Would it have been better for poker if Phil Ivey won the Main Event?

Arguably the world's best poker player, Phil Ivey came in 7th in this year's WSOP Main event - would it be better for poker if he'd won the whole thing?

By PKR_Colin Vs. PKR_Billy on Wednesday 11 Nov 2009 17:00


Two PKR News & Events regulars battle it out...

Every week from today we’re going to explore a different issue from two opposite perspectives in Yes/No.

This week we ask if it would have been better for poker if Phil Ivey had won the 2009 WSOP Main Event.

No! says PKR_Billy

There is no doubt in my mind that Phil Ivey failing to win the WSOP Main Event was a good thing. Why? Quite simply, everyone loves an underdog because it gives us the feeling it could also happen to anyone.

You only have to look at what’s dominated the news this week to see that we are not yet tired of reading about those who have beaten the man against the odds. Two winners each scooping over £45 million on the Euro Millions is what everyone is talking about and this proves we still love the long shot chance of getting rich.

Phil Ivey is no doubt the one of the world’s best tournament players (if not the best), but let’s face it, if the best player always wins, things get boring. Look at the way people lost interest in Formula 1 a few years ago when Michael Schumacher won almost every race and look at it now with a more exciting and open championship.

Joe Cada for me represents the little guy and sends the message out to those just starting out on their poker journey that if they do get that little bit of luck along the way they could also make it big!

Yes! says PKR_Colin

Phil Ivey winning the World Series in November would have been fantastic for poker - a recognised pro and one of the best tournament players in the world at the top the game taking down poker’s biggest tournament. What’s NOT to like?

Sure, Chris Moneymaker’s win in 2003 did a lot to publicise poker and plant the dream that every one with a laptop and a hand ranking chart could compete (and win) against the world’s best.

But when the underdog wins every year is he really an underdog? This year’s second place finisher Darvin Moon admitted himself that he’d been lucky telling Cardplayer magazine, “There were 6,494 players in (the main event) this year, and there were probably 6,300 people in it who are better than I am.”

Everyone knows the structure of the World Series and high number of runners the event needs to get through makes it a lottery. That’s fine (and I certainly have no problem with high volume event that has a huge prize pool) - just don’t call it the ‘Main Event’.
 

 


Comments

LoL so true, the guy is minted!!
but was v.unlucky last hand went out with big slick, against AQ or KQ??
i wanted the fellow Brit to win, Akenhead 'you did well my son' lol

Comment by jjoel87 - 15/11/09 (Report)

The argument about people love to see the underdog win is pretty spot on. But in poker amatuers are NOT the underdog, they are the overwhelming majority. An established pro hasnt won the main event in years and it wouldve been great to see Phil Ivey be recognised as the best in the world. Im happy for the kid who won but i think it would be great for poker if a pro won it next year.

Comment by awesomeboi - 13/11/09 (Report)

I'm just surprised Pat Ivey didn't take it down!

Comment by yogabbagabba - 12/11/09 (Report)

I guess it wuold be great if Phil had won... just to prove the world that poker isn't a lucky game... it's a game of skills!!

Comment by FabioGoncalves - 12/11/09 (Report)

foolish Danski, the answer is...

YES

Comment by PKR_Jabba - 12/11/09 (Report)

No.

Comment by PKR_Danski - 12/11/09 (Report)

While I'm a bit split on whether I wanted Ivey to win or not, all in all I think this year's FT played out pretty ideally.

There was an underdog story in Darvin Moon to push the accessibility of poker. Anyone who knows how to play and has $10k to spare can go deep in poker's blue riband event without needing to understand reverse implied odds or ICM.

A third of the November Nine were recognised pros, proving that this game requires and rewards skill. The three pro's were pretty decent too - the young gun, the old schooler from a poker dynasty and arguably the greatest poker player on the planet.

On top of that two of the FT were from Europe and the winner was the youngest winner in history which should help to ensure poker continues to enjoy a strong following among young men.

Comment by PKR_Simon - 12/11/09 (Report)

IMO the true main event should be a 10 way bash between all contenders for player of the year. It should be a true platform for the best in the world to showcase their skills.

Still run the 'main event' but don't have it heralding the winner as the world champion.

Comment by BarryBaldy - 12/11/09 (Report)

he has enough money already

Comment by masychefX2 - 11/11/09 (Report)

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register



Join the game now!

Download the world's most advanced poker room. Read more »