnGs, and one of them was from an even where the combined two-person buyin was only $600.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us

Language