Cada comes across well
 

Hitting all the right notes ...

"Turning pro isn't for everyone"
"Variance is hard to handle"
etc.

Of course he's a good kid, he's from Michigan. :D

Cada came off very well. The writer, on the other hand, came off like somebody who did precisely zero research.

When you're the champ, the odds of winning should greatly increase.

Tell that one to Hellmuth. :D

If you take out greatly in that sentence do you still disagree with it? Seems to me that the statement is okay considering Vegas would probably give way worse odds to a no name dead money amateur than they would the previous years champ? Maybe not enough to say "greatly" but I don't think throwing out the sentence as a whole is acceptable.

I disagee. The writer is not talking about Vegas odds. His statement is what it is. As for "greatly", the word is there. No editor, looking at recent history, decided to take it out. The sentence stands or falls on its merits as written.

I might even suggest that by winning it, your probability of winning another one drops slightly, since now more people take shots at you.

Nobody has won back-to-back in 21 years. No previous winner has won since Unger. 2 simple facts that refute the statement

I think that Raymer, Hachem, and Eastgate (I could even say Dennis Phillips here, but he didn't win so I guess I shouldn't) would beg to differ. They have all shown that if you know what you are doing, and let other players play like lunatics against you just cause you won the thing than you can use that to your advantage.

I think this, along with the confidence boost, and experience gained from the previous year shows that the odds of winning the next year would be increased. This may have no been true previous years when the field was growing exponentially, but now with the fields staying relatively the same, I think his odds of winning next year are increased.

I think if you asked Cada if he thought his odds to win next year were better than this year he would undoubtedly say yes.

I just don't understand how winning CAN'T increase your chance of winning? Other than the fact that people might take more shots at them, what else would he have going against him?

Once again I don't think the word "greatly" belongs, because after all, how much can your odds really improve in a tournament with six to eight thousand entrants?

You left out Action Dan Harrington, back to back final tables in 03/04. He's a previous winner as well. When he did that they were saying that could be one of the biggest accomplishments ever, considering the field sizes.

Of course donks like Yang and Gold aren't going to perform well the next year because they caught lightning in a bottle. But if you look at the history of past champs performances the next year in these large fields (since 03), excluding the two I mentioned above, they have faired really well.

Edit: Exclude Moneymaker as well