IVEY and SHULMAN make final 9

doyle would be the biggest, he gets on that list also

Greatest poker player of all time?  Based on what?  Based on career winnings, Peter Eastgate or a lucky loser like Jerry Yang  would have to be considered the greatest poker players of all time. 

The greatest poker players of all time are the ones who make enough money off their endorsements to stay in the game, as the game alone will eventually break even the most skilled of players.  And this biggest bullshit excuse for a tournament loser is that they regularly KILL them at the cash games. 

Wild story Chance....So your sister met him while he famous (or at least on TV)?

many "pros" do make their money through other poker revenue streams. Most actually, but you are right IVEY makes it in endorsements and playing poker by the barrell.

Funny story chance... I think laak is brilliant, he has never really won anything and is a household name to be sure

Ivey is one of the few tournament pro's who i consider a "great" poker player. Wins at the highest levels of cash games and tournaments, also plays every game very well.

Of course Doyle would be on that list.

I never said he WAS the greatest. I said he would have a CLAIM at being the greatest. He is in the mix of top 5 all time if he wins.

And yes, oz has no idea what he is talking about. The top CASH pro's make a very nice living from Poker alone. But of course he makes more from Full Tilt Poker, he is a owner.

Tiger Woods yearly income is about 90% endorsments, 10% Golf winnings. It's no different with Ivey.

Oz your confusing top cash pro's with top tournament pro's. Tournament pro's go broke all the time because their standard deviation (luck) is so high in the short run.

They get staked all the time.

Cant disagree with that at all.

man your name says it all.....

He meant endorsements for poker players and poker related stuff....how big a dummy are you???

Stu was the king of some things that make you a great poker player, and the worst at others.

Chip reese may have been 1/2 a tick weaker then stu in some tournament aspects of poker. But he was miles and miles  ahead in other aspects.

Tiger Woods would still make a good living without endorsements, as he is so skilled at what he does in golf.  If he is golfing well, he will get a decent paycheck. 

Poker players, on the other hand, can play perfect strategy and still lose a chunk of money for long periods of time.  Also, a golfer has control over the course, but if a poker player is not catching cards, he is screwed. 

So comparing an elite golfer to a highly skilled poker player is inane and futile.  Too many variables make poker a tough endeavor to consistently win at. 

And I'll stick to my original statement and say that poker players CANNOT stay in the game without endorsements or other regular outside income coming in.  That is why even great players like Ted Forrest have gone from millionaires to paupers in short time.   

Without outside income coming in, yes, that is basically what I am saying.  I can be proven wrong, but I get tired of people saying gamblers consistently win without offering any proof.  To just BREAK EVEN gambling on anything is extremely difficult in the long run, as the odds are so stacked against you.  Especially in poker, where the house always takes a sizeable cut.

 If there is someone who consistently wins JUST playing poker, by all means, please share that information with me.  Then I may have a change of opinion.  Until then, that person does not exist.