Let's Show Some Love

Around World Series of Poker time, it seems like every nickel-and-dime poker player has something bad to say about one of the WSOP finalists. Things like, "I've seen him play before, he's nothing," or, "That guy must have gotten so lucky to make the final table," are tossed around constantly. These players are so wracked with jealousy that it's disturbing. Enough, already! It's time to show some love. Here are three groups or individuals who clearly deserve a lot more respect than they are getting:

1. The Online Qualifiers

I think it's amazing that we got 2,576 players in this year's WSOP main event, and that almost 1,000 of them came from online sites. I think the more players who enter, the better, but not everyone feels the same way. In fact, many people said the field contained too many amateur players, and something needs to be done about that. They said there should be some sort of qualifying round to weed out the worst players; that way, the world championship event would be comprised of more professionals, who truly deserve to be there.

I found that idea to be completely laughable. In case no one noticed, the majority of the "amateurs" who played in the world championship event had already won a grueling qualifying round to get there! Greg Raymer, the new world champion, put up $150 and had to win two consecutive single-table satellites in order to get his seat. Many online qualifiers got in for less than $150, which means they had to beat even larger fields of opponents in order to earn their spots.

There were probably more than 100,000 players who tried, in one way or another, to win a paid entry, and that is a very conservative estimate. The vast majority of them failed in their attempts – that is the qualifying round. I think many people would be surprised at how many "professional" players tried to win a seat and failed. So, what about those "pros" who couldn't win a seat and instead laid out $10,000? What did they do to earn a spot? I think the people complaining about the large fields have it completely wrong. The amateurs are usually the ones who had to pass a test in order to win their seats, while the pros often plunk down the buy-in whether they are truly worthy or not.

So, will the poker world finally accept online players as opponents to be reckoned with? Can we finally get rid of the term "dead money" once and for all? I sure hope so. The last three world champions were supposedly "dead money." Enough said.

2. The Top Three Final-Table Performances of the Past 10 Years

OK, these guys get their share of respect, but I thought this topic would make for an interesting debate. Namely, what three players in the past 10 years played the most flawlessly at the final table? Whose play is most worthy of our praise? Of course, starting last year we had cameras showing the holecards of every player, so it will be easier to come up with a definitive answer to this question in future years. But, in the absence of lipstick cameras, based solely on my observations and my opinions, here is the list I would produce:

No. 3 – Stu Ungar (1997): Ungar was the most intimidating and dominating force I've ever seen at a final table, or at any poker table, for that matter. He played twice as many hands as anyone else, but probably won three times as many pots, too. And it's pretty clear that he didn't need a hand every time in order to assert himself and take the pot. Some players nowadays think they can employ the same run-them-over style that Ungar did, but they fail to realize that he was a master at reading his opponents. He could attack ruthlessly, but could also back off when he saw that an opponent was going to take a stand. His final-table performance was masterful.

No. 1 and No. 2 (in either order) – T.J. Cloutier (2000) and Dewey Tomko (2001): Their performances were so similar and so equally perfect that it's impossible to separate them. They both came to the final table low on chips. They both waited with the patience of saints while their opponents clashed with each other. They jumped in only when they thought they had the best hand, and they were right every time. They never put their money in with the worst of it. Some might say they were lucky to get good cards at the right times. I would say they avoided getting involved with the marginal hands that their opponents were playing, and that enabled them to be there when the premium hands showed up. They both ended up finishing second, and in both cases, only a fateful river card eliminated them. Otherwise, they stood every chance of being world champions.

There are more new players in the poker world today than ever before, ones who may not have seen past WSOP final tables. To those players, I say that these performances can act as great learning tools, just as good as any poker book. The playing styles in question are a complete contrast. Cloutier and Tomko did their best to make themselves invisible, and then they sprang out of the shadows at the perfect times. Ungar was the most visible player in WSOP history, and no one at his table could ignore his presence. Both styles worked. There is definitely something to be learned there.

3. Dan Harrington

I turned 21 in 1995, and that's when I officially started my poker-playing career. At the time, the reigning world champion was Dan Harrington. I think it's safe to say that while many poker players knew of him, he wasn't exactly a household name. He didn't get nearly the hype that later world champions received, even though he beat a very solid field and played an excellent final table.

Then came 2003, and he surfaced again at the final table. Most people said, "Oh, yeah, that's the guy who won in 1995." Yet, there didn't seem to be much reverence from those spectators. It almost sounded like they considered it a fluke that one of the not-so-heralded world champions was there making another good run at the title. I thought it was pretty disrespectful, but, nevertheless, I wanted to see if he could pull off the improbable feat of winning for a second time. It was an uphill task from the start. He came to the final table in sixth chip position, far behind Chris Moneymaker and Sam Farha. But again, he played very impressively, and managed to finish third.

So, now it's 2004, and guess who shows up again at the final table? I mean, can we finally say this man is one of the all-time World Series greats? What does a guy have to do?! He beat 272 opponents in 1995, finished third out of 839 in 2003, and finished fourth from a monster field of 2,576 this year – in grueling weeklong tournaments against the best poker players the world has to offer!

Mr. Harrington, we've never met, but I wanted to use this space to give you your props. Congratulations on another fantastic finish. I sincerely hope the poker world is finally giving you the respect you deserve, and recognizing you as one of the greatest performers in world championship history.

Matt can be found playing online at www.royalvegaspoker.com, where he is a member of its team of experts. You can also find other articles of his in the Online Poker News, which is at www.cardplayer.com.