Does this now confirm Ivey as the no1 player in the world.

[jimmym]

Sorry but we will have to agree to differ on this one, the stakes were high and offcourse meant he was going to get Iveys best game but I feel his motive was not financial but to declare himself one of the best poker players ever.
Winning the wsop as you say doesnt make you the best player ever but it does carry a title that is sort after by many and achieved by few, something money cant buy.

On another note after a year and abit as a forum member its nice for me to post a thread that lasts longer than a day....I must be learning something from here.

[2Tone]

I'm disagreeing with much of this. Poker is about money and competition. You win as much as you can, playing at whatever stakes are the most profitable for you. I don’t consider that to be greedy, but it is core to the game.

It seems both the Corporation and Beal benefited from their arrangement – Beal got a chance to test himself against the best in the world, the Corp got a chance to make a very large amount of money.

Beal is far from a publicity hound. Nothing in his character suggests he wants to flaunt a title he could buy. It's about the borderline obsessive need to challenge himself.

Again, another recommendation for the entire book dedicated to this game --

The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King : Inside the Richest Poker Game of All Time

[JDMcNugent7]

I totally disagree too. Money is all relative - just because 50k/100k is alot to most everyone on the planet doesnt mean its alot to Mr. Beal
He's actually playing within his bankroll - I don't see how thats either greedy or trying to by himself title of "best player."

[WarHawk56]

Wow, that is very big stakes. Phil Ivey has got to be the best poker player ever. Regarding the WSOP Winner , it takes skill and luck to win a poker toureny. They might not be the best but they have to be pretty good to win it.

[Talking Poker]

That's a book I've been meaning to pick up, but haven't yet for whatever reason... Maybe because of the stack of yet unread poker books I already have.

I'm with you, btw.... if it was about publicity, this WOULD be televised. But it's not. We know about it because we're in the poker community, but I bet the average Joe on the street doesn't even know how Andt Beal is, let alone that this game was going on.

[melioris]

On my reading this thread for the 12th time today (did I mention how productive I am at my dayjob?) I realized what bothers me. Jimmym, it doesn't jive if you claim that Phil Ivey is the confirmed best player in the world due to his victory over Andy Beal, whilst calling Andy Beal out as a pretender.

That is right, jive and whilst used in the same sentence.

[Talking Poker]

Wow. VERY good point. Can't believe I missed that.

[jimmym]

Melioris, I hold my hands up to you, how two-faced could my thread title be followed on be me doing what you have picked up on, and your right It is wrong for me to slate one player because of his wealth and personal ego to play against the best and then praise and acclaim another player as the best for beating this person, well spotted and rightly mentioned by yourself.

After further research into this game, I came across a letter published by Andy Beal after his first meeting with the pros and reading through it I came to my own conclusion that the guy is really mad that he wasnt praised for his win and rightly so.

From The Desk Of Andy Beal

Dallas, Texas
Date: September 2004

To: Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, Todd Brunson, Jennifer Harman, Howard Lederer, Chau Giang, Barry Greenstein, Ted Forrest, Gus Hansen, Lee Salem, John Hennigan, Ming La, Lyle Berman, Phil Ivey, Johnny Chan, Hamid Dastmalchi

I recently read a story in the New York Daily News that is an unfair mischaracterization of my recent poker experience in the "Big Game" played at Bellagio.

No mention was made that I won more than $10 million in the largest game ever played, $100,000-$200,000 limit hold'em, on May 12 and 13, 2004. No mention was made of the fact that most of the above-mentioned professional players have substantial overall individual net losses after having played many hours against me. I concede that I am a net overall loser in the Bellagio games, although the extent of my losses is often exaggerated and mischaracterized.

These stories have become like fishermen's tales, in which the fish is always getting bigger every time the story is told. I spent four years learning the game from the best. Does it surprise anyone that I was an overall net loser during that period? Now, you want to reduce the stakes and refuse to continue to play at the previous betting limits. Does it surprise anyone that I have little interest in traveling to play in smaller games? My interest has always been the intellectual challenge of competing with the best, in games in which the amount bet is material to the people involved. I have played the best in the largest game ever played, and I won. I had a great time and a wonderful experience, but I have little interest in continuing to play the game, because of the time commitment and travel required to maintain excellence.

Call me naïve (I've been called worse), but I believe that I am the favorite in a heads-up limit high-stakes game against most of you. For the record, I challenge you to put up or shut up about your "professional play." Come to Dallas and play me for four hours a day and I will play until one of us runs out of money or cries uncle. If your play is so great and your wins have been as large as you claim, you should have plenty of bankroll and be jumping at the chance to come and play another $100,000-$200,000 game and win a lot more money. I should add that you can bring your own independent dealers and your own cards, and can play in a different location of your choice every day if you wish. You should provide a slate of any six or more of the above players and I will pick from your slate who plays. Observers should be free to attend in order to record exactly what happens at this game, so it won't turn into another fisherman's story.

My money says you will decline, and that says it all. If you accept, the resulting game will say it all. Either way, I will get to stop reading fishermen's stories.

Andy Beal..

I came across this when earlier this month Andy lost $3m to the corporation.

My take on all of this is that Andy Beal will sit back and think long and hard about his poker game. Once convinced that he has as much ability as his opponents, he 'll analyze what went wrong. Then he’ll tinker with his game in order to improve it.

And while he’s doing that, he’ll probably take things one step further by thinking about how the Corporation will adjust to any changes he makes. By doing that, he'll have a trick or two at his disposal, ready to be pulled out of his bag, once he’s back in the game and sees Corporation players beginning to change their style based on whatever stylistic adjustments Beal made during his hiatus.

While Andy Beal may tire of poker someday, I don’t expect him to give it up now — on the heels of a loss — particularly one where he was ahead for much of the match. If he gives up poker it will be after a win, when he feels vindicated and can walk away with his head held high.

It may be a year or so before we see another Beal vs. the Corporation big money poker showdown, but we will see it. At least that’s my prediction.

by Lou Krieger

5 days after Lou wrote this Andy came back to face Ivey and lost a further $13.5million, my feelings about this challenge "Beal v the corporation" will probably continue but in a strange twist in my mind I feel that the poker pros are waiting to pounce setting this guy up and using him as a nice pay day and I am starting to root for Andy Beal to win.

It may not be televised live but one day this will be made into a film and on a final note Andy Beal is also trying to build a rocket so the public can take flights into space and funding this all himself, now who said money cant buy you everything you desire.