Tourney vs Money by GCA
GCA
This is a "slam dunk". It would be ruled a "NO CONTEST". Tournament
players get little, if NO RESPECT from the "professional money
players". The hi level "professional player", the one that receives
little recognition in the media, has little respect for the "touring
tournament players". These players know things, that you, the
uniformed people, don't. They know that most of these tournament
players are BROKE and live a very harsh life.
Most "tournament touring players" can not beat "money games". This is
were the "real money" is. While a "money player" can beat the
tournaments, if he chose to, the tournament players can't beat the
"money games". One can do both, yet chooses the more lucrative one.
The other has to settle for what is left. There is simply NO MONEY in
playing tournaments for a living. It is more like the lottery.
Certainly some one has to win. As in "money games", the "tournament
cheaters" do the best.
You people are fed PROPAGANDA. You are fed ILLUSIONS. The truth is
that unless you get lucky and win a "big event", with out being
backed, you are in for hard times on the tournament circuit. Also, you
get a false concept of your abilities when you do win a tournament.
You tend to believe you are a "champion" when all you are is some one
who got lucky. Never is this more greatly applied as when these
"tournament champions" get into money games. Here they are eaten for
breakfast, even when the games they are playing in are honest.
What RGP and people who read the magazines don't understand is, "most"
of these tournament players are being backed or trying to get backed,
as they can't get enough money to buy in by themselves. This is what
your don't understand. These "tournament champions" are mostly BROKE.
One day, about 5 years ago, TJ Coutier and I got into it. I made one
of my few tournament appearances at the Commerce Club. I had busted TJ
many times in "money games" and he didn't like my arrogance. I walked
into the Tournament Room and TJ opened his mouth, since the room was
"full of tournament champions". He stated,"there are at least a half
dozen guys" in this room that would play me heads-up. I laughed at
this.
This was a very audible exchange. He initially was trying to embarrass
me. It was his mistake. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE in the room wanted
any part of me playing heads-up. His "half dozen" players who could
beat me, dissolved so quickly it was an embarrassment to "tournament
players". He asked Mike Sexton to play me, who quickly responded with
these words," if you want to back me, I will play any one". Everyone
was quiet as a "mouse".
This is what "I" think of tournament players. I "eat tournament
champions", like kids eat "cheerios". I made about a dozen side bets
on who lasted longer, won all but one, and was eliminated with about
three tables left. But, it was one of the last tournaments I played,
as I only made about a dozen [last longer] side bets, and I laid odds
on most. NO MONEY in "tournaments".
Russ G new...@aol.com John M "whistle-blowers"
sextontoc
high-stakes cash game players. This is because the amount they can win is
far greater than most tournaments pay.
However, I do not know why you continue to attack the very best tournament
players. To say they don't earn BIG money is foolish. And to say that the
"tournament cheaters" do the best is more nonsense.
Let's look at three tournament superstars, T.J. Cloutier, Phil Hellmuth, and
Erik Seidel (all HONEST players). I would estimate their earnings over the
last 10-15 years to be well over $10,000,000 (strictly from tournament
poker)! This would average out to well over $250,000 per year for each of
them over that length of time. I doubt many 'cash game' players have earned
that much over the same period of time.
You seem to confuse 'being broke' with the ability to make money at
tournament poker. Being broke is due to one's lifestyle (bad habits) and
should not be compared to their ability to play poker or whether they get
staked playing tournaments.
As for your comments about nobody willing to play you heads-up, that seemed
to be true when I was in L.A. (Perhaps the pros knew you were no bargain,
or perphaps they knew more about you than you thought.)
Mike Sexton
"GCA" <new...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fe4b9b6.02010...@posting.google.com...
Jim Geary
> Let's look at three tournament superstars, T.J. Cloutier, Phil Hellmuth, and
> Erik Seidel (all HONEST players). I would estimate their earnings over the
> last 10-15 years to be well over $10,000,000 (strictly from tournament
> poker)! This would average out to well over $250,000 per year for each of
> them over that length of time. I doubt many 'cash game' players have earned
> that much over the same period of time.
Depends if they got in a game with ... :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Geary | "They that can give up essential liberty to
jimgeary.com | purchase a little temporary safety, deserve
something to bore everyone | neither liberty nor safety." -- B Franklin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dsklansky
>Erik Seidel (all HONEST players). I would estimate their earnings over the
>last 10-15 years to be well over $10,000,000 (strictly from tournament
>poker)! This would average out to
>well over $250,000 per year for each of
>them over that length of time. I doubt many 'cash game' players have earned
>that much over the same period of time.
If you have 40 players who rate to make 100k a year in tournaments, I would
suspect three would make 250 k stictly due to the high standard deviation
involved. Also the three players mentioned made a high proportion of their
money in high buy in no-limit holdem tournaments. A game that is not spread
everyday and is also the most advantageous for tournament pros. Aside from that
game, there is no comparison between the best money players and the best
tournament players (except of course for those few who beat both). I have
previously written that one reason for this is that side game players must
understand multiway pots and tricky risk taking opponents better than
tournament players. The only tournament specialist who doesn't play side games
that I am sure could beat them badly if he had to, is Chris Ferguson.
John Tomassey
professional is unrealistic. They understand the game as well as
others but the main factor lies in their ability to control their
emotions when risking such a high amount of their own money. It is
kinda like pool tournament players back in the 60's, they played
tournaments because when all their cash was on the line, they choked.
The best players were high-stakes cash game players. If a top poker
tournament player today was largely staked and had a significant
amount of time playing in high stake games he could probably do as
well as any other. It is a matter of nerve and emotion which separates
the two.
"The Insider"
John_T...@yahoo.com
Vince Oliver
illumination. Many of the so-called "tournament stars" would have a
difficult time beating a $15-$30 limit game of their choice*. However
there is this group of younger players, guys such as Daniel Negranu,
Allen Cunningham, John Juanda, etc. who play both tournaments and cash
games very well. I know as I've watched their development first hand.
Whether you call it luck or variance, it seems like the sides where
the same group of players excel in at the hi-lo split games, and big
bet hold'em. I'm sure Mike would agree. By comparison, ANYONE can win
a stud or limit hold'em event. I remember a remarkable conversation
recently with a gentleman who is considered to be the greatest limit
hold'em tournament player of all time (or maybe should I say he's the
one who got dealt the most of all time?). I noted to him that he was
dealt AA 14 times during the last WSOP Champinship event, which would
be I guess 2.5 times expectation. His response? "Of course I got dealt
Aces 14 times. Great players get dealt Aces more often, they deserve
to." I rest my case.
By the way Russ, I have read your posts with interest over the last
several months. Having been around LA for over 20 years now, I find
what you write interesting, but most of it is dated. Most of the
scamming you discuss happened in draw lowball and Cal games in the
late '70s and '80s, with or without house dealers. Most of the people
you discuss are currently more or less unable to scam. There is no
value to me, or for that matter, any professional to discuss your
material here for obvious reasons-it's a lose/lose situation all
around. I'm not going to discuss cheating in $75-$150 games and up
with those who play $1-$4 or those who fantasize about being in The
Life. If you want to discuss it with me, do feel free to drop me a
line, but I will expect our conversation to be a private one. You have
promised us a California list, when are you going to publish it?
*According to well-known AC and Baltimore area professional David
Kopp, "If you can read the board, you can beat the $15 hold'em." He
said this about 15 years ago.
Dsklansky
What's funny about this post is that while defending tournament specialist's
poker knowledge, you insult them worse than their detractors do. And I don't
buy your theory anyway. Those who do well in tournaments but not sidegames are
not lacking balls. The billiard analogy is bad because physical tics don't come
into play. Their problem is simply that they don't understand how to play when
their opponents are almost all tough and are not concerned with stack sizes.
BillM
> Let's look at three tournament superstars, T.J. Cloutier, Phil Hellmuth, and
> Erik Seidel (all HONEST players). I would estimate their earnings over the
> last 10-15 years to be well over $10,000,000 (strictly from tournament
> poker)! This would average out to well over $250,000 per year for each of
> them over that length of time.
Some serious fuzzy math here. Those three players have all won less
than $3 million at the WSOP in the last 15 years, so you say that
they've EACH won $7 million at other(much smaller) tournaments during
this time? Not likely. And 15 x $250,000 is $3,750,000, which is a
much more realistic(and still very impressive) "estimate".
Aug
>
> What's funny about this post is that while defending tournament specialist's
> poker knowledge, you insult them worse than their detractors do. And I don't
> buy your theory anyway. Those who do well in tournaments but not sidegames are
> not lacking balls. The billiard analogy is bad because physical tics don't come
> into play. Their problem is simply that they don't understand how to play when
> their opponents are almost all tough and are not concerned with stack sizes.
You imply that tournament players are not almost all tough. Do you
consider this the case in the big buy-in events?
tino
tino
~~~ Big, butt Intimate, Community ~~~
GCA
in NY and came out west. I know the person who caught him holding out.
Pat Reo will scam any game he can get his claws in. The game at
Hollywood Park about a year or so back was scammed. It was a $200-$400
OE game and Pat had a "cheating pack" in the game. I am making a post
tonight on some of the players on the current list.
Russ G new...@aol.com John M
nextw...@hotmail.com (Vince Oliver) wrote in message news:<1e40f183.02010...@posting.google.com>...
Steve Badger
news:c6962c57.02010...@posting.google.com...
? He said the ten million is "their" earnings, and 15x250,000x3 is over 10
million. What's fuzzy?
Dsklansky
>consider this the case in the big buy-in events?
Even in the big buy in events typically more than half the entrants are non
pros.
Ed Hill 777
tournament play:
Live Play: You have forever to play. Your opponents are all playing on infinite
money, therefore, they are not as easy to run over. The tournament specialist
says, "This style has been successful for me all my life, why should I change
it? Just run right over these cowards and I will get all the money when the
cards break even." The problem is, these people are only cowards when they
can't go back into their pockets (tournaments), when they can they are not so
easy to run over.
Tournaments: You have a limited time to play before you are playing so high
that you must make a move. Your opponents are playing with finite money,
therefore, they are easy to run over. Your opponents will be thinking, "I don't
want to get knocked out with this mediocre hand." Therefore, they are much
easier to run over. Most of the good live game players that I know think that
the tournaments have too great a luck element in them. The real truth is, your
opponents play differently when they can or can't go back into their pockets
and you have to adjust to that correctly.
Daniel Negreanu
> You imply that tournament players are not almost all tough. Do you
> consider this the case in the big buy-in events?
Well I am. It's not even a fair debate, as to which group plays
better fundamentally. I have played both at relatively high levels.
The 'losing' side game players in a 300-600 game, very often would
still be a favorite in a $1000 buy in tournament. I know of many
specific examples that I won't name.
I also don't buy a previous pool analogy one bit. Playing high
limit poker, is actually MORE stressful than tournament poker.
Playing tournaments, when you get beat, you lose $500, to a MAXIMUM of
$10,000. In a 400-800 game, you can lose an entire bankroll, as much
as 80,000 on a brutal night.
None of this explains why the cash game players play better, but
this might: Tournament players really don't get punished the way they
should for the marginal mistakes they make. While in a cash game, the
marginal mistakes ALL count, and are the difference between being a
losing player, and a winner.
EXAMPLE: A stud 8 or better tournament. Imagine the 'tournament
player' regularly calls two bets in a 3 way pot with 6-6-7. This is
obviously a gamble, but it isn't as important a mistake as it would be
in a cash game. There is almost no way you could turn this hand into
positive EV in a cash game, but you 'may' be able to do that in a
paricular tournament. I'm not sure I'm explaining this properly, but
bear with me.
If this same 'tournament player' continues to make this mistake in a
live game (a mistake he likely doesn't know he is making) he will lose
money to it. In a tournament though, that gamble 'may' pay off in
other ways. It may elevate the 'tournament player' into a dominant
chip position, which he could use to further increase his stack by
playing aggressively against the short stacks.
There are a large number of successfull, over-aggressive tournament
players, that 'routinely' take gambles like this, in order to attain a
big stack. Obviously they have learned to be extremely effective with
a big lead, and this can make up a lot of ground for the 'marginal
error' they made on the 6-6-7 hand.
If they play the same way (which they usually do) in a live game,
they'll never attain the big stack, and those marginal errors will
pile up and bury them in the long run.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
Gary Carson
On 3 Jan 2002 20:29:32 -0800, kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu)
wrote:
Gary Carson
http:// garycarson.home.mindspring.com
Steve Badger
> None of this explains why the cash game players play better, but
> this might: Tournament players really don't get punished the way they
> should for the marginal mistakes they make. While in a cash game, the
> marginal mistakes ALL count, and are the difference between being a
> losing player, and a winner.
The example below illustrates something else that I'll get to in a second,
but the point here should be that marginal mistakes are far more deadly in
tournaments than live games. Every decision in a tournament is more
critical than in a live game. Tournaments have a strictly limited bankroll.
In live games you do not have that restriction, or at least you are far less
restricted. In live games large-ish bankroll fluctuations don't matter if
you do play within your bankroll. Edges of 51/49 should be happily
exploited repeatedly in live games, but given the death sentence of going
broke in a tournament, trivial edges like that should be avoided as best you
can, unless...
> EXAMPLE: A stud 8 or better tournament. Imagine the 'tournament
> player' regularly calls two bets in a 3 way pot with 6-6-7. This is
> obviously a gamble, but it isn't as important a mistake as it would be
> in a cash game. There is almost no way you could turn this hand into
> positive EV in a cash game, but you 'may' be able to do that in a
> paricular tournament. I'm not sure I'm explaining this properly, but
> bear with me.
> If this same 'tournament player' continues to make this mistake in a
> live game (a mistake he likely doesn't know he is making) he will lose
> money to it. In a tournament though, that gamble 'may' pay off in
> other ways. It may elevate the 'tournament player' into a dominant
> chip position, which he could use to further increase his stack by
> playing aggressively against the short stacks.
> There are a large number of successfull, over-aggressive tournament
> players, that 'routinely' take gambles like this, in order to attain a
> big stack. Obviously they have learned to be extremely effective with
> a big lead, and this can make up a lot of ground for the 'marginal
> error' they made on the 6-6-7 hand.
> If they play the same way (which they usually do) in a live game,
> they'll never attain the big stack, and those marginal errors will
> pile up and bury them in the long run.
Comparing a single tournament to an entire life of live game play is
ludicrous so what needs to be compared is a lifetime of tournament play to a
lifetime of ring game play. There are a handful of tournament players who
excel when they have a big stack (and only then). If over the course of
their lifetime they have played in such a way as to yield a positive
expectation then the "errors" they make are not errors for them. If a
player is totally mediocre (or worse) with an average stack, but an
impossible to defeat Superman when holding a large stack, that person should
play in such a way as to occasionally build a big stack. More sensibly that
person should learn to be a better all-around player, but absent doing that,
if occasionally accumulating a big stack is the most profitable way for this
person to play, then it is correct for them to play with that goal in mind.
A small group of winning tournament players fall into this category -- and
this strategy has no parallel in the ring game world. So, this group of
players sucks in ring games. But that does not mean that how they win in
tournaments is some fluke or weirdness. Some people for example have the
skills to wield a big tournament stack against a field of smaller stacks in
a far superior way to the mass of players. These players are of *limited*
ability, but their limited ability has a place where it can be applied --
and they then (perhaps accidentally) play in early rounds in a way (shoot
for big pots even if somewhat of a dog) so that they can apply their limited
ability as best as possible. The best ring game deuce-to-seven player in
the world may be a sucker in Holdem or even deuce-to-seven tournaments, but
their deuce-to-seven ring game strategy can still be soundly profitable.
I'd consider people "better" players if they can do a variety of other
things well, but limited players still can do their one or two things as
good or better than anybody else.
The best players are the ones who deliver peak performance regardless of the
game or the venue. Some winning ring game players can't play limited
bankroll tournaments, some winning tournament players can't manage to do
things like Sklansky talks about, understanding looser game multiway pots
and tricky situations.
--
Steve Badger
http://www.playwinningpoker.com
Roger McDow
saying even though they seem to be disagreeing.
Adaptation is the critical must for an all around great player.
These 2 posts are what RGP is suppose to be about.
Roger McDow
"Steve Badger" <PlayWinningPoker[REMOVE-THIS]@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:EHbZ7.2259$Vz3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Tom Weideman
<snip>
By far your best rgp post to date, Mr. Badger. (Hey, Carson complimented
Negreanu, so what the hell.)
One addition:
Some players excel at tournament play but get crushed in live game play
because they have a tilt problem. Players don't tilt until they take a
horrible beat or two (or what they perceive to be a horrible beat). Once
this happens in a tournament, they are all but eliminated and can spew no
money (beyond what little tournament equity they may have left) as a result
of the tilt. Not so for live games.
Interestingly, one often sees a correlation between the ultra-aggression
demonstrated by the players that try to acquire big stacks in tournaments
(and subsequently use them to good effect), and a propensity to tilt.
Tom Weideman
Daniel Negreanu
Steve Badger <PlayWinningPoker[REMOVE-THIS]@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:EHbZ7.2259$Vz3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Every decision in a tournament is more critical than in a live game.
Not monetarily, and this was the point I was trying to make. Yes, those
marginal mistakes will get you knocked out of tournaments prematurely
sometimes, but it doesn't necessarily mean (as you point out later) that
this play will cost certain players. For some select tournament players,
this play isn't even a mistake 'for them'.
Repeated marginal errors in a live game ARE the key ingredients that turn
a winning 30-60 player, into a losing 300-600 player.
Tournaments have a strictly limited bankroll.
> In live games you do not have that restriction, or at least you are far
less
> restricted. In live games large-ish bankroll fluctuations don't matter if
> you do play within your bankroll.
Fluxuations do come into play though if the plays you are making have
negative equity. That will bust any bankroll in the long run.
> Comparing a single tournament to an entire life of live game play is
> ludicrous so what needs to be compared is a lifetime of tournament play to
a
> lifetime of ring game play. There are a handful of tournament players who
> excel when they have a big stack (and only then). If over the course of
> their lifetime they have played in such a way as to yield a positive
> expectation then the "errors" they make are not errors for them.
This was the point I was trying to make. I never said that this group of
players weren't good tournament players, just that their abilities wouldn't
be enough to beat high limit poker if they played the same way.
> A small group of winning tournament players fall into this category -- and
> this strategy has no parallel in the ring game world. So, this group of
> players sucks in ring games. But that does not mean that how they win in
> tournaments is some fluke or weirdness.
I never, ever said that it was. Their 'style' is precisely what makes
them successful in tournaments, as their is definetely a place for brute
aggression in tournaments. I certainly don't think it's a fluke. but I
certainly think this group in general lacks some fundamental knowledge that
the high limit cash game players don't.
> The best players are the ones who deliver peak performance regardless of
the
> game or the venue.
They are also the ones who have a full fundametal understanding oif the
differences between live game strategy, and tournament strategy (they are
very different). If I had to bet though, I would bet that it would be MUCH
easier for a winning 300-600 player to become a winning tournament player,
than vice versa.
How about Mike Matusow and Jennifer Harman versus Men Nguyen and Amir
Vahedi for example. I think this is a fair match, two of the best
tournament players, versus two succesful high limit players. If this group
were to switch roles, which group would be able to come closer to the
success of the other group?
Of course I'm taking into account the fact that there is more dead money
in tournaments, so the question is posed to accomodate that. Both Mike and
Jennifer would certainly be in the top 20 players of the year if they played
a full schedule, but both Amir and Men would likely end up big losers
playing high limit poker.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
Gary Carson
size.
If a player tends to make marginal mistakes he should take an early
coin toss to double up because then, if he wins the coin toss his
small mistakes later won't matter much.
Gary Carson
http:// garycarson.home.mindspring.com
Gary Carson
that turn
>a winning 30-60 player, into a losing 300-600 player.
>
>
> Tournaments have a strictly limited bankroll.
>> In live games you do not have that restriction, or at least you are
far
>less
>> restricted. In live games large-ish bankroll fluctuations don't
matter if
>> you do play within your bankroll.
>
> Fluxuations do come into play though if the plays you are making
have
>negative equity. That will bust any bankroll in the long run.
I'm not sure that's true for a finite lifetime. I'm pretty sure it's
not.
>
>> A small group of winning tournament players fall into this category
-- and
>> this strategy has no parallel in the ring game world.
Actually, it does have a parellel in the ring game world. A negative
EV player can be a favorite in a no limit ring game if he has a huge
bankroll compared to the other players. Well, I guess that would make
him a positive EV player, but you know what I mean.
Daniel Negreanu
Tom Weideman <zwi...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:B85AE3B9.1A0D%zwi...@pacbell.net...
> of the tilt. Not so for live games.
>
> Interestingly, one often sees a correlation between the ultra-aggression
> demonstrated by the players that try to acquire big stacks in tournaments
> (and subsequently use them to good effect), and a propensity to tilt.
>
>
absolutely detrimenatal to your cash game results, but actually has very
little negative effect on 'some' players' tournament results.
EXAMPLE: 'Tournament player'.
Day 1: takes a bad beat, goes on tilt, plays a bad hand and is
elimininated. Can no longer go off in the tournament, unless of course
there's rebuys.
Day 2: takes a bad beat, goes on tilt, plays a bad hand and gets lucky and
wins the hand. Regains composure, increases stack, and goes on to do well
in the tournament.
Day 3: Doesn't take a bad beat, plays his best the entire way, and does
well in the tournament.
Day 4: takes a bad beat, goes on tilt, plays a bad hand and is eliminated.
Day 5: plays well the whole way, doesn't have much luck and is eliminated
from the tournament.
Day 6: decides to gamble because of lack of patience, gets lucky, wins the
pot, and suddenly develops patience and goes on to do well in the
tournament.
Day 7: plays very well all day, squeeks into the money.
Of the 7 days, the 'tournament player' played the entire tournament well
just three days. If he were to do the same in a live game over the long
haul, those 3 bad days would bury him. Playing 'well' on the other 4 days
wouldn't be enough for him to overcome his tilted play on the other 3 days.
In tournaments though, this player isn't punished too badly for his bad
play, but rewarded handsomely for his good play.
A tournament player could go on tilt in a tournament 7 days in a row for a
short period of time, and still turn a profit in the long run. This is
IMPOSSIBLE in a high limit cash game, if this player continually loses his
discipline.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
Steve BIA
"Roger McDow" <rmc...@home.com> wrote in message
> Although this may sound crazy, I agree with what Danny and Steve both are
> saying even though they seem to be disagreeing.
Not crazy at all, I agree with you. They're arguing different points, but
essentially reaching the same conclusion.
Steve N
Steve BIA
"Aug" <augste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> You imply that tournament players are not almost all tough. Do you
> consider this the case in the big buy-in events?
Think about the percentage of players who got into the big buy-in events by
winning single table "shoot out" satellites, and combine that with the
number of well-heeled amateurs who play tourneys for the thrill of victory,
with little skill. A big buy-in event doesn't guarantee a tough field, its
just generally tougher than the small buy-in events.
Steve N
Steve BIA
"Dsklansky" <dskl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Even in the big buy in events typically more than half the entrants are
non
> pros.
I wouldn't imply that that the percentage of "non-pros" determines how tough
the field is. There are many very tough non-pros who regularly play
tourneys. You'll find many of them here on RGP (and 2+2). They just happen
to have businesses or professions, and don't play poker for their primary
living. The term "pro" doesn't necessarily imply a highly skilled player.
Props are "pros," and many of them are no better than mediocre, and perhaps
even less than that in a tournament setting. Many so-called tourney "pros"
are mediocre players, constantly having to grub up a stake to play, and are
complete jokes in ring games.
Steve N
John Tomassey
matter of psychological control, such as that little thing called
going on tilt. Tilt isn't a physical thing that effects your play but
emotional. I don't think I said that they I stated tournament players
were gutless, it is a matter of personal risk to a degree for many.
There are a select few who do play tournaments that choose to play no
limit for the action they can afford without starting light stacked as
an underdog. Also, to Dan, the theory you bring up about being
punished is why the great pool players of that time played cash
games... because they were able to handle themselves psychologically
after a serious beating without it effecting their play. About 90% of
the pool players back then couldn't have handled it. To both David and
Dan, I appreciate your sincere candicy of these matters as well as the
many other issues you bring to light.
"The Insider"
John_T...@yahoo.com
John Tomassey
paul ladanyi
> In a tournament, how critical a decision is depends on your stack
> size.
>
> If a player tends to make marginal mistakes he should take an early
> coin toss to double up because then, if he wins the coin toss his
> small mistakes later won't matter much.
>
>
to try to go for the 50%?
tenseven
their differing opinions. Its a text. and gives much food for thought
to amateurs like myself who have limited time, and want to use it
wisely, in addition to using money wisely in our hobby.
Mike Mantel
Steve Badger" <PlayWinningPoker[REMOVE-THIS]@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ZK7Z7.1575$zw3.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Quick
think maybe Tom addressed this implicitly but it would seem
that in tournaments marginal negative decisions may not be so
marginal (or negative) due to some sort of step function. A
marginal play has the potential to put you "over the top" -- you
sometimes get a large stack which enables you to bully your
way (or coast) into the relatively huge pay off of making the money.
In ring games everybody has an infinitely large stack so the
marginally negative play is simply negative all the time? Did I
get that right?
-Quick
"Steve BIA" <stev...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Daniel Negreanu
point I was trying to make, but managed to fumble my way through it. Thanks
for the eloquent clarification.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
Quick <Qu...@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message
news:1010181282.936340@sj-nntpcache-5...
Steve Badger
> Steve Badger wrote:
> <snip>
>
> By far your best rgp post to date, Mr. Badger. (Hey, Carson complimented
> Negreanu, so what the hell.)
>
> One addition:
>
> Some players excel at tournament play but get crushed in live game play
> because they have a tilt problem. Players don't tilt until they take a
> horrible beat or two (or what they perceive to be a horrible beat). Once
> this happens in a tournament, they are all but eliminated and can spew no
> money (beyond what little tournament equity they may have left) as a
result
> of the tilt. Not so for live games.
Absolutely. Many players are temperamentally more suited for tournaments
because not only can't they tilt (for long), they also have the artificial
inhibitor of seeing their puny stack of chips that they can't replenish.
Even tilt-prone people can exert a measure of self-control when they are
confronted with their limited universe of assets. In ring games these
tilters can just dig for more money.
A less important contrast is some ring game players who have excellent
patience don't adapt well at all to the limited asset universe in a
tournament, because in ring games you simply wait for good situations, no
matter how long that takes. In tournaments you sometimes need to make
desperation plays (like maybe playing a 40/60 dog) because you will simply
run out of chips if you wait too long.
Steve Badger
> A tournament player could go on tilt in a tournament 7 days in a row for
a
> short period of time, and still turn a profit in the long run. This is
> IMPOSSIBLE in a high limit cash game, if this player continually loses his
> discipline.
I'd just also say something similar to what I just posted. Another
artificial help some tilt-prone people have in tournaments is that the key
money situations are just plainly obvious... In a ring game, all hands (and
stupid actions) are created equal. In tournaments, even the most tilt-prone
looney will almost always be able to manage reasonable self-control when
down to the final four or three players in an event. They control their
stupidity because it is plainly obvious they need to. In ring games that
plainly obvious need to control yourself is virtually non-existent in
comparison.
Steve Badger
have no application in limit ring game play: "playing from a big stack" and
"moving your chips". Some people are really good at these two things. So,
since they have no application in ring games, these players are not likely
to do well in ring games.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
I think so too. Daniel and Badger are both right.
The ring game is of course endless and 'infinite'--
mistakes (we're assuming they're continued) go all the way to
the horizon, gradually add up, accumulating and crushing the
individual over time. They are also critical in that they
have a "real money" punishment in the immediate present,
(unlike tournaments) at the same time that each could actually
be considered less important when compared against
an infinite horizon and lifetime bankroll.
Each mistake in a tournament, on the other hand, is
critical within the finite world of that tournament--
at the same time that some might argue that it
is less critical because of the lack of a punishing downside--
("The worst that can happen is I'll lose my buy-in").
One question might be asked: which player's mistakes are
more damaging to him over the long-term? Here, quantity
(of play) enters the picture, and as Badger noted, to
compare accurately would require the level playing field of a
lifetime of tournament play vs.a lifetime of ring game play. In
fact, it might require more than this-- perhaps someone playing
a tournament every single day versus someone playing a ring
game every day (or some similar equivalence), in order to
assess it accurately.
Just my 2 cents,
Wayno
GCA
professionals at the top level earn around $300,000 a year. However,
you forget to mention they are almost all backed, including the ones
mentioned to a great extent. This in itself cuts their earnings down
almost 50%. Also you forgot to mention that to run the tournaments
themselves, and we are only talking of the "major ones" the entry fees
total over $150,000. What does this leave these champions with. Surely
a person at the top level of his profession would make more than the
new sum. This new sum would be closer to $100,000 without their
personal expenses. What a LIFE.
Better to be a "prop" at a casino and be paid $75,000 a year and
medical benefits without the expenses.
I could name at least 50 players who make 3 or 4 times more, without
even trying. If you can't beat the MONEY GAMES, you don't stand a
realistic chance in poker. For whenever you win something in a
tournament, you will end up in a cash game. And more likely than not,
it will be cheated.
Besides, when Erik Seidel played with me Mike, didn't you inform him I
was no bargain and he would be better off not playing me? At least
that is the story you told me.
If other players also knew about me, doesn't that open the door that I
may know more about the other players. The ones that will play me in
Nevada, but not in California. I know what happens in Nevada, as do
you.
Russ G new...@aol.com John M
"sextontoc" <sext...@lvcm.com> wrote in message news:<u37iml5...@corp.supernews.com>...
> I agree with you (and have written) that the "best" poker players are the
> high-stakes cash game players. This is because the amount they can win is
> far greater than most tournaments pay.
>
> However, I do not know why you continue to attack the very best tournament
> players. To say they don't earn BIG money is foolish. And to say that the
> "tournament cheaters" do the best is more nonsense.
>
> Let's look at three tournament superstars, T.J. Cloutier, Phil Hellmuth, and
> Erik Seidel (all HONEST players). I would estimate their earnings over the
> last 10-15 years to be well over $10,000,000 (strictly from tournament
> poker)! This would average out to well over $250,000 per year for each of
> them over that length of time. I doubt many 'cash game' players have earned
> that much over the same period of time.
>
> You seem to confuse 'being broke' with the ability to make money at
> tournament poker. Being broke is due to one's lifestyle (bad habits) and
> should not be compared to their ability to play poker or whether they get
> staked playing tournaments.
>
> As for your comments about nobody willing to play you heads-up, that seemed
> to be true when I was in L.A. (Perhaps the pros knew you were no bargain,
> or perphaps they knew more about you than you thought.)
>
> Mike Sexton
>
>
>
> "GCA" <new...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:fe4b9b6.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > Tournament Player V.S. Money Player
> >
> > This is a "slam dunk". It would be ruled a "NO CONTEST". Tournament
> > players get little, if NO RESPECT from the "professional money
> > players". The hi level "professional player", the one that receives
> > little recognition in the media, has little respect for the "touring
> > tournament players". These players know things, that you, the
> > uniformed people, don't. They know that most of these tournament
> > players are BROKE and live a very harsh life.
> >
> > Most "tournament touring players" can not beat "money games". This is
> > were the "real money" is. While a "money player" can beat the
> > tournaments, if he chose to, the tournament players can't beat the
> > "money games". One can do both, yet chooses the more lucrative one.
> > The other has to settle for what is left. There is simply NO MONEY in
> > playing tournaments for a living. It is more like the lottery.
> > Certainly some one has to win. As in "money games", the "tournament
> > cheaters" do the best.
> >
> > You people are fed PROPAGANDA. You are fed ILLUSIONS. The truth is
> > that unless you get lucky and win a "big event", with out being
> > backed, you are in for hard times on the tournament circuit. Also, you
> > get a false concept of your abilities when you do win a tournament.
> > You tend to believe you are a "champion" when all you are is some one
> > who got lucky. Never is this more greatly applied as when these
> > "tournament champions" get into money games. Here they are eaten for
> > breakfast, even when the games they are playing in are honest.
> >
> > What RGP and people who read the magazines don't understand is, "most"
> > of these tournament players are being backed or trying to get backed,
> > as they can't get enough money to buy in by themselves. This is what
> > your don't understand. These "tournament champions" are mostly BROKE.
> >
> > One day, about 5 years ago, TJ Coutier and I got into it. I made one
> > of my few tournament appearances at the Commerce Club. I had busted TJ
> > many times in "money games" and he didn't like my arrogance. I walked
> > into the Tournament Room and TJ opened his mouth, since the room was
> > "full of tournament champions". He stated,"there are at least a half
> > dozen guys" in this room that would play me heads-up. I laughed at
> > this.
> >
> > This was a very audible exchange. He initially was trying to embarrass
> > me. It was his mistake. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE in the room wanted
> > any part of me playing heads-up. His "half dozen" players who could
> > beat me, dissolved so quickly it was an embarrassment to "tournament
> > players". He asked Mike Sexton to play me, who quickly responded with
> > these words," if you want to back me, I will play any one". Everyone
> > was quiet as a "mouse".
> >
> > This is what "I" think of tournament players. I "eat tournament
> > champions", like kids eat "cheerios". I made about a dozen side bets
> > on who lasted longer, won all but one, and was eliminated with about
> > three tables left. But, it was one of the last tournaments I played,
> > as I only made about a dozen [last longer] side bets, and I laid odds
> > on most. NO MONEY in "tournaments".
> >
> > Russ G new...@aol.com John M "whistle-blowers"
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
I think I would take issue with the pool player analogy, John--
if I read it right-- that there was some great difference
between cash game pool players and tournament players.
The way I remember it, you were either "on your game" or you
weren't. If you were on your game you didn't particularly
care who you played against or for how much, or whether it
was a tournament or a cash game. Playing in front of a crowd
(a gallery of people in a tournament) could sometimes be a
nerve-making factor in one's play, but not the money end
of it.
Best,
Wayno
Quang Le
months. He wrote that he was able to buy some plastic chips and brought in
tournaments for a long period without detection. The point is if there is no
money in $10000 buyin tourneys how much does he get out of 10$ buyin
tournament?
If Russ can't remember what he wrote several months ago how could he
"remember" things five years ago?
||
"GCA" <new...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fe4b9b6.02010...@posting.google.com...
> Tournament Player V.S. Money Player
>
Dsklansky
is not directly because of the tournament structure, but rather because of how
that structure affects the play of opponents. You will never see a side game
that has the texture of a typical tournament table. Side games are either
looser (in the case of 15-30 type games) or trickier (big games). Both
situations cause discomfort to the tournament specialist.
GCA
"heart surgery" or was going to have it. I was either sick or
recupurating when I played these tournaments. Also, they were not
plastic chips, but regular chips I obtained from a store in Vegas. A
very good match. Since you remember the article, you must remember I
stated I always split 1st place. The same for any one I put in. If you
can win or split 1st every time you play a tournament, obviously there
would be money in tournaments. But the fact is you can't, unless you
get many chips and unusual situations.
The reason for the ability to win this tourney on a basis as I have
explained, was the limited amount of players, plus it went from a
limit tourney to a No Limit tourney at the last table. Being I had
over $39,000 in Tournament chips in a tournament that started out with
people receiving $100 sure did help the situation. I was able to add
and subtract at will.
While I was sick for the few months, it brought in approximately
$2,500 a week for about 4 hours play every week. After I recovered, I
let others go down and do the same, until the place closed down. One
of the people took third, that was the worst any one did, who played
in that tourney. You didn't even have to play a hand to make the final
table. Just add chips. It was that easy.
Russ G new...@aol.com John M
"Quang Le" <q...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<cQvZ7.77122$%u.26...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>...
Quang Le
> "heart surgery" or was going to have it. I was either sick or
> recupurating when I played these tournaments. Also, they were not
> plastic chips, but regular chips I obtained from a store in Vegas. A
> very good match. Since you remember the article, you must remember I
> stated I always split 1st place. The same for any one I put in. If you
> can win or split 1st every time you play a tournament, obviously there
> would be money in tournaments. But the fact is you can't, unless you
> get many chips and unusual situations.
>
> The reason for the ability to win this tourney on a basis as I have
> explained, was the limited amount of players, plus it went from a
> limit tourney to a No Limit tourney at the last table. Being I had
> over $39,000 in Tournament chips in a tournament that started out with
> people receiving $100 sure did help the situation. I was able to add
> and subtract at will.
$10 buyin and $2500 first place means >500 participants. How can this
tournament finish in 4 hours is a limit format? You won everyweek and you
brought in with the same amount of chips of everyone combined and nobody
noticed. You were able to pull a Houdini in front of 500 peoples week in and
week out and noone observed the biggest stack went up and down by itself.
Either you played with cyborgs in a dream or you are poor liar.
Your exaggeration was killing your credibility. Your posts is like a box of
chocolate. We never know what we get. My other observation is that you
bragged about beating anyone head-ups even without cheating in a lot of
posts. Do you think that you are the best head-up player in the world? Or
can you name three players who can beat you in a clean game? is the whole
thing GCA just a pissing contest.
||
GCA
make the original post shortly.
The tournament was a $10 buy in tournament. It had unlimited rebuys
for the first hour and an add on. All of these were $10. The place was
Jerrys Place at Oceanside, so most people would be in the tournament
at least a couple of rebuys and an add on. For $10 you received $100
in chips.
The pool as far as I remember was divided 60%-30% 10%. Always around
$3000 to $4000 in the pool. They usually had 60 to 80 players. The
tourney was limit until the final table, when it went to No Limit.
Most players was very unaware of everything. Limits were raised every
15 minutes and the tourney did not last long. It was there so they
could have side games afterwards.
It was a very easy tourney to cheat, since no one would expect it, let
alone care. The people were unaware.
Russ G new...@aol.com John M
"Quang Le" <q...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<d48_7.85660$6m1.2...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>...
GCA
Subject: POKER CHEATING INTERVIEW part 12 THE BOMB
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
View: Complete Thread (16 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-05-31 00:41:03 PST
Before the WORLD SERIES OF POKER started, tournament chips were available
for the cheaters and scammers.We gave Mike Caro some chips BEFORE the
tournament started. You never get the right count on how many chips are out.
Chips are always available, as long as you know where to get them. It gives
you the edge of making as many"I LAST LONGER THAN YOU"bets as you want.You
can have double or triple the buy in available. You don't have to play a
hand. A skilled cheat can palm a couple of chips without the camera even
knowing. These cameras lack proper depth perception. It would next to
impossible to catch a skilled cheater. Pat Fleming was caught recently, but
the casino did nothing about it. Chips are like gold to a skilled tournament
cheat. They bring them in and out with just a gesture.Tournament cheats
don't have to win. The object is to make money, and given the chips and a
couple of partners, you are about even money to make it to the final
table.About seven years ago a tournament was using unmarked chips, available
in almost any poker store.We bought 400 $100 chips. Without even playing a
hand,he was guaranteed of making a split for 1st place. After one cheat won
about 10 in a row, he made a mistake. He was [not able to get the chips] he
put the tournament out.This was an awkard position for the cheat, for if
they counted the chips down, they would have 20 more 100s than they started
with.So hoped for the best.They didn't care or they didn't count.Didn't
matter now. The cheat just send in his friend and did not play the next
time.He told his friend to leave at least twenty chips to divert
suspicion.His friend split 1st as usual, and left 20 $100 chips in. Nothing
happened again. Before the cheats were stopped 400 $100 chips had been put
in. The worst place anyone ever finished was in 3rd place.The casino had
four extra boxes of chips and never did anything about it.The really sad
part about this story is that the new chips were slightly off color and
could be very easily detected if someone had wished to.People even made
comments about new tournament chips, but nobody cared. They were only
"tourists who nobody wanted to chase away".Where have I heard that one
before?Though the tournament only paid around 2k for 1st, they ran it 3
times a week. The object of the cheat would be to stay afloat, and not go
all in. When the tables break, he is able to reload. At these levels the
tables break very quickly. Lock and load, because management doesn't care in
a lot of places. I think that is about to change. Chips are missing from all
major tournament, and are available to the people who know. These are not
world class players either. Tournaments are as crooked as anything else.
Some tournament cheats are very high profile while others prefer to "just
get by".Try demanding an audit. No chance for that. It would only lead to
lawsuits, in which case we may be found credible. Very credible in fact. By
the way, Mike also has chips for an upcoming major tournament. THIS IS FACT
so fire away guys.
"Quang Le" <q...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<d48_7.85660$6m1.2...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>...
bret roth
It appears sextontoc is trying to tout tournaments as a form of
income. In doing so, he takes what he feels is the industries
superstars and puts their gross income at $250K/yr...as if that's a
good thing for poker. I know morons in my industry who make $250k/yr.
Besides, I wonder what that $10million dwiddles down to once you
deduct taxes, buy-ins of ALL tournaments played, fees, tokes, splits
to partners, etc.
By the way...I'm still waiting to find out why a buddy of mine met up
with Phil Helmuth at the Ontario, Calif airport. I'd have expected
him to land in San Francisco...who knows...maybe there was a limit HE
tournament at San Manuel Indian Casino Phil couldn't pass up.
Maverick
Jim Geary <jay...@netaxs.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.SUN.3.95.102010...@unix1.netaxs.com>...
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, sextontoc wrote:
>
> > Let's look at three tournament superstars, T.J. Cloutier, Phil Hellmuth, and
> > Erik Seidel (all HONEST players). I would estimate their earnings over the
> > last 10-15 years to be well over $10,000,000 (strictly from tournament
> > poker)! This would average out to well over $250,000 per year for each of
> > them over that length of time. I doubt many 'cash game' players have earned
> > that much over the same period of time.
>
> Depends if they got in a game with ... :)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Geary | "They that can give up essential liberty to
> jimgeary.com | purchase a little temporary safety, deserve
> something to bore everyone | neither liberty nor safety." -- B Franklin
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCA
the math. Poker players who play tournament poker are limited to
minisule financial rewards. Better to get an education and be a 3rd
rater in another profession, than be the best at tournament poker.
Russ G new...@aol.com John M
bret...@aol.com (bret roth) wrote in message news:<51a77caf.02010...@posting.google.com>...