Is it less impressive when rich guys win a big tournament?

[HPG ADMIN]

Last year Phil Gordon made a name for himself on the WPT after doing well in a couple of tournies. It is well-known now that he is super-rich after selling his company for $90 million or so. Some players refuse to give him credit for being a great player because the money doesn't mean anything to him. This attitude of not giving credit to tourney winners who were previously rich have been magnified now that Ben Affleck has won a big tournament. They argue that they can play with no fear knowing their income wont be affected at all - no matter what their loss is. But other players are quick to retort to the critics with the usual "How many big tournies have you won?" comeback. What do you think about this?

[nutem]

It is impressive to win any tourney, you have to be good, but it is less impressive for someone with that much money. It has to be easier for someone with no money concerns.

[Curmudgeon]

3Times New Roman7

I think most of us play for ego as much as money. Once we get "in-the-money," I think ego plays the biggest part in motivating us. Of course, the money counts, but whether rich or poor, I think the winner has done something impressive.

Cheers: Curmudgeon

Rich people are basically playing for only entertainment and recognition. Therefore it doesn't really hurt them to lose. In conclusion, screw rich people.

I believe they do have skill and experience but it's all based off money. I'm sure they have professional tutors and play every high end tournament possible. it wont change much in there lives except for bragging rights.

it could also be said that it is more difficult for rich people to win because they play a loser game, if the money doesn't matter.

any win is impressive rich or poor.

Still wait for my first in any game above 10 people.

Very less impressive. What's awesome is when Joe Shmoe wins it. Little-man handles the pressures of ALL THAT MONEY at his seat, how to wield it, not to be afraid of it, thinking of What If 's. Those kinds of things.
A rich man knows how to handle large sums of money, and has played at much higher stakes than the rest of the real world. Not so with Little Man.

It's like a bunch of us ordinary/not-rich people getting together and playing for pennies. "I am the winners of the $5 worth of pennies!" Big deal, you already had a bunch of pennies before this.
(of course there will always be those for whom $5 is alot of money too!)

I think if you are talking about a cash ring game, risking money wouldn't affect the rich...
But in a tourney, after the buy-in you aren't risking any additional money, its all just chips. So I don't see any advantage in a single tourney. I understand they could play in many more, so they may have more experience, but doesn't that still means they deserve credit for playing well.