Originally Posted by GDRileyx
There is no question that they are all great players. And there are many ways to figure out how to measure who has had more success. But WSOP bracelets are a good measure, and main event finishes are another good measure. Face it, that main event win is the most coveted prize in poker.
I'd be interested to know, Steveg, by what measures can you claim that the success of these three players should be ranked in a different order than I have done?
sindri, Doyle is famous for playing successfully on a regular basis in the biggest cash game in the world. He is generally recognized as the best cash game player in the world. TJ is generally recognized as the most successful tournament player in the world.
When Poker After Dark had Legends Week, Sklansky wasn't even at the table with TJ and Doyle.
The reason I think Sklansky's non-Hold 'Em bracelets mean less is because Hold 'Em is the main game now. To me, Sklansky's wins in Draw and Omaha demonstrate archaic talents rather than contemporary talent. Like being really good at hula-hoop.
First, full disclosure, I don't follow the pros carefully or very much at all other than to recognize maybe 10 on site and I could tell you how many bracelets maybe two have. Who is the best is a boring topic because the edge they all hold over each other is very slim. Some have had more financial and personal success than others but skill wise it is close to a wash for the most part.
I would judge Sklanksy the most succesful without knowing any results or anything based solely on the opinion that his peers hold of his knowledge of the game of poker.
To me it is the same a someone like Micheal Jordan, you don't have to know that he won 6 championships to know he is one of the greatest to have ever played the game. All you have to do is listen the way his peers talk about him and his game.