What makes the better player in this scenario?
Ok, so a little argument broke out over this at a home game of mine the other day.
I figured the answer was obvious, but I'd like to see what everyone else here thought about it also.
So my friend was talking about a female pro and how she likes her, she's the best yada yada.
My other friend brought up another one saying,
'No, so and so is way better because she has cashed more! the player that has the higher percentage of winning games is the better player. She is placing in the top 10% of their game. Let's say, Chris Ferguson has placed in the top 10% of the playing field out of all of his games and tournaments like 41% While Jamie Gold has places in the top 10% 4% of the time....
Like Doyle Brunson has nowhere near as much money as like Phil Hellmuth or Jennifer Harman or Phil Ivey, yet he's better than all three of them combined.
My friend defending the first girl goes, 'NO! She has bracelets! Players with the bracelet are CONSIDERED the best for a reason! They got top they get all the glory of the best'.
So it was top finish vs cashes.
I choose to leave out the names of the pros to avoid people arguing over them too. Haha.
But yea, so pretty much I agreed to disagree because they were being such good politicians!
I did say a bracelet is a bracelet and they won overALL and got what they deserved, recognition wise. But my friend made SUCH a good point with the cashes. So now I kinda agree with her more?
I think all the talk had me swaying from what I think is obvious to most. Winning once in a while? or cashing A LOT.
Hmmm, thoughts? I just want to see if this causes any debate like it did at home, it might not though.