Doug Polk and others make a top 20 poker player list of all time.

It's impossible to make an accurate top 20 list, but it's still entertaining to make one.



Thoughts:
-Why are Stu Ungar and Victor Blom not appearing on these lists at all? They are prob two of the most naturally talented poker players ever.

-Doug Polk putting dnegs at #7 is very lol.

-There are lots of extremely good players out there that fly under the radar and have 0 profile. Cumicon would not be a known great if he didn't reveal his graph, for example.

-Imo there are hundreds of players that have matched LinusLove's skill in the past couple years, just from studying sims all day. But i guess they arn't special because they wern't first.

-We can all agree Ivey and Jungleman are up there.

No1 is going to watch that full video so better off u just list the 20.

Wat a stroggoz

I got a list...

In dis industry I'm a cause of a lot of enVy..

#1 Stu Ungar
#2 Chip Reese
#3 Johnny Moss
#4 Phil Ivey
#5 Doyle Brunson
#6 Phil Hellmuth
#7 Tom Dwan
#8 Chance Cornuth
#8 Doug Polk
#9 Jason Mercier
#10 Garrett Addelson
#11 DNegs
#12 NeillyAA <--- insert top 5 100/200+ online players 12 - 16
#13 NeillyAA74
#14 DReaMe
#15 DreaMe).vC.5
#16 SG-DReaMe
#17 Raszi
#18 BenCB
#19 Gingepoker
#20 Trueteller

They let the noobs decide?

Definitely skipping through most of this.

They snubbed Luzak??????

That dude was so ahead of his time. He was 2nd largest winner from known accounts. He had endless others raking in cash.

Meh. It was entertaining but a bit anti-climatic. Kind of motivated me to want to play some poker and get heavy into solvers but I'm old.

No one's ever too old to try and fruitlessly make money at a dying and solved game.

This is true but it probably beats sorting clothes 8 hours a day for less than a living wage.

I'm not good enough in math to sit in some room and contemplate abstract logic or whatever it is you do for most of your days.

I don't think I'm really good enough at anything to earn $25/hr at something that is "fruitful."

I don't even really know exactly what fruitful means in these contexts.

i'm joking of course, poker is a terrible idea, just like living in siberia.

LOL, equating playing poker to living in Siberia.

I don't think it's even really mathematically possible for me to play poker and get to 200 NL. My win-rate in these games is honestly probably 10ptbb/100 but at 10 NL that is only 2 pennies per hand. I would have to play 100k hands to win $2,000. Again, I have the inkling that I would need solvers to beat 100 to 200 NL handily. I have to find $4k somewhere to utilize solvers. In the meantime I'm 2 tabling 10 NL... Not Gonna Make It...