An interesting discussion took place, stemming from comments Daniel Negreanu made in his blog, about which is a better indicator of poker skill: winning money at the World Series of Poker, or winning money on the World Poker Tour.  Daniel proposed that the latter, with its steeper buy-ins and longer-structured tournaments and better competition, to be the true indication of poker greatness.  Some in the forums advocated that the WSOP, with its tradition, and its much-vaunted Main Event, should be the true test.  Daniel even made several forays in to the talk, to clarify his viewpoints.

Someone even posted a list showing the all-time tournament money winners, with each player’s largest score taken out (the biggest drop on this list goes to Jamie Gold, who fell from 1st overall to nowhere near the bottom of the chart, when his $12 million WSOP win was taken away from his $12.1 million overall earnings).

The overarching theme, though, is just how do we rate tournament poker players?  In a game where short-term luck can be such a huge factor, whose to say who the best player of the last year/decade/century is?  Some people with a head for statistical theory would argue that it is impossible to get a sample size big enough to say for sure.

Popularity: 3% [?]