This 'n That about Poker

Who do you consider to be the 10 best live poker players in the world today?

  • Phil Ivey

    Votes: 12 60.0%
  • John Juanda

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • Patrick Antonius

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Tom Dwan

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • J.C. Tran

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Erick Lindgren

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • Jeff Lisandro

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Daniel Negreanu

    Votes: 13 65.0%
  • Phil Hellmuth

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • Allen Cunningham

    Votes: 6 30.0%
  • Ted Forrest

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • Peter Eastgate

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Huck Seed

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • Robert Mizrachi

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Scotty Nguyen

    Votes: 9 45.0%
  • Jesus Ferguson

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Mark Seif

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Layne Flack

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Greg Raymer

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • Kenny Tran

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Gus Hansen

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • Bertrand Grospellier

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Antonio Esfandiari

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Scott Fischman

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Annette Obrestad

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Josh Arieh

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jason Bonomo

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Carlose Mortensen

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Joe Hachem

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Todd Brunson

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Brandon Cantu

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Nenad Medic

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Jeff Madsen

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Vitaly Lunkin

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Mike Matusow

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Freddy Deeb

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Kathy Liebert

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Ivan Demidov

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Roland De Wolfe

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Alexander Kravchenko

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Kirk Morrison

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Doyle Brunson

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • Jennifer Harman

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Lyle Berman

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sam Farha

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • Barry Greenstein

    Votes: 6 30.0%
  • T.J. Cloutier

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Hevad Khan

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Joe Sebok

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other...

    Votes: 3 15.0%

  • Total voters
    20

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Just as an aside, Moneymaker just made the final table in the World Poker Open in Robinsonville, Mississippi.;)

Nice thread, JS - good to see such a diversity of opinions and knowledge.

Edited to add that Negreanu has moved up in your poll and is now voted on a par with Ivey. Two magic players - but different personalities.
 

Kenny Lingus

Tard Counter
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Location
Near Chicago, Illinois
You're right, I did forget "Action Dan". I also forgot to include Johnny Chan, and I guess Tom McEvoy (who is suddenly relevant again). :oops: I'm not going to degrade Harrington, and he should be on there.

At the same time, this isn't about "The Top 10 Living Poker Players" Mr. Lingus. :) If I was doing that, wouldn't Doyle Brunson be #1 or #2? Shouldn't Bobby Baldwin be near the top? What about Amarillo Slim? Or Berry Johnston? This list is about who's causing the most noise recently, and over the past few years. It's not perfect - the rankings could surely be different - but I'm okay with the guys I put in the Top-20.......

Steed

I must disagree, as Dan Harrington is still very much a top-ten player. I mean that NOW and all-time. For my argument, I quote a portion of Dan's Wikipedia page:

"His solid play allows him to make it to many final tables at large events. He won the World Series of Poker (WSOP) main event in 1995 for $1,000,000 and made three other main event final tables, placing 6th in 1987 for $43,750, 3rd (out of 839 players) in 2003 for $650,000, and 4th (out of 2,576 players) in 2004 for $1,500,000. As defending champion in 1996, Harrington made another deep run in the main event, finishing in 17th place and earning $23,400. He also cashed in the 2009 main event, finishing in 252nd place for a $32,963 payout.

The same year as his main event win, he also won a bracelet in the $2,500 No-Limit Hold'em event for $249,000 and the Seven-card stud event at European Poker Open in London. He made his first final table at the World Poker Tour (WPT) in 2005, winning $620,730 for his second place finish to Minh Ly in the Doyle Brunson North American Championship. In 2007, he won the Legends of Poker for a prize of $1,634,865.

As of 2008, his live tournament winnings exceed $6,500,000.[4] More than half of his live tournament winnings ($3,491,513) have come at the WSOP.[5]

Harrington, Doyle Brunson, Carlos Mortensen, Scotty Nguyen and Joe Hachem are the only five people to have won the World Series of Poker Main Event and a World Poker Tour title."

And, he just finished third in the "Champions Invitational" held this past WSOP, playing against 19 other former main event winners.

I think his work speaks for itself.
 

johnsteed

Dormant Account
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Location
N/A
***



Dear Mr. Lingus,



I will proceed to go over each and every line about what you took the time to write about (or some parts from Wikipedia which is always a very resourceful site to go to). :) Make no mistake, I greatly appreciate the fact that you love Harrington as much as you do, and view him still as being a Top-10 player. We'll see how we look at it differently.


I must disagree, as Dan Harrington is still very much a top-ten player. I mean that NOW and all-time. For my argument, I quote a portion of Dan's Wikipedia page:



This thread - at least in the beginning - was never about who are the "Top-10 All-Time" greatest players, it's about who are the top players of today, and over the last few years (as in the past 2-3). It's also not a "Top-10", but a "Top-40" list. I also agreed that "Action Dan" is still very relevant today. He is a well respected player, and I'm not going to degrade his game, just to prove a point. A hundred years from now, if one were to put all the names mentioned throughout the thread, Harrington could perhaps be in the "Top-10 Greatest Players of All Time". I don't know, because it's all very subjective.



Old Attachment (Invalid)
"Action Dan" in action...​



"His solid play allows him to make it to many final tables at large events. He won the World Series of Poker (WSOP) main event in 1995 for $1,000,000 and made three other main event final tables, placing 6th in 1987 for $43,750, 3rd (out of 839 players) in 2003 for $650,000, and 4th (out of 2,576 players) in 2004 for $1,500,000. As defending champion in 1996, Harrington made another deep run in the main event, finishing in 17th place and earning $23,400. He also cashed in the 2009 main event, finishing in 252nd place for a $32,963 payout.



Yes, in historical context, Harrington is a great player. No question. Again, I'm talking about now, as in '06-09. Making it to 252nd place is solid (famous actor Lou Diamond Phillips finished 186th, even better!), but he was going much deeper into the WSOP Main Event 5-years ago, which is enough time that's past to suggest that there's been a bit of a drop-off in his game, or that the much larger playing field has started to catch up to him. So, most of his money was made prior to the '06 (up until now) cut-off mark that I'm looking at.



Old Attachment (Invalid)
LDP finished 186th in this year's WSOP Main Event




The same year as his main event win, he also won a bracelet in the $2,500 No-Limit Hold'em event for $249,000 and the Seven-card stud event at European Poker Open in London. He made his first final table at the World Poker Tour (WPT) in 2005, winning $620,730 for his second place finish to Minh Ly in the Doyle Brunson North American Championship. In 2007, he won the Legends of Poker for a prize of $1,634,865.



Again, the first couple of tournaments mentioned are prior to '06. He should surely get credit for winning the Legends of Poker tournament, so that's one. Okay.



As of 2008, his live tournament winnings exceed $6,500,000.[4] More than half of his live tournament winnings ($3,491,513) have come at the WSOP.[5]


Yes, but how much of that was won prior to '06? And remember, there's a lot more money today than before. That Legends of Poker tournament (won at the Bicycle Club), is a HUGE chunk of that overall total, but during the era he was probably at his peak, the prize money was nothing compared to today.



Harrington, Doyle Brunson, Carlos Mortensen, Scotty Nguyen and Joe Hachem are the only five people to have won the World Series of Poker Main Event and a World Poker Tour title."



An argument can be made - based on that achievement - that perhaps Harrington could be one of the "Top-10 Greatest Players of All-Time", and maybe "Top-10 Living Players of All-Time".



And, he just finished third in the "Champions Invitational" held this past WSOP, playing against 19 other former main event winners.



That's great, but it was a field of only 19 people; even if they're former WSOP Main Event winners. Greg Raymer didn't even show-up until later on in the day, as I'm sure Phil Hellmuth did as well. In that tournament, none of the strongest players in the world today (say for a few) were amongst the 19. Great reputations, great players, but the best of the best in '09 (for the most part) weren't there, and Harrington was 3rd, nice, but not overly noteworthy.



I think his work speaks for itself.



Yes, if we're looking at his career going back from the mid-80s until today. One can certainly make an argument that he is one of the greatest players ever. I highly doubt Harrington is one of the 5 greatest poker players ever, but an argument can be made that he could be in the "Top-10 All-Time" (counting those who've played for at least 20-years). But an argument can be made that Nolan Ryan was the greatest baseball pitcher ever, because he's famous, he has the strike-out records, he played a long time, ect. He's most definitely NOT, but one can still make that argument.



But no, there's no way he's in the Top-10 players - who're at their peaks - in the game today. Harrington is still great (not arguing that point), still dangerous, but I think his prime years were from '95-04 (and likely going a bit before that period as well). Since '04, he's not been the force that he used to be.



Harrington's game by design, is to go deep into tournaments, almost always making the money (like Kathy Liebert and Phil Hellmuth), but he's not amongst the games greatest winners. He has 2 WSOP bracelets, and he's played in a lot of tournaments each year, every year, for MANY years. They both were won in 1995, and that's 14 years ago. Stu Ungar won the Main Event in '97, and has been dead for 11 years now. Should the corpse of Ungar be in the "Top 10" this year?



Old Attachment (Invalid)
Stu Ungar with the guy from the First Web Casino. :D



Just to give you an idea. Howard Lederer also has 2 bracelets, has won almost the same amount of money (and has probably played in fewer tournaments), and there is no one on this planet, making a push for "The Professor" to be in the "Top-10" (and he's almost 20-years younger than Harrington).



Old Attachment (Invalid)
If his class is in session... I'm sleepin'... zzzzzzzzzz...​



Just in case you skipped over all of my counter-points, the list was made up of the best players now, today, going back no earlier than '06. Harrington is still a great player, just not "Top-10" by today's standards.



If we included contributions to the game, in other ways, Harrington arguably writes the best books on the subject of poker. :) I was going to say that he could be the best player that has come out of The Mayfair Club, but no way. I'd put Erik Seidel before Harrington. I completely forgot about Seidel, who'll always be vastly underappreciated. Now THAT was a glaring oversight on my part.




Steed


***
 
Last edited:

WonderingSpirit

Casino critic
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Location
Scandinavia
I think a few posts back one of our members expressed the view that Ivey was over-rated, and I have to respond to that out of respect for someone whom I believe is a great poker player.


I could not find any poster that has written that Phil Ivey is overrated:what:

But the voting is overrated. How can there be a 400% total votes?? I thought if you counted up votes, the sum would have to be 100%:p

Phil Ivey got 10 out 0f 107 votes and it says 58,8% . Now thats advanced mathematics....
 

johnsteed

Dormant Account
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Location
N/A
***



Wondering Spirit


But the voting is overrated. How can there be a 400% total votes?? I thought if you counted up votes, the sum would have to be 100%

Phil Ivey got 10 out 0f 107 votes and it says 58.8%. Now thats advanced mathematics....



I see what you're saying here, but people have the option of selecting 10 players each (more if they just did whatever they wanted to), so the way I'm looking at it, is that out of 17 voters in total, 10 of them felt that Ivey is either #1 or amongst their Top "10" players right now. That's why it's at 58.8%. *The percentages have already changed, as there's been another voter since this was written.




This system isn't perfect, but it was intended just to be fun (i.e. people of this forum's perception of who they feel is the best).



Thank you everyone for your votes, your opinions, and your feedback. :)




Steed


***
 

Kenny Lingus

Tard Counter
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Location
Near Chicago, Illinois
Steed,

Your topic is great, opinions are good, reasoning.....fair at best.

Incuded in the 49 players you list are (along with comments - those in quotes are from Wikipedia):

Kathy Liebert: "At the 2004 World Series of Poker, Liebert won a gold bracelet in a $1,500 limit Texas hold 'em Shootout event. She was one of three women (Cyndy Violette and Annie Duke being the other two) to win an open event in that year's WSOP. Liebert also appeared on and won the series 2005 Poker Royale: Battle of the Sexes. After being eliminated from the World Speed Poker Open in London in September 2005, Kathy provided commentary on the final alongside Gary Jones. On June 1, Liebert made the final table of the $10,000 Pot-Limit Hold'em World Championship at the 2008 World Series of Poker and finished in 3rd place, earning $306,064.

As of 2009, she has one World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet and her total live tournament winnings exceed $5,500,000. She has won more prize money in open field tournaments than any other woman in poker history and is ranked 38th overall."

Sounds similar to Action Dan's stats. Would you have put her on this list if she was a "he"?

Doyle Brunson: Sorry, but he is nowhere near the top 10 or even 50 players in the game right now. IMO, he is a slightly overated geezer who would have a tough time being considered as good as historical reputation in today's more populated poker world. His WSOP main event wins came with fields of only 22 and 34.

Josh Arieh: "World Series of Poker Bracelets:
Year Tournament Prize (US$)
1999 $3,000 Limit Hold'em $202,800
2005 $2,000 Pot Limit Omaha $381,600

As of 2009, his total live tournament winnings exceed $4,700,000.[3] Most of his tournament winnings ($3,417,593) have come at the WSOP."

Best main event finish was 3rd in 2004.

And this qualifies him, according to your standards, how exactly?

Look, I'm not trying to bust your balls, but you aren't being consistent with your standards, at least as I can see. Anyway, good topic; it beats most of the casino talk on this site.
 

rikkerbuddy

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Location
canada
agree

8) Daniel Negreanu - could be the best if he'd quit talking so much

I think this dude could be a mega star and play lights out - but his mouth and stubbornness always beats him. IMO
 

johnsteed

Dormant Account
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Location
N/A
***


KennyLingus



Your topic is great, opinions are good, reasoning.....fair at best.



Hmmm... Moving on...



Look, I'm not trying to bust your balls, but you aren't being consistent with your standards, at least as I can see. Anyway, good topic; it beats most of the casino talk on this site.



Thank you Mr. Lingus for half of that! :) But I get the sense that you mean well in your own way.




These rankings aren't exactly perfect, I'll give you that. But I'm quite happy with my "Top-20" (not necessarily in that order), and no, Dan Harrington is not in the "Top 10". That's what you're trying to prove, wasn't it? I even said I made a few oversights. I did in fact say that I should have included Dan Harrington in the rankings, and certainly in the "Top 50". I did say that he was relevant, and still very well respected.



There are holes in the list, and our perspectives are different, but for the most part, that's what we're here to debate, and I'm very pleased that you've taken the time to write. :thumbsup:



Yes, Josh Arieh, shouldn't be on the list actually. Not that he's a bad player or anything. I got my names confused, I meant to say Daniel Alaei (doh!). Really. Josh Arieh is not quiet, and in the caption, I stated "unnoticeable, but quietly effective". My mistake on that one. :oops:



Old Attachment (Invalid)
Daniel Alaei is always undercover. :cool:



He never grabs any headlines, and he's one of those guys that has appeared on High Stakes Poker , not that anyone noticed (he looked like a terrorist in that particular set of episodes). I think he should be on the list. He's won 2 bracelets since '06, and he's a solid cash game player (so I've read). He's a very sound player, and I think at this point, he's either in his prime or just going into it. I'd put him ahead of Harrington over the past few years.



I didn't include Doyle on my personal Top 40 list. I don't think he's very good anymore, or at least he doesn't seem to care about the tournaments as much; probably because of a lack of stamina. He apparently still does well in the private cash games, but I don't know (who really does except those who work and gamble there). I included him in the voting system, because, well, HE'S DOYLE BRUNSON! I know that sounds like a cop-out, and I know that reasoning won't sit well with you, but this voting system (not my personal rankings) was more based more on people's perceptions (not necessarily truth in accuracy), so he's a recognizable player that the average fan might be tempted to choose (and surprisingly, only 4 have).



Dan Harrington is a better player than Doyle now, 2009, although historically, no way.



Old Attachment (Invalid)
Texas Dolly... Yeeeee-HAAAAA!!!



That's like comparing Arnold Palmer to Lee Trevino. Trevino could certainly hold his own, make a lot of money, and he was better than Palmer later on (likely because he's younger), but not on the same plane historically.



I said in a previous post - I'm saying it for the third time - Harrington has every right to be in the rankings. I'm okay with Liebert being where she is, and I don't think I gave her the edge over Harrington because she's a she and not a he. Remember, I forgot to put Dan on this list altogether (I mentioned this previously). It was an oversight on my part. I'd also point out, that I could flip spots between most of the players, those of who are ranked after in the bottom half of my "Top 40".



Look, I'm not trying to bust your balls, but you aren't being consistent with your standards, at least as I can see.



I think Liebert and Harrington play very similar styles, or if it's not that, they both have the same mindset to go deep into tournaments, survive long enough just to make the money. A lot of the top pros don't necessary approach tournaments like that. Liebert and Harrington play more like Hellmuth-lite and slightly tighter in my opinion (if you can believe it), than compared to a Negreanu, Hansen, or an Ivey. I think that over the past few years, Liebert and Harrington aren't much different by how well they've done.



The Dan Harrington of today that you argue should be in the "Top 10" (nope) now and "Top 10 All Time" (perhaps), isn't the same Dan Harrington of pre-'04. Anyway, Harrington and Liebert are both fine players today, very steady ships, but neither one should be in the discussion as to who's in the Elite Tier of players in the game today; meaning within the "Top 10". You can find holes with who's not on the list, or where people are ranked in the bottom half, but each person will have a vastly different opinion on a pseudo-list.



So to sum it up...



Doyle vs Harrington - I'm going with Harrington, and Brunson wasn't on my "Top 40" list anyway; and I forgot to include "Action Dan" (which was an oversight).



Liebert vs Harrington - To me, it's pretty much a wash over the past 3 seasons. I'm not saying that Mr. Lingus is wrong, because (seeing as I forgot to include Harrington) I would likely have had him ranked higher by 1 or 2 spots, not much more, which really isn't much of a difference as it would be between Phil Ivey and the next best player.



Arieh vs Harrington - I'd certainly take Harrington over Arieh, who's taken 2-3 steps back over the past few seasons. AND, I didn't mean to include Arieh, as I always confuse his name (not him) with Daniel Alaei's name. Daniel Alaei was the person I meant to have ranked 26th, and I'm okay with that. That was my mistake on that one... :oops:



I'm curious Mr. Lingus, who would you rank as being the "Top 10 All-Time Greatest Poker Players"? The only stipulation being that any living player has to have played for at least 10 years already, and dead guys can be included as well (of course). So the infamous Durrr can't be included. :D



I love the feedback Mr. Lingus (and the debate), and everyone else. :thumbsup:




Steed


***
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
***

I'm curious Mr. Lingus, who would you rank as being the "Top 10 All-Time Greatest Poker Players"?:

Steed
***
Great question and as I think about it I am actually more familiar with "the old school" long before the WSOP et al became a household name per se.

Poker was very popular in the 70's even in the illegal Bible Belt (not Bibles nor belts:p). All the local country clubs had regular games twice a week for years. My pop must have thought he was attending church/synagogue ,lol, as he never missed a Sunday, poker game that is:cool:

The above games were a little different than when on occasion my father would travel to the other side of town (a metaphor) and played in a game that included Pug Pearson. I remember once the game lasted 6 days or at least I did not see my father for 6 days. FYI, that game always had a strict code of silence as I can only assume the reasons and poker was not a family dinner discussion topic anyway but pursuant to that/those game(s) even as a teenager, I somehow knew not to ask any questions but I knew much about Pug Pearson:eek: Who (see below) and Why (see above:lolup: and below)???

My first memory of the WSOP was the showdown between Amarillo Slim and Pug Pearson who I believe has 4 bracelets (probably in the top 10, yes one could argue he wouldn't be in the top 10 if he played in today's era on account of "This 'n That" with today's much larger number of participants being an example but that logic may be flawed). Slim and Pearson, were both "old school" characters who were as good as it gets. Both worthy of all time TOP 10 consideration. JMVSO!!

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In other local news:D (although Memphis has thrown me a curveball if the former bookkeeper of my favorite watering-hole for years, The Boundry , has moved to Memphis but regardless he still owns a modest home in Brentwood).

Moneymaker Leads World Poker Open Final Table, Chad Brown 2nd
by PokerPages.com
Tue, Aug 11th, 2009 @ 12:00am


You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


SIDENOTE:link has a lot of good info.(but many other good sites also) like number of bracelets won but the info. may not be current/up to date. Glanced at only:oops:
 
Last edited:
Top