What a forgetable final table 2009 turned out to be. Like many others, I anticipated watching good poker being played for high stakes. I got the high stakes portion, however due to ESPN's coverage what I witnessed was worse than what you would see at an indian reservation. I'll never know how good or bad Cada really played for those 17 hours, but the impression I'm left with is how the hell did this kid make it all the way to the final table in the first place? Good players typically do make their own luck, but his good fortune was remarkable. I think I would have a better chance of tripping over a 1,000 dollar bill four times on my way to work than he would of beating those same players again. It's doubtful that I need to say it, but Cada didn't deserve that bracelet. He hit long shots with his tournament on the line and was outplayed for the most part head to head. Add all that to the face that at one point he had only 6% of chips in play, and I think you can only come to the conclusion that he was a most improbable winner.

ESPN did a poor job with the Main Event. They only show suck outs. Sure Joe Cada sucked out a bunch but so did Phil Ivey in previous episodes. They both also got it all in ahead several times but for some reason ESPN feels that it isn't worth while showing. Maybe they want to represent poker as a game where anyone can win, but they need to do a better job showing poker as a game of skill. Anyone who plays poker understands that luck eventually runs out and skill becomes the greatest aspect of this game.

"Anyone who thinks poker is a skill game is deluding themselves "

If poker isn't a game of skill, why do you see so many of the same people making it deep into tournaments, or dominating cash games? If they are that lucky why not go buy a lottery ticket? Smaller investment and bigger ROI.

OMFG, do i ever hate whiners!!!! Each time i encounter these donks (if you whine, you're part donk) at the table, it's so painful.

What you just saw at the final table was a representation of poker, partly skewed as it might be. It is a game that IS A MIX OF SKILL AND LUCK; one or the other can be predominant, sometimes an equal mix of two.

Seriously, anybody who truly understands poker doesn't bother whining about the obvious. Would we have all liked to see skill dominate the 2009 final table? Of course. Was it a realistic expectation given the line-up? Hell no - it was a given that certain players were going to try to even the odds with over agressive preflop play.

Poker seems to be a cruel game because we have to remember, even with AK vs AQ. the dominated hand is going to suck out 1 out of 4 times. Play a bunch of them and you'll eventually lose.

Don't like it? Go play chess.
A least the poker player won HU, no matter how lucky he previously got.

And at least the world got a good glimpse of how brutal it can be to play poker.

Anyone who thinks poker is a skill game is deluding themselves

This is the worst final table I have seen. No skill has been shown whatsoever, its just all in every hand and lets see who can make the best hand at the end. Feels like I am watching the championships of craps.

The preflop shove is a dice roll, because a full hand of cards is yet to come. That is the gamble.
Luck is the biggest factor in the all in preflop raise.

Enough whining over "sucks!" Hold em is a 7 card game.