WSOP winners Pro vs Internet Player - WHO Deserves to win ?

IMO.. I think that whoever wins wins. Maybe there should be a major event limited to pro players with a number of years experience, not just an open event to anyone who can pool, scrap, etc. the 10K.

I do however, believe that the first time player who has never handled chips in a real T should give more respect to those who have earned it.. I think that is one of the issues the pros have is the lack of respect by a 21 year internet kid who doesnt respect their elders and those that have paved the way for the rest of us.

I would love to be able to shake some the ladies of poker hands and simply say thank you.

Well to comment. sure online players are seeing a ton of hands, but it is how they handle the adversity of the beats and recover from them will measure how good a player you are.

Online gives you the convience of not having to deal with travel arangements, hotels, and time invested to gain the experience. Not having dealings with people outside your domain giving you adversity in every form. All the things that can trigger an adverse effect on your game.

What a better tool to get your game honed in and have a chance to qualify for WSOP seat with out traveling outside your comfort zone?

I read a blog that waxed poetic of the days when WSOP final tables were comprised of longtime pros - further expressing a longing for the days when final tables were comprised of "real" poker players. Needless to say this is a subject that incenses me second only to namecalling/trashtalk.
How and what do YOU feel about the fact that since Robert Robert Varkonyi then Chris Moneymaker, Greg Raymer, Joe Hachem, Jamie Gold, Jerry Yang the WSOP has been won by relative "newcomers" and internet players (Carlos Mortensen being the last pro winning in 2001).

This was my response what do YOU think ?

A "real" final table is comprised of whoever is skillful and lucky enough to get there. The idea that because someone is a professional player they automatically deserve a win is astoundingly simpleminded.

I have recently heard many pros like Barry Greenstein, Howard Lederer, Phil Ivey, Doyle Brunson and many other FINALLY give proper due to internet players who have went deep into or won major tournaments. I even read a discussion of an acknowledgement of the fact that a player can accumulate a great amount of experience playing because of how quickly hands pass experience at heads up, large scale tournaments , etc. Barry Greenstein said something which was evident to me watching TV play "If a pro wants to win in the future they have to have more respect for players they don't know until they can realistically assess their skill level". I consider this a tacit admission of "those internet guys are good don't take them for granted man". If anyone watched Dario Mineri during the WSOP or at SNG's on PokerStars he's a good, quick player BUT early players discounted his play - I thought because of his age and courteous manner. I for one am very impressed by his play and his professionalism during the WSOP.

Of course the experience of face-to-face "reads" is minimized but each different training method and experience mechanism has it's benefits and shortcomings. Speaking for myself I know for sure that as a player of short-time experience playing poker - there is absolutely no way in the world I could have accumulated the experience I have if not for internet poker sites.

To be sure there is a gap of skill level between internet players, just like there is between pro players. To be sure some internet players more than others have displayed a lot of luck - Jamie Gold comes to my mind but no matter your skill level you can't beat 6,000 players without luck.

I say that if you get to the money in a large scale tournament you deserve it. I have never seen anyone giving chips away... What say YOU?