Here is an article written by ladbrokes ("big bookmaker in Europe)own pokerpro, Roy "the boy" Brindley. Guess not all of u americans agree on it :-) , so I would just like to hear what u guys think of it.. What would the arguments from the american point of view be if u disagree?
Here it is:"

So, seeking an antidote to boredom without fulfilling my other addiction of punting on American horseracing, I flick through the scores of satellite stations, whose programmes contrast from Andy Pandy to Adult XXX, only to stumble across ESPN’s presentation of the 2003 WSOP.

Here, in the opening hand of day threes play, a so-called big-name, Howard Leaderer, raises in an early position with A9 but he is quickly re-raised all-in for a sum that appears to be six times his initial raise.

Now, considering this is not a $5 multi-re-buy event on the net, quite the opposite – three days in to the biggest tournament in the world – what do you do with your A9?
Should Lederer’s opponent hold an AT, AJ, AQ or AK he is in very bad shape (an 11/4 shot). Similarly, holding any pair over 9’s and he is a 5/2 underdog. The hands he can be beating are A8, A7, A6 and so on, along with KQ, KJ and the like. While a pair of 8’s or lower mean he is marginal underdog.

But, let’s be practical shall we, any kind of player – any kind of player that gets to day three of the World Series – is not going to come over the top of an early position raiser with a tiny pair, an Ace with a poor kicker, or King high.

So, top-man Lederer duly makes a ludicrous call, expecting to see God only knows what, and then puts on his aggrieved face when an AQ suited is flipped over!

Next up is Jonnie Chan, he raises with A3, again in an early position, and is soon re-raised. Now surely he is going to dump this handful of garbage, after all if his opponent is on an Ace Chan must be ‘out-kicked’ or, if his taking on a pair, he can only win if finding an Ace on the board, something which will result in his rival giving him no more money. In either scenario he cannot make a move on the flop unless on an outrageous bluff most probably without ‘outs.’

OK, I do declare Chan has won the World Series and more than you, I and most of ladbrokespoker.com players will ever do but how, considering plays like this, is the big mystery

This leads me to one of the most frequently asked questions – how good are the American players?

Well, residents in the land of the free and home of depraved will not hesitate in declaring our star spangled friends are simply the best poker players in the world.

Such a blinkered viewpoint is not supported by the figures though, with World Series of Poker final tables consistently featuring a strong European flavour despite our representation barely registering on the entries/field size scale.

So, if the hash of sheer numbers is not complimentary what about those players placed at the very highest echelon?

Strangely, World Champions, WPT and World Series Bracelet winners arrived at Dublin’s WPC this summer in droves banging the American dream team drum but the result was nil seats at the final table.

Repeat the dose for the Paris leg of the WPT, an Internet qualifier apart, and what began as a simple enquiry appears to have exposed the ridicule of a popular myth.

Please don’t take this as outright condemnation, I’m just questioning and equating the form of even those which have won up to nine World Series Bracelets. After all, if you had played up to thirty events at each World Series since the early 80’s with field sizes often as small as twenty, would you not expect to match that score? "

There is no real argument in the article.

Taking one hand that you saw on tv where a pro makes a so called incorrect play, is so pointless it's silly.

nl tournament poker is very situational, obviously you can make a play that seems correct based on your read of your opponent and the overall situation, and if it's wrong of coarse it will look foolish on tv, what does that prove though?

If i were to catch tiger woods on tv shanking a drive in a tournament, based on that one shot, would it be logical for me to say tiger woods is over rated infact he's horrible, because "hey did you see that one shot he made"... "i can even drive better then that!"

If you watched Gary Kasaprov make some error playing some championship chess match, would it be logical to assume he is an overrated chess player because hey i saw him making a basic error that even i wouldn't make!

It's ridiculous

If you want to make an argument that having 9 wsop bracelts doesn't prove much, or that some pros are over-rated well then make the argument.

But taking a few tv poker hands out of context as your argument is just silly.

But i would agree that the European players that have the means and desire to participate in the wsop will on average be better then then the average american playing in the wsop.

But i would bet that the reverse of that is also true, that the average american player with the means and desire to play in a big european tournament is probably better then the average european player in that same tournament.

It is an interesting article but looks more like the author was a features writer than an actual poker player. The lack of information beyond what was in the hands takes the play completely out of context. I have to assume the lack of further info was intentional.

On day 3 the blinds are starting to punish--no info on what they were or how many big bets were being represented.

What was Howard's stack? Was he trying to steal the blinds with his rock image from a short stack? How committed was he to the pot? etc. etc. etc.

I suppose I might be more willing to be sucked in by his thesis if he'd picked on a player other than Howard--who isn't as aggresive as most players at that level. I've got to think Howard's back was up against the wall and he needed to gamble.

Instead of writing 7 paragraphs explaing why this "expert" is wrong, I will sum it up in a sentence:

Out of context, a single hand of poker is meaningless.

Obviously that article is written by someone who does not regularly make it to the final stages of a tournament. Thus the article is wreaking of jealousy instead of admiration for the people involved.

While I will admit the plays they make with some hands is far from optimum, let's face it, predictability gets you nowhere in poker.... if Johnny Chan only raised with AK and Howard Lederer only raised with AJs then we'd never finish a tournament because everyone would fold when someone raised.... Tournament poker, particularly in the final stages of major tournaments, is not the same as ring games or any other form of poker for that matter.

As a UK player I could jump on the brovado band waggon of the article or indeed pick it to shreads..... However, I will do niether....

...simplt to pigeon hole it as the following....

The article is nothing more than Tabliod Trash. It has a sensationalist headline and little substance or body in the main text.

As we debate it now it probably made an even bigger impact on the audience it was intened for thus serving its purpose.

Wow my feelings were hurt.

Sweet, I'll just move to the UK and automatically be better!

Plus, of course, in saying that the representation vs. finishing results, there's implicit selection bias. Average American Poker Player Joe may buy in directly and has many more satellite shots, and far greater exposure to and interest in playing the WSOP just for the sake of playing. Hell, a few years from now I plan on being dead money in some WSOP events just for the sake of doing it. European players aren't gonna fly out to vegas for the thrill of the WSOP unless they're extremely strong players with a real shot of going deep into the money. Even making the 1st stage of the money at the main event wouldn't cover airfare, lodging, and the opportunity cost of missing so many days of cash games back home, even if the euro player qualifies through a $100 super-satellite. Simply put, only the top europeans will come, and that explains the only disparity not easily dismissed through the fact that these hands were examined in a total vacuum without chip situations, table flow, etc. Look at the play of americans in european-based events and see if we can't make a similar claim about the rest of the world being worse at poker.

I would like to apologize to jullum. I was half a sleep at the time.

He didn't write it.

He posted an article he found and asked for opinions on it.

I know some people that say that the best time to play online is when the americans are online, its not because they think all americans suck at Poker, but there are so many americans playing Poker online and some of them really dont know how to play Poker, but they are more then willing to take chances, something I think is what sets americans and europeans apart in general its not a bad thing, but when done in Poker it can bite you in the butt.

In an event filled with players worldwide, the top 3 winners were Americans in both 2003 and 2004.

I haven't really played with any european players besides at 3-5am on Royal Vegas. There I get to play with mostly swedes and fins, who take low stakes limit and no limit loose calls to a new level. They call soooo much and I make more in these games than I do in some middle stakes games other places.

This is from Howard Lederer's 2003 WSOP Trip Report:

"About three hands into the day, I open in cutoff with A9 suited. Darden in the SB moves in for 25,000 more. I am getting 37,000-25,000 to call. It is early, I have a big stack, he might be moving on me, and even if I call and lose, I will send an early message to the table that I can't be moved off a hand easily. I call. Paul turns over the AQ suited and it holds up. Okay, so now I have sent my message, but I have also created a small monster two to my left. I am not pleased."

The article claims howard was raised 6x his bet, which would be way off if you go by howards trip report. So if this is correct, and i would be willing to bet on howard's memory of the hand, then not only does this guy know little about poker context, but he isn't even capable of correctly following poker on TV!!...

Geez, even my girlfriend can follow tv poker, and she's never played before... lol

It's times like these that make me laugh and just goes to show the irony when much of the rest of the world chimes in lock-step about how stupid and fat americans are on average... i guess 1 out of 2 isn't bad

That is funny, because a few friends and I love playing when the european players are on.

I never thought World War III would be fought over a card game.

Good point. Some of the things mentioned in the article have come to my attention as well when I have been watching poker on TV. For the life of me I can't understand why some very good players make some of the calls that they have, it boggles my mind. The worst part is the afterthought "how the hell did they a living playing like that!!!"

To be honest, the one game in which I see the biggest difference between American and European players isn't Texas, but OMAHA, Hold'Em.


You ever played Omaha with a (good) European player? Holy crap, they play the game a heck of a lot differently than I do, and I consider myself at least on the road to "solid."

Example: I've been taught that AAxx is a VERY strong hand heads up, but not one you really want to play a big pot with unless:

a) all the money is in before the flop OR

you make a safe-set


Now, if I'm playing Pot-Limit Omaha and I've got AA in early position, I'm going to limp, hope to see a raise from late position, then try and get all the money in. Why not? You're a favorite against any hand but a better AA, right? I think the best hand to take against AAxx (4-suited) is something like 9-T-J-Q double suited, and then you're only a 4% dog.

But Europeans really think American Omaha players put WAY too much emphasis on big pocket pairs in Omaha, and most all would rather play the latter hand than the former, whereas good American Omaha players are trying to get all the money in with Aces.



Also, the idea that the Daniel Negreanu, Howard Lederer, Johnny Chan, Phil Hellmuth, Phil Ivey (etc, etc) are somehow OVERRATED is absolutely ludicrous. Who are the best European poker players? Marcel Luske? Come on. Everyone will readily admit that there are probably more BAD American poker players, but that's just because there are MORE American poker players, period.


Nonesense.

First of all I have to thank NUTTYMATT for giving me credit for the article As previously said Im not the man to thank/kill.. I posted it because I thought it would be interesting to hear what u guys thought of it and because I figured it would be a topic that would get people pumped up :wink: Guess I was right.
As u can see Im european (from scandinavia that is), and my own opinion is.. Well actually I cant say I have noticed any difference.I play mainly on the internet (not so much live but hope to in the future..) at relativly small limits..My main places to play are expekt (mainly european players) and pacifc (mainly americans(I think?)).Whitout sounding too much of and ass, I feel that I beat the competion on a regular basis both places.Havent had any other experinces either that makes me feel that on or the other are more superior.
So I basically wanted to hear u guys out and make my name known on this site wich I think is a great site.All credit to Daniel(wich is also my name 8) ),and I will keep reading it since it looks like there are many activ and knowledgeble (is that a word?) users..And maybe I can give u some scandinavian views that u all can disagree on :-) .
Pardon my bad english,hope u can live with it..

I play with a lot of Romanians and they are crazy but pretty solid poker players. They have the nicknames of Romaniacs.

Hey dont forget Gus Hansen hehe I guess my point of european players being a little less willing to take chances just got shot down

Lol at Dane, most of the Europeans that I've seen on TV or that I've played against online seem to be more aggressive than Americans, but maybe that's just me.

Lederer actually explained that call on his website. He said something to the nature of, i knew i was beat but it was one of the first hands of the day, i was the big stack at the table, i wanted to send a message that i would call with marginal hands to the rest of the table to send a message of fear to the rest of the table. And also if he had a big pair, he might have been only a 2 to 1 underdog and couldve knocked someone out if he got lucky. Of course howard lederer knew the odds and the numbers, but the game isnt all about the numbers. i didnt fully read the johnny chan hand but i'm sure he has good reason and logic to why he played the way taht he did. Whoever wrote that article is an idiot, the majority of the best poker players in the world are american (ivey, negreanu, brunson, reese, lederer, chan, etc...) by writing that article, the author only shows, his lack of poker knowledge and is just 0ne of those wannabes who thinks they're so good because they can insult someone elses "bad play"

Negreanu's Canadian, not American...

oh?

not even north?

The article, and all posts above mention nothing about North American players, just American... but I was just joking around anyways. Afterall, as Homer Simpson once said, Canada is basically America Jr. anyways.

my reply was about this reply....as in a joke

Even though I am myself a European, to me it is pretty obvious that:

1. The best players in the world are, with a few possible exceptions, all Americans.
2. There are A LOT more really good players in the US than all other countries combined.

I have been playing a lot live poker both in Europe and US the last five years, and anyone who have done that would have to be pretty twisted in the head not to see the overwhelming American dominans. It would also be very strange it this was not the case, since there are so many more poker players in the US, for cultural reasons.

The two plays mentioned, I found a little bit puzzling. But then I realized that in the Chan example, nothing was said about how many chips were left after the reraise. If there were some chips left, obviously Chan could have a strategy that would weigh up for his hand being dominated. Then I looked at the Howard Lederer example. I was pretty sure that Lederer would not have made that call if the facts were all correct. Then I saw the word "appears". A sum that "APPEARS to be"?? This choice of words strongly suggests that Brindley KNEW he was taking a chance on estimating how big the raise was. Which now is being confirmed by the story on the Lederer web site. So Brindley had a thousand hands on ESPN to pick from, and he only came up with these two - and both of them was misrepresented? Way to go!

JOS
(European NL champion 2001 London)

Haha, I know that Daniel Negreanu is Canadian.... but I believe this was a "People that traditionally play poker in Europe most of the time" vs "People that traditionally play poker in the US most of the time" type of comparison.


When Mr. Negreanu goes to Europe, you think they don't think of him as "American?" Even if they know (or "know") he's Canadian, they're probably subconciously thinking "Hollywood." It's like if you mistakenly called an Irish guy an Englishman.... I'm most Americans would just say, "Yeah, well, same difference. Whatever."


Me = Insensitive Arse


Ice

For starters roy brindley is actually a very good poker player having made a lot of final tables in good sized events so he does know what he is talking about. I don't entirely agree wit his analysis of why he thinks americans suck at poker, clearly they don't but i was a little perplexed by some of the calls to reraises that were made, many of the calls seemed to be bordering on just plain bad.
Roy's point ( i think ) is that maybe american poker players are overrated more than they suck, the sheer volume of americans at the wsop events and the nature of poker means that they are far more likely to dominate at the events although i think this will come down to a question of naturalisation... a lot of the big winners are not americans but recent immigrants or people who are assumed to be american ( negreanu and the like ), men the master, scotty ngyuen, john juhanda, gus hansen are just the names that spring to mind that are in fact not american but are assumed to be. I think if taking a ratio for number of entrants compared to position non americans do much better at wpt's / wsop's.
While the top ranks i think will almost always be americans for the simple reason the biggest game is held in vegas and its not the sort of thing you can just sit down in and do well at, it has to be done over time and building up to that sort of limit.
Basically i have absolutly no idea why roy bothered to post something that didnt really achieve anything except piss some people off but i dont think what he said was entirely retarded.

I don't really want to get involved in this but have to offer the odd comment.

Whilst Roy Brindley is a Ladbrokes sponsored player who does a wonderful job of writing articles for The Ladbroke website and promoting their name he has been known to put his foot in it on more than one occaission when making commentaries on televised poker shows by not getting all his facts right. Sensationalism, however, is part and parcel of making commentary and written articles interesting.

This year (althogh I have hardly played against him in recent times) he has improved tremendously as a player but probably not by enough to be so judgemental of individual players that have proven track records particularly when based on such flimsy information as solitary hands viewed in isolation and especially when he has not gotten all his facts concerning the hands correct.

Ladbrokes actively prevent Americans from playing on their poker website for legal reasons but this may indirectly have some bearing on the article.

From a personal point of view though I would have to say that Europe ahs some outstandingly good players who are the equal of those to be found in the Americas but numerically they are less in numbers as poker is not as well supported in Europe as it is in North America.

In addition I find it amazing that so many people like to concentrate on so many negative things when there is so much good to write and say about poker.

eg it amazes me how you get posts asking for who the worst / most overated player in the world is etc etc when it is much more useful to talk about and discuss who are the best players and why.

Just ny 0.0001 cents worth

Read on a scandinavian forum (some guy referred to information from Empires affiliate-dept) that finnish and swedish players are net winners, norwegians are marginal losers. The worst players are from the US. They've got a lot of players who win a lot, but they've got a whole lot more bad players (online).

the author obviously has "penis envy" :shock:

Poker players from ALL countries suck until they take time to learn the subtle parts of the game. There are a LOT of Americans playing so yes, a lot of American players suck. There are not so many Brits or Scandies, so not so many Brits or Scandies suck. There are probably not many Greenlanders, so probably not so many Greenlanders suck. It's just stats Roy!
The funny thing is that Ladbrokes lists one of the 10 main benefits of playing on their site as :

"4. No American Players
There are thousands of professional players in the US and they make US Poker sites hard places to win money. Ladbrokes is popular, paradoxically, because it is the only site in the world that does not take US players for legal reasons. Ladbrokes is commonly regarded as the best place to play Poker as a novice player."

By the way people, beware of any Greeks online. They are generally dangerous in the Omaha games. Scandies are mad, either very good or very bad, but tend to bet strong. Must be the general wealth there.

Oh yeah well European players Swall......On second thought nevermind

since Canada is basically "America Junior," Daniel is technically an american


"Canada! Why would you want to leave America to go to America Junior?" - Homer J. Simpson

dont listen to this article. both of those players are truly top notch. howard lederer actually wrote an explanation about the A9 from 2003. he is ony of the most intelligent players in the game today, and trust me- he knew he was calling off money as a dog.

his explanation was that he was sending a message to the table: dont run me over. the call didnt significantly kill his stack or anything. he wanted to let the table know that if hes in, hes not going to sit by and let opponents come over the top with garbage like AQ or some mid pair.

when dan harrington won the world series in the mid 90's, he called a preflop all in from the BB with a J2. and the bet was a big one (i think about 10% of his stack). dan is know to be one of the tightest players on the world. he knew with almost certainty his hand wasnt going to be the best. he too was sending a message to the table. dont run me over, dont steal my stuff.

these real top notch players werent gamlin' to get chips. they weren't making some pot commited call. it was sending a strategic message to the opponents at the table.

This has been bugging me for a while.

I think the author is wrong.

why do we move this garbage to OT?

I'd prefer a chrozzo thread to this.

LOL


BG!!

2004?!?!?!

lol, you didn't even sign up to the site until 5 months after the post

I think I was a month or so after you.

I think the statement "American Players suck" is ridiculous. Im english and im ashamed this man has written this, I had little respect for him before and less now.

He has three posts on this forum. This was written on December 27th, 2004.

At what time and over what amount of posts did you decide to give him "little respect before"?

fyp

Heeeeelarious. I have decided to give Doug 40% less respect than before after reading this post.

I think you guys missed this part:

the author of the piece <> OP