***
Hello fellow forum members! 
I just had some random thoughts about online poker, and poker on TV as well.
I've been playing online poker, over the past couple of years (at least steadily, because I played a bit in years way back when), and I find that the competition is fierce. There aren't as many "donks" as there were in past years, and you have to be really sharp to come out ahead.
I've read quite a few poker books, like Super System 1-2, Harrington on Hold'em, Cash Games, The Theory of Poker, The Poker Mindset, and Phil Gordon's Little Green Book. I find that Super System and Phil Gordon's books are the best to start off with, but the David Sklansky and Dan Harrington books are far more in-depth or precise with theirs teachings/theories/methods.
There's a point at which - I found - that I've done much better, to just play the games that I'm most comfortable with. The books are great to go by, but in the long run, figuring-out which approach works best for me has proven to be more enjoyable and effective. I think about my online play (although I'm much better in a live game), and it's infinitely better than where I was at this point last year. I've played in so many sit&go tournaments, heads-up matches, cash games (where I really suck!), and of course, free rolls, that I was bound to improve sooner or later.
I'm a pretty good tournament player, and although they're just free rolls, I usually make my way deep into the Pokerstars tournaments, and prior to that, the PrimaPoker free rolls; although these days they've been greatly reduced. I also do well at 5-seated sit&go NLTH tournaments, and find them to be incredible fun, and VERY rewarding if you have the patience to wait for good hands when you're not out-of-position, and wait long enough to get into the top-3 so as not to be left out of the money.
I allow myself 20 tournaments per day, and record where I finished in the tournament, how much I won/lost, and if I finished-out of the money. I find when I play too tired, or when I'm on tilt, I'm no longer capable of making any sound decisions. I no longer play at multiple-tables at once, because I need to focus on what the other players are doing, and doing this at more than one table, has watered-down my effectiveness. I'll never be Tom Dwan, Hevad Khan, or Bertrand Grospellier (people who can play 30 tables at a time!), and that okay. I also found that it's easier for me to be patient, because I'll play slots at various MG casinos, generally playing low bets, so I have a distraction which is great because I won't get too antsy to get involved with an average hand. At the same time, it probably has helped my slot-play as well in the long run (thank you wide-screen Samsung monitor).
***
I've played on multiple platforms over the past couple of years (and at 888.com and Paradise Poker back in the day), and each one has it's pluses and minuses.
- I think that Pokerstars is the best site, I feel that the RNG is the best because it doesn't feel like there are too many situations where I go bust when I feel that I've got the best hand. There's a huge field of players, with lots of "donks" at the minimum buy-ins, more so than at any PrimaPoker site. I feel that my money is safe there. There are some negatives though, the design is terrible. It's really ugly. It makes a mid-60s hospital look visually stunning by comparison. I don't like the table options. When registering for a tournament, the registration for tournaments screen (before you click to get in) is constantly moving-up, so you have to click fast.
Beautiful scenary...
It's like hurling this morning's cream soup...
- I think that Full-Tilt is a close second, but may very well be on par also. I'm not a fan of the layout here either, but I feel that my money is safe, again, I like the RNG (which is VERY important to me), the competition is said to be soft (but I've not seen that... yet), the promotions are pretty good, and I'll be making more deposits there in the future (should I go bust). There are a ton of great tournaments here, similar to PokerStars.
- PrimaPoker (SpinPalace/GamingClub/32red/PokerTime/Roxy/PokerShare/Crazy) for me, has the best layout/design of the major poker sites. I like that they don't use characters for people, they keep it simple. I also prefer the tiled-screens, which aren't very nice to look at, but are small, and great for those who like to play at more than one table at once (I can fit as many as 36 at once on my screen (!). I absolutely hate the RNG here, because all too often, there are too many "coolers" (situations where you can't fold, because your hand is just too good, but so is the other guys). Depending on the site, you're likely not going to find as much action at these sites, as you would with a PokerStars. I also find that players here are really good, because the field isn't as big. There are a lot of players from Norway, Sweden, Finland, which are countries known for their great poker players (reckless/dangerous/every hand is quickly played).
- PartyGaming was a site I always felt would be great (from all of their TV spots), but there have been too many issues with non-payments, ect. I did okay there, when I first started, and I felt that the site's design was fair (similar but a bit better than PokerStars). I no longer go there, for reasons already mentioned. You'd think a site that has so many advertisements, TV tournaments, and good backing, would be so much better than they are... but it's not very good.
- Betfair is pretty good, although I've not played their much (just a couple of small deposits made there last year). Overall, I like the site's design, the tournaments are pretty good, and the options are also fair-good (not far behind PrimaPoker).
- Ultimate Bet/Absolute Poker will hopefully rise-from-the-ashes. I would have put them in the same league as Full-Tilt or PokerStars (with the same boring layout/design), but there's just too much prior turmoil to ignore. Personally, I think that whatever indefensible mistakes that have happened there in the past (reading people's whole cards), won't happen again.
- Interpoker in my mind, has the 2nd best design behind PrimaPoker. The tournaments are so-so, the competition is relatively fair (which is good), and your money is safe as safe can be. It reminds me a bit of the PlayTech poker rooms (which are nice, but the characters are limited), but the RNG for me, falls somewhere between PokerStars and Prima.
***
Watching hours up hours upon hours upon hours of poker on YouTube, I truly wonder who the best player in the world really is.
The generally feeling, is that Phil Ivey is the man. And if it's not him, Tom Dwan is right there, and if it's not him it's got to be Patrick Antonius. What about Phil Hellmuth and his 11 WSOP bracelets, surely he must be the best?
Just for fun, I've decided to make a Top-40 list of who I perceive as being the best players in the world today. Today, would be today, but also over the past few seasons up until now. I'm not going back to the perception of '75, or even '01, I'm talking about these days.
"Top-40 Poker Stars and Up-'N-Comers"
1) Phil Ivey - he finally brought his "+A" game this year
2) John Juanda - always underrated and under-appreciated
3) Patrick Antonius - maybe the best and luckiest cash game player
4) Tom Dwan - online freak and prodigy
5) J.C. Tran - a couple of years ago, he was the best unknown player
6) Erick Lindgren - best tournament player in '08
7) Jeff Lisandro - best thus far in '09 WSOP, waiting on Ivey
8) Daniel Negreanu - could be the best if he'd quit talking so much
9) Phil Hellmuth - not given enough respect even if he's just a NLTH GOD!
10) Allen Cunningham - like Juanda, completely underrated and very steady
11) Ted Forrest - great all around player, tournament and cash games
12) Peter Eastgate - not a fluke, maybe the next Chip Reese
13) Huck Seed - lovable gentle giant is very consistent and undervalued
14) Robert Mizrachi - "goon" but very profitable player
15) Scotty Nguyen - maybe the best "drunk" player; HORSE 2008 winner
16) Jesus Ferguson - overrated by some, but great tournament player
17) Mark Seif - also underrated, although started to drop off the map
18) Layne Flack - always does well, just not on TV
19) Greg Raymer - generally goes deep in tournaments and very consistent
20) Kenny Tran - a bit too egotistical, but still strong
gushansen.jpg
At one time, voted as one of the sexiest people alive.
21) Gus Hansen - where has Gus been this year (?) always dangerous
22) Bertrand Grospellier - online wiz, StarCraft wiz, moving up fast
23) Antonio Esfandiari - the "Magician" is starting to get a little more serious
24) Scott Fischman - the best member from "The Crew"
25) Annette Obrestad - crazy player, and most certainly great
26) Josh Arieh - unnoticeable, but quietly effective
27) Jason Bonomo - egotistical online player who's great in tournaments
28) Carlos Mortensen - always dangerous
29) Joe Hachem - great tournament player, like Jesus and Raymer
30) Todd Brunson - looks drunk, but could be in the Top-5 if he shaped-up
31) Brandon Cantu - like Bonomo, egotistical and great (seems lazy)
32) Nenad Medic - a rock
33) Jeff Madsen - looks like an idiot/high poker IQ though
34) Vitaly Lunkin - this guy came out of nowhere, already making a mark
35) Mike Matusow - The Mouth always seem to go deep at the WSOP
36) Freddy Deeb - Great tournament and cash player (still)
37) Kathy Liebert - annoying, but ultra-good tournament player
38) Ivan Demidov - likely the best Russian player (who should be higher)
39) Roland De Wolfe - maybe I also have him ranked too low
40) Alexander Kravchenko - another Russian great
The next person would have been "Kirk Morrison", the guy who disappeared from poker for several years, but who should have been much more renowned than he currently is.
I didn't include other notable players such as Lyle Berman, Jennifer Harman (greatest woman player ever), Barry Greenstein, T.J. Cloutier, Doyle Brunson, Bobby Baldwin, and a bunch of others, because either they're not playing as much, they generally just play the big non-televised cash games, or they're just not doing very well these days, although they are still most certainly relevant. There's no question that Doyle Brunson is a greater player than arguably anyone on the list, but just not so over the past few years. I also didn't include Eli Elezra, David Benyamine, and Sam Farha, who could all easily make the list, because they're big cash game players, but we really don't know how well they're running these days (although we could all guess that they're doing very well).
Most entertaining players
1) Tony G - When he's talking he cracks me up, especially when he knocks-out Ralph Perry and says "Go back to Russia!", or bluffs Surinder Sunar in Paris "You gotta like it, it's a nice bet".
"On your bike... Go back to Russia!"
2) Daniel Negreanu - For being able to read people so well, although I would probably benefit him for keeping quiet, because I've got this feeling that Phil Ivey has that same ability and that's why he's so good.
3) Gus Hansen - I like it when Gus goes against the grain of wisdom, and just does his thing. Like the time that he went for something like 14 straight hands without a loss and knocked-off The Poker Brat.
4) Todd Brunson - He's not exciting, he looks like a drunken a-hole, but that's the fun part for me. Looking half-baked, and throwing chips in on High Stakes Poker as if it's poker change, just cracks-me-up. He's much greater than people give him credit for being.
5) Phil Hellmuth - I suppose he could also be number #1, it's just that he always does his thing, so I guess the world is spoiled. I liked it the most, when he got into it with Sheiky on Poker After Dark, calling for the producer Maury, and going awol... great TV!
6) Mike Matusow - For his meltdowns, for going after Greg Raymer (who's like the nicest guy in the world AND a greater tournament player than even Mike is). Again, his battle with Sheiky during the 2006 WSOP (which was the best WSOP if you ask me) was a classic.
7) Jamie Gold - Everyone calls him a fluke, lucky, ect. I think that "Ari" Gold's '06 bracelet was very well deserved. He did everything right, despite being recognized as one of the worst bracelet winners of All-Time. I think that he's better than people give him credit for. His highlight would be the entire performance he put on during his '06 run, but if I had to pick one moment, I'd go with his High Stakes Poker appearance, where his K-K ran into Sam Farha's A-A, and he negotiated his way from losing too much money.
8) Huck Seed - He seems to get this recognition for being a really boring guy for TV, but I see him for just the opposite. He seems to be always pulling for the other player, and it doesn't seem like an act. It's strange to see an all-in call, both players standing up, and he's always encouraging the other player to get the card that they need.
9) Tom Dwan - Incredibly egocentric, and he never gives off the impression that he ever loses. In particular, I find his trance-posturing to be VERY funny! It's like he has a vibrator in his pants, and he's getting off or something. What is that? I guess it works, but...
10) Sam Farha - He's always trying to steal the show, but he always makes High Stakes Poker exciting with his high raises. He can't get enough TV time I guess.
"Poker is fun/For every-one/Except my opponents/Who shoulda practiced avoidance/They ain't big proponents/
In thinkin' not just in the moment/But the possible future problems/Sometimes comes tough to solve them!"
Honorable mention goes to Prahlad Friedman and the Jeff Lisandro accusation mix-up back in the '06 WSOP! "Poker is fun/For every-one/Except my opponents/Who shoulda practiced avoidance/They ain't big proponents/In thinkin' not just in the moment/But the possible future problems/Sometimes comes tough to solve them!"
Thank you for reading.
Steed
***
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
This 'n That about Poker
Reply With Quote
I still feel that - as with someone like Todd Brunson (who needs to clean-up in general) - if he devoted himself to the tournaments like the WSOP, he could win a ton of bracelets. I'm sure most people feel that he could do it. If Negreanu is on his game, I'm not so sure that someone like an Ivey, a Dwan, or whoever else, can be better. He just doesn't seem to commit himself enough to being serious about winning these days. And, he's just not as lucky as the Antonius, Eastgate, Dwan, and Ivey group. 
He's completely reckless, precise in his readings (though), but I don't think he's had really ran into a run of bad cards yet. That's the great part about Dwan though, he gets everybody's attention, he's fearless or reckless (however one may see it), and there are tons of highs to his game.
Bookmarks