The Greatest?

We all have our favourite players that we love to watch.
But whos yours?

For me I cant think of a better player than Daniel Negreanu. Does he wear x-ray contact lenses, because this guy is a genius at reading your cards.
For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hwbk6LfBwo&feature=related
And there are many others aswell.

This guy is so good at reading the game. Cant wait to see him perform at this years WSOP.

Gus Hansen without doubt for me, guy has either the biggest balls in the business or he's just plain mad with some of the hands he plays.

great question YI

There are a few who I would love to play against.

I think Phil Helmuth is the most unlikeable and easily wound up player - so he would be a definite for my table. I also think he is most probably one of the best.

I really like Howard Lederer and think he is very talented.

Dont see anything in Chris Ferguson that scares me. So I would invite him.

Phil Ivy and Gus hansen have very little personality and give nothing away so I would avoid them.

Doyle Brunson seems like a real old gent and I would love to have him at the table to chat.

The final guy I would like to have on my table would be Andy Bloch who was one of the MIT students who was famous for card counting.

So, my table would be:

Phil Helmuth - I would love to beat him on a lucky draw to see him sulk
Lederer - seems like a nice guy
Brunson - for his tales
Ferguson - cos hes rubbish
Bloch - to find out about the MIT card counting stories

Hope that answers your question!

playing with no fear is a great characteristic to have, but it can get also you into trouble when you come up against the monster hand your opponent has and you go charging in.
But because Hansen has that ruthless streak and reputation when he raises most people will fold lol

Negreanu is a great player but can be a bit of an ass. Hellmuth is too, but it's just hilarious to watch him blow up, ditto Luke Schwartz, the guy's a complete chav but hilarious to watch and I think Hellmuth is clever in that this persona he's built for himself has kept him relevent, playing on the 'poker brat' persona.

Lederer and Ferguson are both similar players, in the old school mould that haven't really adapted to the new more aggressive style but still are both very talented.

Ivey is the obvious choice, in that his ability to read a situation truly is second to none.

Sam Trickett is one of THE best up and coming players, probably one of the best English players and is in great form at the moment following his results at the Aussie Millions High Roller and Super High Roller events.

Dwan, Antonius and Hansen are all great aggressive players and fantastic to watch, although Hansen has calmed down a bit in recent times.

I've kind of waffled and not really answered the question, erm... pass. I just love watching any and all poker!

Currently I would have to say Sam Trickett, Phil Ivey, Jason Mercier and I guess we would have to include the current World Champ Greg Merson.

Never write Antonius, Hansen, Negreanu, Hellmuth et al out of it either.

best tournament player is helmuth. he has 13 bracelets including the wsop main event and wsope main event

best ash game player is phil ivey or tom dwan who seem to be winning a ton of money.

I disagree with your arguement based upon him having the most bracelets. Hellmuth won a number of his bracelets when the game was still in it's infancy where the fields where smaller and the game hadn't evolved to the level it has today.

Antonio Esfandiari is at the top of the all time money list but that doesn't neccessarily make him one of the best poker players in the world. Results and bracelets especially can be misleading and don't conclude one players skill level. What events has he won the bracelets in? How big where the fields in these events etc.

SharkSoul wrote:I disagree with your arguement based upon him having the most bracelets.  Hellmuth won a number of his bracelets when the game was still in it's infancy where the fields where smaller and the game hadn't evolved to the level it has today.  

Antonio Esfandiari is at the top of the all time money list but that doesn't neccessarily make him one of the best poker players in the world.  Results and bracelets especially can be misleading and don't conclude one players skill level.  What events has he won the bracelets in?  How big where the fields in these events etc.

Well he won the main event in the 80's then came 5th in the main event in 2001 and then won the main event in Europe in 2012.

He has won 6 bracelets since the poker boom in 2003.

Also poker is a results based game. You judge a player on their results. Helmuth has won 13 bracelets at the wsop which is the largest event for poker in the world. He has won more bracelets than anyone and thus he is the best tournament player.

I remember reading about Stu Ungar a few years ago. Sounded like he knew how to enjoy himself, as well as play poker.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

SharkSoul wrote:I disagree with your arguement based upon him having the most bracelets.  Hellmuth won a number of his bracelets when the game was still in it's infancy where the fields where smaller and the game hadn't evolved to the level it has today.  

Antonio Esfandiari is at the top of the all time money list but that doesn't neccessarily make him one of the best poker players in the world.  Results and bracelets especially can be misleading and don't conclude one players skill level.  What events has he won the bracelets in?  How big where the fields in these events etc.

Well he won the main event in the 80's then came 5th in the main event in 2001 and then won the main event in Europe in 2012.

He has won 6 bracelets since the poker boom in 2003.

Also poker is a results based game. You judge a player on their results. Helmuth has won 13 bracelets at the wsop which is the largest event for poker in the world. He has won more bracelets than anyone and thus he is the best tournament player.

This is fundamentally incorrect. One thing that you need to understand about poker is the level of variance involved within the game. It's something as a poker player you have to accept. Hence why I said in my earlier post about results being misleading. Why I agree he is one of the best poker players to play the game his number of bracelets isn't indicative of him being the greatest. Taking nothing away from his achievements and what he's done for the game I think you could ask the wider poker community and I would guarantee that they would disagree with Hellmuth being touted as 'The Greatest'.

Some of the best players in the world don't have 1 bracelet let alone 13. Stu Ungar was brilliant at NLHE but was also proficient in Mixed Games. Unfortunately he had troubles away from the felt. His autobiography is an intriguing read by the way if anyone should elect to read it.

SharkSoul wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

SharkSoul wrote:I disagree with your arguement based upon him having the most bracelets.  Hellmuth won a number of his bracelets when the game was still in it's infancy where the fields where smaller and the game hadn't evolved to the level it has today.  

Antonio Esfandiari is at the top of the all time money list but that doesn't neccessarily make him one of the best poker players in the world.  Results and bracelets especially can be misleading and don't conclude one players skill level.  What events has he won the bracelets in?  How big where the fields in these events etc.

Well he won the main event in the 80's then came 5th in the main event in 2001 and then won the main event in Europe in 2012.

He has won 6 bracelets since the poker boom in 2003.

Also poker is a results based game. You judge a player on their results. Helmuth has won 13 bracelets at the wsop which is the largest event for poker in the world. He has won more bracelets than anyone and thus he is the best tournament player.

This is fundamentally incorrect.  One thing that you need to understand about poker is the level of variance involved within the game.  It's something as a poker player you have to accept.  Hence why I said in my earlier post about results being misleading.  Why I agree he is one of the best poker players to play the game his number of bracelets isn't indicative of him being the greatest.  Taking nothing away from his achievements and what he's done for the game I think you could ask the wider poker community and I would guarantee that they would disagree with Hellmuth being touted as 'The Greatest'.

Some of the best players in the world don't have 1 bracelet let alone 13.  Stu Ungar was brilliant at NLHE but was also proficient in Mixed Games.  Unfortunately he had troubles away from the felt.  His autobiography is an intriguing read by the way if anyone should elect to read it.

in terms of no limit holdem tournaments then helmuth is the best. His success over the last 25 years shows this.2 main event bracelts, 13 bracelets altogether. most final tables at wsop, most cashes at wsop.