"They'd be drawing dead." Barry G on tournament pros...

[jcmack13]

Discuss...

Link (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/columns/story?columnist=rosenbloom_steve&id=2057000)

[imported_CaseClosed326]

[ QUOTE ]
"There are five top players: There's Doyle Brunson, there's Chip Reese, there's Chau Giang, there's Phil Ivey, there's myself," Greenstein says.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty exclusive club.

Seems like Barry G is pretty pissed off. Very interesting article.

[drewjustdrew]

I knew I liked Barry.

[italianstang]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"There are five top players: There's Doyle Brunson, there's Chip Reese, there's Chau Giang, there's Phil Ivey, there's myself," Greenstein says.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty exclusive club.

Seems like Barry G is pretty pissed off. Very interesting article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not quite pissed off, just wanting to sort it out is all. I am sure that when Chan was in Rounders and got all popular a number of years ago (and was probably considered by the non-poker playing public as the best player in the universe hands down) that Barry kind of rolled his eyes and kept making millions.

Now that TV poker is everywhere and MORONS like Chris Rose has somehow been picked to commentate its important to get the story straight at least a little. This of course makes me want to be like Phil Ivey even more of course...

[GFunk911]

Can anyone find the book on Amazon? On his site it says the book is available for pre-order on Amazon, but I can't find it. I've always thooguht the book was a hoax/joke or whatever, and this isn't helping to dispel that feeling. If it's not, I can't wait to get my hands on it.

Update: Check this thread
Link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2313853&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=all&vc=1)

[dogmeat]

Well, how could a minor player like me, ever question a player like Barry? I probably can't even discuss his play without embarrasing myself. He's probably right.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[tipperdog]

At the risk of semi-hijacking your thread, I think it's worth noting that Steve Rosenbloom, who wrote this article, is clearly the best poker journalist working today. Indeed he might be the ONLY poker journalist working today. His story several weeks back about sponsored logos was also interesting.

...And no, I'm not related to the author /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[imported_CaseClosed326]

link?

[That guy]

So the media is missing some of the truth... why should poker be any different?

Daniel Negreanu is a great player. Yes, I am defining great player as a great tournament player. Chris Ferguson is a great player. No one said great player automatically means 'great cash game player.' I agree, he is grumpy.

As Phil Ivey would say "why do you care so much what others say, Barry?"

Andy Roddick is a 'live one' when he plays Roger Federer but damn, why dis him for making money off of commercials.

[tipperdog]

Apologies...

Here is the logo article I mentioned:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/columns/story?columnist=rosenbloom_steve&id=2036285

You should also check out his poker columns at the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/search/dispatcher.front?page=1&Query=rosenbloom&target=ar ticle

My real point is that what passes for "poker journalism" is usually breathless recounting of tourney play (AJ Shulman in CP) or shameless reprinting of PR Materials (Sexton in CP). Rosenbloom is doing what reporters should do: identifying interesting issues and exploring them.

[duker41]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] At the risk of semi-hijacking your thread, I think it's worth noting that Steve Rosenbloom, who wrote this article, is clearly the best poker journalist working today. Indeed he might be the ONLY poker journalist working today. His story several weeks back about sponsored logos was also interesting.

...And no, I'm not related to the author


Rosenbloom is a great writer. He used to write a hilarious column for the Chicago Tribune sports section. He does some poker stuff for them, but it doesn't let him be creative as they used to.

[DeadMoneyOC]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, how could a minor player like me, ever question a player like Barry? I probably can't even discuss his play without embarrasing myself. He's probably right.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh. Its a world no one in this forum can really understand, so most opinions on the truth behind this article are pretty much just wild guesses.

I do think his point about TV pros making money off DVDs and other crap is wrong. I think even if a pro can make millions in the biggest cash games it is always smart to put your name on a good product(something that would sell) and make extra income. Barry makes it seem like he never could run bad for a year and lose all those millions. When Hellmuth puts his name on every piece of stupid crap he endorses he is being a smart business man. Why grind it out when you could make a decent amount of money from DVDs, books, or endorsing a website(i.e. UB, FT)? Barry isnt making much sense when he says TV pros are wasting their time with these side projects. He also contradicts himself because Chau and Chip are the only two of the five people he mentions who dont have some sort of side project.

[toots]

Very interesting.

Just ranting at a friend today over lunch that so much of poker nowadays is all about image.

People (kids) see these tournament players on TV, and figure, yeah, I want to be a bad azz dood like that, lookin' all cool with my shades and poker outfit.

And thus, poker comes to be redefined as meaning only "Hold 'Em" in the public eye, and we're innundated by "specialist" players, which means kids who think that Hold 'Em is the only form of poker, and who are a lot more interested in obtaining the image of looking like a cool bad azz poker dood on TV than actually learning the game.

Not that this deprives any real poker player of an opportunity to make money, but in general, I think the trend is pretty laughable.

[Yes]

[ QUOTE ]
Apologies...

Here is the logo article I mentioned:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/columns/story?columnist=rosenbloom_steve&id=2036285

You should also check out his poker columns at the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/search/dispatcher.front?page=1&Query=rosenbloom&target=ar ticle

My real point is that what passes for "poker journalism" is usually breathless recounting of tourney play (AJ Shulman in CP) or shameless reprinting of PR Materials (Sexton in CP). Rosenbloom is doing what reporters should do: identifying interesting issues and exploring them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this guy is the best poker journalist.Thanks for the link. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sponger15SB]

So if I were to start talking about how terrible I thought all the other players were in the games I play and that I'm making tons of money off them and they were losing players, you guys would all tell me to shut the [censored] up.

Of course when Barry does it he is so cool.

I have no idea why he'd want to come out and tell everyone that if they play with him they are going to lose.

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]

I do think his point about TV pros making money off DVDs and other crap is wrong. I think even if a pro can make millions in the biggest cash games it is always smart to put your name on a good product(something that would sell) and make extra income.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is the extra income he is opposed to. I think it is the cost of time spent. Why spend 25% of the year earning $250,000 doing one thing when you could be doing a much more enjoyable thing and earning $500,000 with that time?

[drewjustdrew]

Totally irrelevant analogy. The bloated egos at his level are impervious to such insults. Plus, if you want to play that high, there are few alternatives other than Barry's game.

P.S. PM me with the time and place that you play with all these losers /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[carpe2k]

First, I must say how nice it is to read a civilized thread.
Barry is "grumpy" for good reasons. To say the guy has payed his "dues" would be an understatement. Naturally the "old lions" would be disturbed by all the attention given the "young tigers". If you check out Barry's website, you can see he really is a pretty cool dude. The hyperbole in poker is running pretty high right now. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Nagoo81]

Thanks OP for the link.

I think it's absolutely fantastic whenever barryg1 speaks his mind, because you know his opinions are honest and come first hand from a player that has BEEN there.

There is something about his overall demeanor and attitude that really cuts through all the bullcrap and gets down to what is real. Of all the pro players, I would have to respect barryg1 the most.

I really am anticipating his book, and hopefully his autobiography.

[toots]

I don't know if I'll buy his book.

Maybe I'll wait for his personalized poker chip sets to come out. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Seriously, I do like barryg. Seems like a straight up guy, and I enjoyed reading that article.

[flair1239]

I think it is funny that while he says the side projects are a waste of time... he has a book coming out.

[DeadMoneyOC]

I agree, but I think guaranteed income is much smarter than playing poker for a living. Again, I dont know anything about playing poker on this level so I have no idea how big the edge someone could have over another actually is. Who knows, maybe Barry never loses and it would be a huge waste of time for him to endorse something that would be money in the bank. I highly, highly doubt this is the truth though. Everyone runs bad.

[Nagoo81]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is funny that while he says the side projects are a waste of time... he has a book coming out.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has mentioned that taking the time to put out the book has cost him potentially millions, since he had to be away from the games to write.

Can't really argue there.

[Vincent Lepore]

I love Barry Greenstien!

[quote "The reason these other guys play in tournaments for the most part is because they are broke, because other people put them in a tournament and they've made a name for themselves. But they're not as good as many professionals out there."

... Howard Lederer raised his eyebrows and showed part of his famous weapons-grade stare, then somewhat backed up Greenstein's point.

"I had success in those biggest side games for 10 years," Lederer says. "I think I've gotten a lot of satisfaction and expanded my horizons a little bit and made a conscious decision.


So, indeed, there is truth in Greenstein's argument. Still sounds cranky.

"The crankiness is that for years I'd just bite my tongue when the media would talk about losing players being top players in the game," Greenstein said, preferring not to name names. "I'd say, 'OK, they don't know the difference.' And everything I'd read or see on the news is, from where I sit, false.

" 'Great' is given to people who aren't even winning poker players. So, if someone's not a winning player, and I'm being told that's a 'great' player, they're being put up as top professionals and 'This is how they act.' Then they act like goofballs, and I say, 'That's because they're not (top professionals). You've got the wrong people.'

"I'm almost defending the working poker players around the country and even around the world who make a living playing poker. There are many people who do that, but it's very expensive to go around and play in these tournaments and often not the right way to make their living. They live with their families, they play in the local clubs.

"On some levels, I'm arrogant. That level is, there are cash game players - and not only that but I play in the biggest cash game; what we call the first tier - and a lot of people don't appreciate what the level of differences are between us and people playing in tournaments."

"My crankiness is not for myself, because I have been given - whether I've deserved it or not - almost the best persona of any player in poker history," Greenstein says. "I'm defending other poker professionals."


[/ QUOTE ]
Far be it from me to put words in Mr G's mouth but I believe that he is sayinhg, in effect, that Tournaments ain't poker. Now where have I heard that before?

Vince

[That guy]

I saw Barry listed as 20/1 (tied for 13th) on that NBC Heads-up Poker Championship event while lots of others were listed at 12/1 (including Scott Fishman) and Negreanu was favorite at 9/1...

I guess Daniel could call Barry a 'live one' when it comes to tournaments.** (At least Barry was ahead of Hellmuth at 22/1).

** of course this is ridiculous

[keats]

This should all be settled by a Heads Up match between Dn and BG. Loser had to admit that maybe just maybe there is an outside chance that they could of possibly been outplayed but that they aren't agreeing to that in writing just verbally.

[otnemem]

I'm going nuts! I can't access ESPN's Web site from work... Anyone feel like copying and quoting the text in this thread? PLEEEEASE?

Oh, why thank you!

[Vincent Lepore]

One match or two or 4 or 5 won't prove who the better poker player is. Successful Poker playing is decided over many, many hours of play. What you are asking could only be effectively accomplished in some sort of tournament format. In a tournament format DN clearly has the head-up advantage if for no other reason than experience. No the only way to prove what BG is claiming is for DN to play as many 4-8k hours as he can over the next year with a goal of 1500-2000 hours and log his results. If this whole shabang is just a shot at DN by BG, this is the only way to prove BG wrong.

Vince

[SoftcoreRevolt]

Daniel did mention Barry wanted a piece of him heads up in 10 games for 500,000 each.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
I love Barry Greenstien!

[quote "The reason these other guys play in tournaments for the most part is because they are broke, because other people put them in a tournament and they've made a name for themselves. But they're not as good as many professionals out there."

... Howard Lederer raised his eyebrows and showed part of his famous weapons-grade stare, then somewhat backed up Greenstein's point.

"I had success in those biggest side games for 10 years," Lederer says. "I think I've gotten a lot of satisfaction and expanded my horizons a little bit and made a conscious decision.


So, indeed, there is truth in Greenstein's argument. Still sounds cranky.

"The crankiness is that for years I'd just bite my tongue when the media would talk about losing players being top players in the game," Greenstein said, preferring not to name names. "I'd say, 'OK, they don't know the difference.' And everything I'd read or see on the news is, from where I sit, false.

" 'Great' is given to people who aren't even winning poker players. So, if someone's not a winning player, and I'm being told that's a 'great' player, they're being put up as top professionals and 'This is how they act.' Then they act like goofballs, and I say, 'That's because they're not (top professionals). You've got the wrong people.'

"I'm almost defending the working poker players around the country and even around the world who make a living playing poker. There are many people who do that, but it's very expensive to go around and play in these tournaments and often not the right way to make their living. They live with their families, they play in the local clubs.

"On some levels, I'm arrogant. That level is, there are cash game players - and not only that but I play in the biggest cash game; what we call the first tier - and a lot of people don't appreciate what the level of differences are between us and people playing in tournaments."

"My crankiness is not for myself, because I have been given - whether I've deserved it or not - almost the best persona of any player in poker history," Greenstein says. "I'm defending other poker professionals."


[/ QUOTE ]
Far be it from me to put words in Mr G's mouth but I believe that he is sayinhg, in effect, that Tournaments ain't poker. Now where have I heard that before?

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where you come up with this, Vince. Do you read poker articles specifically to find passages that can be taken out of context to support points you made months ago?

Greenstein is simply saying that the well-known tournament poker pros would not beat the biggest cash game. There is no discussion about the definition of poker, or whether or not tournament poker is actually poker.

NOTE: I'm going to make a preemptive strike and note that I did not insult you in this response...and if you find an insult you need to reread what I said.

Will

[David Sklansky]

"There are five top players: There's Doyle Brunson, there's Chip Reese, there's Chau Giang, there's Phil Ivey, there's myself," Greenstein says."

I would like to clarify something. Is Barry talking about ALL AROUND play? Surely he can't be suggesting that there is no one better than any of these five in ANY typically played game? I am sure I can name at least one person off this list who plays better than at least one person on the list in Limit Holdem, Pot limit Omaha, Eight or Better Stud and No Limit Deuce To Seven. But maybe Barry disagrees.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure I can name at least one person off this list who plays better than at least one person on the list in Limit Holdem.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Would his initials be DS? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Vincent Lepore]

Without escalating blinds and with blinds relatively small compared to the 500k, one match like this could take ...forever. If they choose to escalate blinds it becomes a tournament and not a cash game. The only thing settled by doing this is who is the better heads=yup tournay player. For this to have meaning they need to play somewhere between 1000-1500s against each other at the same limit.

Vince

[TheShootah]

Who would you put on your top five list of all around Poker Players? Or maybe a Sklansky's List of the best poker players by game would be great!

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know where you come up with this, Vince. Do you read poker articles specifically to find passages that can be taken out of context to support points you made months ago?


[/ QUOTE ]

Before I reply to your other remarks first let me say that I believe that you "know" that by accusing me of taking things out of context to prove a point is an insult. You know that, so please be honest , and then apologize.


Barry also said:

[ QUOTE ]
What tournaments are all about is beating bad players. Building up big chips in tournaments is a skill. I don't want to say they don't have certain skills. But playing good players, they'd have their heads handed to them at the highest levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rosenblaum goes on to say:

[ QUOTE ]
You can doubt Greenstein's contentions about how cash game players compare to tournament players. And he will be happy to welcome you to his game. Bring money.



[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, BG does not come out and say that tournaments are not poker. I did not say the he said that.

What I said was [ QUOTE ]
I believe that he is saying, in effect,

[/ QUOTE ]

"I believe" and "in effect" mean that this is my take on what BG is referring to when he distinguishes between tournament players and cash game players. I might be wrong but I might also be right. Am I not allowed an opinion on this forum?

Vince



Vince

[InfernoLL]

I think its pretty clear that he's referring to players who can beat the big game, which we all know is a mix of games. It would be pretty ridiculous to claim that everyone on that list is better than every other player on earth in every game.

[BarronVangorToth]

[quote Is Barry talking about ALL AROUND play? Surely he can't be suggesting that there is no one better than any of these five in ANY typically played game?

[/ QUOTE ]


I assumed when I read the statement that he was saying that these players are, on average, the five best in ALL the games, so if you were to rate every poker player on a 1-100 scale in each game, those five would have the highest total score.

It would be wholly illogical for him (or anyone) to suggest that the Top 5 players in EACH game were those five people.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely he can't be suggesting that there is no one better

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

What don't you understand about "there are five top players"? It is my understanding that these five players consistently play in the biggest game available. That game is a mixed game. BG is saying that if you know someone that is better than these five:"Bring'em on". Oh, BTW- i see a guy named Lee Salem in those games quite a bit. Is Barry saying that he is a ...not so great player? These super pros, you never know really what they mean, now do you?

Vince

[Voltron87]

What does Barry expect when

1. His games are not televised or well known outside of these forums and small parts of Vegas.

2. The cash results are largely unknown to anyone.

The answer is obvious. The winners in the big game are not as famous as people who win televised tournaments with well known purses. It is a little naive of Barry and the 4 to expect everyone to realize he is the best when the games he plays are fairly private.



And Barry is not saying tournaments are not poker at all. He is saying a large part of them is beating bad players, which requires a certain skill. They do not require a player to beat the other best players in the same way the big games do. They are still poker, and skilled players will do better at them.

[keats]

Seems like you of all people would be able to detect sarcasm

[Vincent Lepore]

When it is to my advantage I use the sarcasm of others to prove a point. You, of all people should recognize that.

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
He is saying a large part of them is beating bad players,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this might be something that Barry should regret saying. A large part of "cash game poker" is beating bad players. Just ask any pro, even Barry.

Vince

[trying2learn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He is saying a large part of them is beating bad players,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this might be something that Barry should regret saying. A large part of "cash game poker" is beating bad players. Just ask any pro, even Barry.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

vince, i don't disagree with you often (and never in a post), but what barry is talking about is that at his level, he isn't beating bad players in cash games. he's beating inferior players, but not bad ones.

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
One match or two or 4 or 5 won't prove who the better poker player is. Successful Poker playing is decided over many, many hours of play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this coming from the same person who recently said that a certain Pro Player was terrible based on 2 or 3 televised hands?

(Disclaimer: I am not a detractor or supporter of said Pro)

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He is saying a large part of them is beating bad players,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this might be something that Barry should regret saying. A large part of "cash game poker" is beating bad players. Just ask any pro, even Barry.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]


No. Barry is saying that if the best regular tournament players who are relatively good, sat in the big game they would be losing players. A lot of Barry and the 5's profit comes from beating "bad" players (relative), the celebrities who play in the game, and a lot comes from beating very good players who are not "great". There is "very good" and there is "great". Barry is saying those 5 are "great" and the tournament players who are famous are good, but by no means the best players in the world and in the biggest games they are live ones.

Part of Barry's income comes from playing weaker celebrities and dabblers, but a lot comes from beating players who are very good but not "great". Barry is saying he can beat these "very good" players but the famous tournament professionals cannot. In a tournament you can win enough chips from bad players to negate the fact that you can't really beat the other strong players, and if you get a little lucky you get a big payday on TV.

[WillMagic]

From dictionary.com:

insult: To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness.

Did I do this? I seriously don't think so. Saying "You are stupid," is an insult. Saying "You are wrong," is not.

But anyway...we can argue semantics all day.

And of course you are entitled to your opinion. I simply think that your opinion is flat-out wrong. Am I not entitled to this opinion? It it an insult if I say that I think your opinion is flat-out wrong?

The question of whether or not tournaments are poker is a semantics question. To accurately assess Barry's thoughts on the matter, there would have had to have been some discussion of semantics on Barry's part. Without said discussion, your opinion that Barry was ESSENTIALLY saying IN EFFECT that tournaments are not poker is baseless.

Ok? I didn't insult you...I argued with you. We do it all the time on this forum. If you want to get along with others on this forum, you need to learn to distinguish the two.

Will

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
"There are five top players: There's Doyle Brunson, there's Chip Reese, there's Chau Giang, there's Phil Ivey, there's myself," Greenstein says."

I would like to clarify something. Is Barry talking about ALL AROUND play? Surely he can't be suggesting that there is no one better than any of these five in ANY typically played game? I am sure I can name at least one person off this list who plays better than at least one person on the list in Limit Holdem, Pot limit Omaha, Eight or Better Stud and No Limit Deuce To Seven. But maybe Barry disagrees.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems almost certain that Greenstein is talking about overall play as found in a mixed game such as the $4k-8k big game. In the player analysis on his website, he does single out certain individuals as being extremely strong in specific games (e.g. Ted Forrest in 7CS 8 or better, Sammy Farha in Omaha - note that these are IIRC, as I'm having trouble accessing Greenstein's site). It seems reasonable to assume that Greenstein feels that, at least in these games, these particular players could hold their own against the "big five".

Lots of assumptions in the above, however.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Barry is saying that if the best regular tournament players who are relatively good, sat in the big game they would be losing players. A lot of Barry and the 5's profit comes from beating "bad" players (relative), the celebrities who play in the game, and a lot comes from beating very good players who are not "great". There is "very good" and there is "great". Barry is saying those 5 are "great" and the tournament players who are famous are good, but by no means the best players in the world and in the biggest games they are live ones.

Part of Barry's income comes from playing weaker celebrities and dabblers, but a lot comes from beating players who are very good but not "great". Barry is saying he can beat these "very good" players but the famous tournament professionals cannot. In a tournament you can win enough chips from bad players to negate the fact that you can't really beat the other strong players, and if you get a little lucky you get a big payday on TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that this was very good and bares repeating.

Vince

[Chobohoya]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to get along with others on this forum, you need to learn to distinguish the two.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL where have you been man?

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this coming from the same person who recently said that a certain Pro Player was terrible based on 2 or 3 televised hands?


[/ QUOTE ]

Show me in any post anywhere that I ever claimed or initmated that that certain player was even a fair poker player let alone a professional. I said he relyed on luck and those were two instances that I used to prove my point. I never claimed he was a long term +EV poker player which would take considerably more examples to prove. But a dice player is a gambler and that's how PP plays poker. At least from what i've seen. Do you have any examples to the contrary?

Vince

[Voltron87]

I think the idea that tournament poker is not real poker is an overgeneralization. It is high variance poker where less than stellar players can win tons of money, and short term success is misinterpreted and overrated. Tournament players can get by and finish ahead of players who they are not quite as good as. This is due to the amount of dead money and variance. These players would be dead in the water in the big cash games, but can get lucky in one or two key spots and win. So it is poker, it is just high variance and most people don't understand the short term variance. They give too much credit to the results and don't appreciate how hard it is to beat the big games.

that said, what does barry expect? His game is not public and not on TV. He seems to expect everyone to acknowledge him and the other 4 as the alpha and omega of poker even though it would be impossible for a layman or journalist to actually know this.

[theBruiser500]

good interview with greenstein, at 56 posts was expecting to see some interesting stuff going on here maybe some barry g. posts. very disappointed to see it is all from vince lepore.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
tournament poker.... It is high variance poker

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not high variance poker. Short handed or heads up poker is high variance poker. Playing in loose aggressive games is high variance poker. Tournamnets are pressure cookers. First of all I believe that there are skills associated with Tournament Poker. But that said Tournament Poker only resembles Cash Game poker in the rules to determine who has the best hand. Granted when the stack to blind ratio is great the effects of tournament structure are minimized but they are still present. This allows the more proficient poker player a small advantage over his less competen opponents. But in tournaments when you are broke you are gone. This is always a factor to contend with in tournament poker. Escasalting blinds make tournaments an eventual Crap shoot. For an extreme example, suppose that the WPT tournaments were all one winner. Almost without exception you would find two players headsup with stack to blind ratio such that one or the others only choice was to move all of their chips in regardless of what cards they held. This does not happen in cash games unless the one or both players are unprepared.

Vince

[Voltron87]

they are high variance poker, that is why very rarely in these large fields is the best player going to win. good players who get lucky will win.

There is a difference between a crapshoot and a high variance event.

[Matt R.]

Tournament poker is the very definition of high variance gambling. The best player in a tournament undoubtedly has a positive expectation in a large field, but this same player could play in this tournament hundreds of times and never win, or finish out of the money dozens of times in a row. This is the definition of high variance. And the only difference between a NL tournament and a NL cash game is that the blinds escalate to force action, bringing short stack NL poker into play. Aside from this and the way tournaments are payed out, there are no differences. When these are the only differences, how can you say that tournament *poker* isn't even poker, period?

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
"There are five top players: There's Doyle Brunson, there's Chip Reese, there's Chau Giang, there's Phil Ivey, there's myself," Greenstein says."

I would like to clarify something. Is Barry talking about ALL AROUND play? Surely he can't be suggesting that there is no one better than any of these five in ANY typically played game? I am sure I can name at least one person off this list who plays better than at least one person on the list in Limit Holdem, Pot limit Omaha, Eight or Better Stud and No Limit Deuce To Seven. But maybe Barry disagrees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pot Limit Omaha, i would say Sammy Farha. Limit Holdem, probably Jennifer Harmon or Howard Lederer in top form.

Best All-Around: i'd say Chip Reese. it's said that he is quite sufficient at every form of high-stakes poker played.

the others? you'll have to fill us in.

[Voltron87]

you really have no idea what you're talking about.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
And the only difference between a NL tournament and a NL cash game is that the blinds escalate to force action,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. The concept of "Your're broke you're gone" is impoassible to ignore in tournaments. This fact has a continuos disproportionate, adverse, relative to correct poker play, affect on ones play in a tournament. The fact that you have to reach some point to actually win real money also has a tremendous influence on ones play. You can't quit winners, you must play regardless of who your opponent(s) are. These and numerous factors in a tournament force play one way or another.

Poker tournamens may be high variance gambling as you say but so are dice and roulette. Neither of those games are poker and neither is a poker tournament. Dice is a negative EV game for the player. Tournamens are negative EV for a "poker" player! Try it, try playing your best poker
in a poker tournament. You won't have a prayer of winning.

[ QUOTE ]
The best player in a tournament undoubtedly has a positive expectation

[/ QUOTE ]

If you meean the best "poker" player then I blelieve that you are very, very wrong. The best tournament player has a +EV, yes I agree but the best "poker" player might not have much of a chance of winning at all. There are lots of poker pros that avoided playing poker tournaments for years that are just now realizing that because of the interest there is money to be made there. These people realize that their poker skill gives them an advantage over non poker players but they pros are not studying poker they are studying tournament play. Read Sklansky's Tournament Poker, read HOH. These and other books or their ilke are about tournament play not Poker. They do not addresss poker playing at all.

Vince

[Voltron87]

The first part of what Matt J said (blinds) is wrong.

The second part

[ QUOTE ]
The best player in a tournament undoubtedly has a positive expectation

[/ QUOTE ]

is correct. Note he did not say "the highest positive expectation". There is a correlation between poker skill and tournament EV. It is not a crapshoot. There is just a lot of luck and variance involved. There are also unique skills needed for tournaments, just as there are skills needed for Pot Limit or Hilo or any other form of poker. But tournaments are undoubtedly poker, and they involve poker skill.

[carpe2k]

I see things are little less civil then earlier, but we agree to disagree. The skills involved in beating high stakes cash games and navigating thru a minefield of hundreds if not thousands of players in a tournament are totally different. Apples and oranges. Possibly 6600 players at this years WSOP should make things interesting. Personalities make TV shows more entertaining. More entertaining does not always equal more high skilled action. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[trillig]

Having played in well over 100 tournaments now, I conclude that the LUCK factor is far too strong for it to NOT factor in heavily on results for many players, so that leads me to believe that cash game results are a much better indicator as Barry said.

Name one notable player who has 5 considerable victories in one year in the past 10 years, the list is tiny, isn't it?

That speaks volumes about tournament poker.

Vince Burgio won 3 smallish # of entrant ones in a week recently, is he the greatest now or for the moment?

If we changed this and had the full stats on the 'tournament pros' perhaps we'd have a clearer picture, and by this I mean: total tournaments entered, # of cashes, total spent, total recovered, etc etc. It would be an interesting read and eye opener, I am sure!

But why stop at da pros, figure yours out and see where you are at....
I hope you are already doing this!

-Bri

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
The first part of what Matt J said (blinds) is wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how what I said regarding the escalating blinds is wrong. The differences between a NL cash game and tournament are, in fact, the escalating blinds and the payout structure. The way the payouts of tournaments work implies the difference of not being able to continue playing after going broke. You simply cannot leave until you're broke or one person is left with all of the chips. This obviously leads to a lot of subtle strategy differences, especially with short stack play being much more common. However, most plays that are +EV for chips in tourney play are also +EV in NL cash play. Exceptions occur in very specific instances around the bubble or after the inflection point, but these are very situation dependent. My original contention was simply that it is ludicrous to say that NL tournaments aren't even a form of poker because there are only a few very simple rule differences between tourney and cash play. Like I said, this leads to differences in strategy, but it is most definitely still poker.

[toots]

I still find the ultimate statement on NL tournament play is Sklansky's "System."

The fact that it's even remotely successful at getting you into the money, and to my knowledge, the fact that no similarly easy system exists for limit cash games, tells me that I'm gonna be a lot more wary of the successful ring game player.

[mrwatson23]

Limit Hold'em: David Oppenheim, Todd Brunson, Howard Lederer, Jennifer Harman, Lenny Martin, Mickey Coleman.

PLO: Sammy Farha, Lyle Berman, Donnacha O'Dea.

Stud 8/b: Ted Forrest, John Hennigan, Tom Hufnagle.

No Limit Deuce to Seven: Mark Weitzman.

[Aceshigh7]

I'll give Barry Greenstein the benefit of the doubt and assume that his leaving Johnny Chan off the list was just an oversight.

[BK_]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll give Barry Greenstein the benefit of the doubt and assume that his leaving Johnny Chan off the list was just an oversight.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol why is that? i guess based on rounders?

[Russ McGinley]

I doubt it, since Chan got totally outplayed preflop by a little punk.

[twankerr]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt it, since Chan got totally outplayed preflop by a little punk.

[/ QUOTE ]

POTD

[Aceshigh7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll give Barry Greenstein the benefit of the doubt and assume that his leaving Johnny Chan off the list was just an oversight.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol why is that? i guess based on rounders?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, maybe based on the fact that he has been a winning player in the big game for years?

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
based on the fact that he has been a winning player in the big game for years?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that?

Vince

[Aceshigh7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
based on the fact that he has been a winning player in the big game for years?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that?

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

I read a quote from Doyle Brunson where he stated that Chan was a consistent winner in the big game. Can't find the quote offhand at this time but here are a couple of quotes from some other players with firsthand knowledge.

"I play with Johnny on a regular basis in the highest games in the world and there is no tougher all around player." - Chip Reese

"I have been playing poker with Johnny Chan for over twenty years and he's still the greatest player I have ever played against." - Bobby Baldwin

[Vincent Lepore]

Thanks.

Vince.

[NLSoldier]

This thread was really cool until vince started posting in it.

[jojobinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
based on the fact that he has been a winning player in the big game for years?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that?

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

I read a quote from Doyle Brunson where he stated that Chan was a consistent winner in the big game. Can't find the quote offhand at this time but here are a couple of quotes from some other players with firsthand knowledge.

"I play with Johnny on a regular basis in the highest games in the world and there is no tougher all around player." - Chip Reese

"I have been playing poker with Johnny Chan for over twenty years and he's still the greatest player I have ever played against." - Bobby Baldwin

[/ QUOTE ]

he didn't leave chan out on an oversight. apparently he sees things differently than baldwin and brunson. from barrygreenstein.com:

[ QUOTE ]
In the late ‘80’s and early ‘90’s, Johnny was the best no-limit hold’em tournament player in the world. Since then, he has used his tournament success as a vehicle to get his himself involved in different business ventures. He is still a skilled player, but he plays very impatiently as if he is late for a meeting.

[/ QUOTE ]

#1: he lists him as a successful tournament player, and we know from the article what he thinks about tournament players

#2: he's still a skilled player: backhanded compliment

#3: plays as if he's late for a meeting. i can't believe that being impatient is good for a ring game.

discuss

[Vincent Lepore]

I've heard, don't know for sure, just heard, from some pretty knowlegeable fellows, won't mention thier names, that Johnny ain't the Johnny in live action that he was in the Rounders WSOP! In fact I heard that he went broke in the big games. Like I said--just hearsay. My reply was always "Well if he went broke, how is it that he is still playing in those games"? I always got a shrugged shoulder from the knowledgeable guys. Greensteins buisness comment might account for why he still is able to play in the big ones. I use to believe that he made lots of money playing stud against Larry Flynt. Don't know for sure, just an off hand observatio from seeing him a few times at the Hustler in Larry's game. But who knows for sure. Not me, that's for sure.

Vince

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this coming from the same person who recently said that a certain Pro Player was terrible based on 2 or 3 televised hands?


[/ QUOTE ]

Show me in any post anywhere that I ever claimed or initmated that that certain player was even a fair poker player let alone a professional. I said he relyed on luck and those were two instances that I used to prove my point. ....a dice player is a gambler and that's how PP plays poker. At least from what i've seen. Do you have any examples to the contrary?


[/ QUOTE ]
You just proved my point!! You are saying that this person is a "luck based player" just from the smallest of small sample sizes.

I don't need any examples to the contrary...I don't know anything about any of these players. You are the one who is always claiming to have knowledge of all the top players from your "sources" that you won't name by name.

If you are going to make these statements the burden of proof is on you... not the rest of us who think your logic is flawed.

-tpir

P.S. If you actually want some evidence to the contrary for the player you referenced by name... I could dig up some threads/posts where he gives analytical breakdowns of hands that a "dice player" would have no understanding of.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying that this person is a "luck based player" just from the smallest of small sample sizes.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's right. They are the only examples I have, true. But they are enough to show how this guy plays or played. Maybe now that I've exposed him he has learned that he needs to play better and picked up Sklansky's book. He probably should thank me for showing him the way. You seem to miss the point that I am proving his "luck" based play not skillful play. Skillfull play requires a greater sample size to prove. What don't you understand about that?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't need any examples to the contrary...I don't know anything about any of these players.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are cliaming that he is skillfull, you most certainly need examples or at the minimum something demonstrable (reasons) backing up your cla1m.

[ QUOTE ]
You are the one who is always claiming to have knowledge of all the top players from your "sources" that you won't name by name.


[/ QUOTE ]

Show me where I have stated that I have knowledge of "all" the top players. You are blowing smoke out your butt. Show me where I said that a knowledgeable source told me anything at all about PP. I made that statement about Johnny Chan that is true but no one else.

[ QUOTE ]
I could dig up some threads/posts where he gives analytical breakdowns of hands that a "dice player" would have no understanding of.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do it! I don't believe that you can. Besides I bet that a good dice player knows a lot more about dice than this guy knows about Poker.

Vince

[Voltron87]

Ok I think this is just semantics. I think we agree, just when you said something like "tournaments are just cash games with escalating blinds" i disagreed since they are a wide range of different strategies used in tournaments rather than cash games. which you think too.

[IgorSmiles]

Successful cash players get more respect than successful tourny players. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Barry G is not the only one to feel this way, despite the glamor of TV coverage. Tournaments play better on TV because they have conclusions, and because the less experienced players have a shot. That fact in itself proves the point, I'd say.

About the WPT and logos. Does the WPT add money to their prize pools? They should. It's all well and good what they've done for the game, and they have done plenty. But they've profitted plenty too.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[quote Is Barry talking about ALL AROUND play? Surely he can't be suggesting that there is no one better than any of these five in ANY typically played game?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assumed when I read the statement that he was saying that these players are, on average, the five best in ALL the games, so if you were to rate every poker player on a 1-100 scale in each game, those five would have the highest total score.

It would be wholly illogical for him (or anyone) to suggest that the Top 5 players in EACH game were those five people.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood him to mean those were the top 5 players in the "Big Game" where they play a variety of poker games at the highest stakes.

[That guy]

Re the WPT:
But they've profitted plenty too

Actually, they haven't turned a profit yet. Lost money again in March quarter...

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050510/106108.html?.v=1

Of course, the founders have made lots of money through going public and I don't doubt they WILL be profitable... but right now, there is no 'profit' that they could add back to prize pools..

[tpir90036]

I get the feeling that I am falling into some elaborate ruse and you either don't fully believe the things you are saying or that there are 3 or 4 layers of sarcasm that I am missing. I will play along anyway.


[ QUOTE ]
That's right. They are the only examples I have, true. But they are enough to show how this guy plays or played.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I mean. You seem a little out there sometimes... but you absolutely have to be smarter than this.


[ QUOTE ]
If you are cliaming that he is skillfull, you most certainly need examples or at the minimum something demonstrable (reasons) backing up your cla1m.

[/ QUOTE ]
At no point did I claim he or anyone else was/was not skillful. I am simply pointing out that you have no grounds for making a claim either way.


[ QUOTE ]
Do it! I don't believe that you can. Besides I bet that a good dice player knows a lot more about dice than this guy knows about Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
What would be the point? You have publicly declared your disdain for him so many times that even if I did provide links you would most likely 1) not read them or 2) denounce them regardless of their content.

In any event:
One (http://extempore.livejournal.com/34806.html)
Two (http://extempore.livejournal.com/36010.html)
JJ analysis (http://www.livejournal.com/users/patrissimo/68574.html?thread=264670#t264670)
More AQ analysis (http://extempore.livejournal.com/42506.html)
Bay 101 final hand (http://extempore.livejournal.com/44085.html)
Bay 101 final hand long version (http://extempore.livejournal.com/44403.html)

That's enough for now since I have doubts that you will even read those. I still have the rest of '04 and '05 for more if you want.

-tpir

[flair1239]

How does it matter where they make there money.

If Phil Hellmuth makes $10,000,000 from writing a book and selling poker chips. And Barry G. makes 9,000,000 from playing in the "big game".

Who has had the more successful poker Career ?

[IgorSmiles]

Actually, if Helmuth makes $10,000,000 writing a book. He has a very successful WRITING career.

[IgorSmiles]

[ QUOTE ]
Re the WPT:
But they've profitted plenty too

Actually, they haven't turned a profit yet. Lost money again in March quarter...

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050510/106108.html?.v=1

Of course, the founders have made lots of money through going public and I don't doubt they WILL be profitable... but right now, there is no 'profit' that they could add back to prize pools..

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Thanks for the response.

[hotdog da 2rd]

[ QUOTE ]
How does it matter where they make there money.

If Phil Hellmuth makes $10,000,000 from writing a book and selling poker chips. And Barry G. makes 9,000,000 from playing in the "big game".

Who has had the more successful poker Career ?


[/ QUOTE ]

making $10,000,000 selling potatoe chips doesn't make you a successful poker player, and those better be some good [censored] chips. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, if Helmuth makes $10,000,000 writing a book. He has a very successful WRITING career.

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantically you're right since the other poster said "writing a book". But if he said "writing a poker book" that is part of his poker career.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, if Helmuth makes $10,000,000 writing a book. He has a very successful WRITING career.

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantically you're right since the other poster said "writing a book". But if he said "writing a poker book" that is part of his poker career.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is obviously what I meant. So some of these guys have discovered that these side projects are nice safe money... who cares.

I really can't believe that a player as savvy as Barry G. would get his panties in a bunch over who the public thinks is the best Poker player. The only reason I can think of that he would make these comments, is to try to provoke some of these players into playing in his game.

[IgorSmiles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, if Helmuth makes $10,000,000 writing a book. He has a very successful WRITING career.

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantically you're right since the other poster said "writing a book". But if he said "writing a poker book" that is part of his poker career.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not semantics at all. Writing the best poker book in the world doesnt make you the best poker player. The arguement is not who makes the most money off the industry of poker, but who is the best poker player. Generally, making the most money at a poker game with the least amount of luck involved is what would make one considered the best poker player. Selling books, internet sites and Knob Creek is great coin if you can get it, but does not get you any respect as a card player.

[IgorSmiles]

You might be on to something about challenging the tourny players to get them in his game. But I think he's just venting because he thinks it's laughable that some guys are considered great players because they win huge prize pools by catching cards and busted ass hands.

[West]

I think it would probably be very easy to play some kind of super tight rock strategy in limit cash games and be as "successful" as the system would be in the long run in tournament play.

[Vincent Lepore]

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>One
Two
JJ analysis
More AQ analysis
Bay 101 final hand
Bay 101 final hand long version </pre><hr />

Interesting that the first two are concerning the hand where he sucked out on Gus Hansen with the worse hand, confirming his "luckiness".

As for the all of these examples. You took these analyses form his "Journal". Everyone should surmise that he hired a team of experts to edit his ramblings on that site. I bet none of these analyses were even read by him. Let's face it the guys ego won't let him put up something that others could easily dispute. I am beginnig to see where you are coming from. You are a PP henchman, a sort of soto voce, similar to John Bond for Roy Cooke. What is going on with these people? Are they so afraid to speak for themselves that they send out front men to do their dirty work? Come on show some courage.

Vince

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that you can. Besides I bet that a good dice player knows a lot more about dice than this guy knows about Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul has embarrassed you repeatedly over the course of years, both here and RGP. And it is true that Paul's posts are less than polite to you. But you know what? I've read hundreds of posts from him and hundreds of posts from you. From that basis only, Paul's posts indicate a far deeper insight into poker than your own. Please do try to look past your hurt feelings to the underlying reality: Paul understands far more about poker than you do. A simple comparison of your tourney results to his is persuasive evidence of this fact. Usual qualifiers with respect to the accuracy of the Hendon stats.

Paul:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=s&amp;n=1134

Vince:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=s&amp;n=36437

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Paul's long-term hourly winrate, ROI, or other objective metrics far exceed Vince's.

I fully suspect I'll receive a vitriolic, invective-filled email as a result of this post. I wonder who it might be from?

[betgo]

Barry seems to be complaining that tournament players are getting the recognition and TV exposure when the best players are the ones that beat the Big Game, he, Brunson, Resse, Ivey, and Giang.

This is more or less true. The stakes in the Big Game are much higher than $10K tournaments. However, Negraenu and Hanson seem to be doing pretty well playing major tournaments.

The talk about well known tournament players being broke and making a living off poker paraphenalia is an exageration. It may be true in some cases.

However, most well known tournament players are strong playes who could make good money from tournaments or cash games at some level, even if they could not beat the Big Game. There are an awful lot of pros who get by playing 40/80, 5/10 NL, or $200-1000 tournaments, who would never think of playing in a major tournament or playing for 1/10th the stakes of the Big Game.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would probably be very easy to play some kind of super tight rock strategy in limit cash games and be as "successful" as the system would be in the long run in tournament play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

If you don't believe me try it. You would probably beat .02/.04-1/2 this way. But the way the small stakes games are now I doubt that you could beat the Party 3/6 game playing a "super tight" strategy, much less any game over 10/20.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason I can think of that he would make these comments, is to try to provoke some of these players into playing in his game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe people whose opinions matter to him are doubting that he's really the best in the world. Seemed like that was the main reason Chau Giang re-entered the tournament scene, to impress Jodie Foster. Er, sorry, his kids.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only reason I can think of that he would make these comments, is to try to provoke some of these players into playing in his game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe people whose opinions matter to him are doubting that he's really the best in the world. Seemed like that was the main reason Chau Giang re-entered the tournament scene, to impress Jodie Foster. Er, sorry, his kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is, why would he even care if he is the best in the world or not?

He is making a lot of money in the game. Good...
He enjoys what he does... even better...

So why should he care if a bunch of clueless people think that Chris Moneymaker is the greatest player ever?

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would probably be very easy to play some kind of super tight rock strategy in limit cash games and be as "successful" as the system would be in the long run in tournament play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong - not in big games.

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone should surmise that he hired a team of experts to edit his ramblings on that site. I bet none of these analyses were even read by him.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, now I know there is no way to argue logically with you about this subject.


[ QUOTE ]
You are a PP henchman, a sort of soto voce, similar to John Bond for Roy Cooke.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have reiterated time and time again that I am neither a supporter nor a detractor of any of these people. I don't know them personally... I have no feelings one way or the other towards them. I also don't know about your history with these people, nor do I care...that is not the point of my posting. The point is that I can't help but call you out on your logical blunders since they are so great and numerous. And P.S., dropping a "soto voce" on the argument does not somehow elevate your critical thinking to an adequate level.

I did not realize that your "personal involvement" with these people would preclude you from realizing the error in your thinking.

(To recap: the error is not in *what* you think so much as it is the limited amount of evidence you are basing it on. Very few people on these boards have the ability to say anything meaningful about any of these people's skills with any degree of certainty. And I am not only talking about PP.)

Anyway, it is obvious that either:
1) You are too blinded by dislike/hatred to notice your errors.
2) You do in fact notice the errors and refuse to admit to them thanks to said dislike/hatred.
3) This is all a big joke that I don't get and you just like stirring the pot to kill time.

Either or all are fine by me. Bad logic is my pet peeve...just trying to help out. In any event, I am done with this dead-end discussion/thread for now. Take care.

-tpir

[Daniel Hoerr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that you can. Besides I bet that a good dice player knows a lot more about dice than this guy knows about Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul has embarrassed you repeatedly over the course of years, both here and RGP. And it is true that Paul's posts are less than polite to you. But you know what? I've read hundreds of posts from him and hundreds of posts from you. From that basis only, Paul's posts indicate a far deeper insight into poker than your own. Please do try to look past your hurt feelings to the underlying reality: Paul understands far more about poker than you do. A simple comparison of your tourney results to his is persuasive evidence of this fact. Usual qualifiers with respect to the accuracy of the Hendon stats.

Paul:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=s&amp;n=1134

Vince:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=s&amp;n=36437

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Paul's long-term hourly winrate, ROI, or other objective metrics far exceed Vince's.

I fully suspect I'll receive a vitriolic, invective-filled email as a result of this post. I wonder who it might be from?

[/ QUOTE ]

POTY

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it would probably be very easy to play some kind of super tight rock strategy in limit cash games and be as "successful" as the system would be in the long run in tournament play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

If you don't believe me try it. You would probably beat .02/.04-1/2 this way. But the way the small stakes games are now I doubt that you could beat the Party 3/6 game playing a "super tight" strategy, much less any game over 10/20.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well he's only saying it would be as "successful" as using the system in tourneys. Thats not a very high bar to reach.

[West]

Exactly - that's why "successful" was in quotes.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly - that's why "successful" was in quotes.

[/ QUOTE ]

My mistake.

[Vincent Lepore]

Finally the real Henchman replies. Howard, are your knees a bit soiled from all the down and up (mostly down) that you've been doing lately. Hey, why not, I bet "Paul" as you so dearly call him will highly reward you. He might just open his zipper himself next time. Hope so, you deserve it! Tell "Paul" that big meany Vince is telling the truth about him and you can't stop him. Waaaaaaaaaa!

Vince

[transmitt]

this makes the barry g v. daniel n. match up at the wynn all the more interesting. Wonder if the house is staking a portion/all of DN's game as publicity?

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly - that's why "successful" was in quotes.

[/ QUOTE ]

fair enough. I just think the NL system is a lot more powerful than your suggested limit poker system.

[VBM]

i've always been a fan of barryg b/c he seemed to me like a guy who had no use for pomp &amp; circumstance b/c he believed firmly in what he knew to be the truth.

i guess the guy is only human though and it sounds like his ego was a bit bruised by his "contemporaries" garnering so much attention.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
There are five top players: There's Doyle Brunson, there's Chip Reese, there's Chau Giang, there's Phil Ivey, there's myself," Greenstein says.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering Doyle Brunson was about to have a losing year until he won a WPT tourney, should he be included?

Of course variance is important even at those levels and Barry Greenstein seems has no real reason to lie.

[bluffski]

I think he said at close to the end of the article to "bring money" if you didnt agree with his statements. I think this means you Mr. Sklansky or whoever else doesnt agree.

[DesertCat]

Vince, since you know so much about poker, why aren't you winning any tournaments or even making any final tables? Why are you still playing so low? Why not move up to the limits where PP plays and take his money?

[Vincent Lepore]

The last tournament I played with over 200 entrants was in a Las Vegas Casino. I made the final table finishing 9th. That was last week. I don't consider tournaments poker. They require a difeferent set of skills in addition to poker skills. If I were to play tournaments regurarly I would win money, that is I would have a +EV. I do not want to make the investment of time and money to prove this out. Did you know that just before Daniel negranu went on a torrential winning streak he openly declared that he was not going to play tournaments because cash games were much more lucrative. Tournaments are becoming very attractive now because of the interest generated by the WPT and other popular TV events. I might play more later this year.
As for why I play 15-30 and don't move up. I do not play a lot of poker anymore. When I do I win. I do not like sitting at a poker table for hours and hours. My bankroll would allow me to play 30-60 maybe a little higher but then I would probably have to play more hours. Plus I just don't feel like dealing with the swings that playing at higher limits bring.

One last thing. PP made his a lot (lotsa) money as a Dot.Com executive. I didn't. If I had I would play in all the big tournaments too. Having money has a way of making entry fees insignificant. That's quite an advantage. Have you ever asked PP if he has a +EV at the limits he plays? Why don't you?

Vince

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever asked PP if he has a +EV at the limits he plays? Why don't you?

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to, since Sklansky has already said PP is one of the best poker players in the world.

Just like I don't have to ask whether he's a good tourney player with 5 WSOP final tables (three last year alone!) and two second places. Or with 3 WPT final tables and a first and second. Or over $2M in lifetime tournament winnings.

I guess I should just take the word of some random 15-30 player, when a monkey can win in the Bellagio at that limit. If you want to claim to be some poker expert, move up past 30-60 first.

[Vincent Lepore]

Show me anywhere that that I've claimed to be a poker expert. You are a lying fool.

Vince

[David Sklansky]

I don't have to, since Sklansky has already said PP is one of the best poker players in the world.

No I didn't.

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He is saying a large part of them is beating bad players,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this might be something that Barry should regret saying. A large part of "cash game poker" is beating bad players. Just ask any pro, even Barry.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

He could be playing with the egos of a lot of poker players to get more people into his game.

I also think that most of what he is saying is correct. Players can't be considered great if they haven't consistently beaten the best players in the biggest games. Think of all the other games and sports for examples.

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]

So why should he care if a bunch of clueless people think that Chris Moneymaker is the greatest player ever?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think Michael Jordon wants to be considered one of the top few basketball players that ever lived? Do you think that the football greats wouldn't be a little upset if people were saying that a bunch of people who never played in the NFL (the biggest game) were great players?

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have to, since Sklansky has already said PP is one of the best poker players in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe DesertCat is referring to this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1435626&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp; o=&amp;fpart=1&amp;vc=1) about the 10 *smartest* poker players. Not the same as best.

[dana33]

Greenstein seems to contradict himself. On the one hand, he says, "Sure these guys are successful in tournaments, but their competition is morons." On the other hand, he says that these guys are always broke. So where is all this tournament money they're winning from these morons going?

Also, isn't the point of poker from a strictly financial perspective to make the most money with the least effort? Who would WANT to play in "the big game" if it's so hard to beat? I think the answer is those who either genuinely want to be as skilled as possible because they love the game and the challenge, or those who want to be seen in others' eyes as a bigshot top player. Greenstein's rant makes it sound like he falls at least partly into the latter category.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe DesertCat is referring to this post about the 10 *smartest* poker players. Not the same as best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of what he is referring to, he came up here spouting bull and lying and ragging one me. Look at his profile. Look at the picture he uses. What do you think his purpose was? Do you believe that he is man enough to apologize. Never! He's a Phillips idolizer! No courage or sense of fairness in these people. PP sends people up here to egg me on and then they go to his Journal and report. check it out! I was asked questions by a poster in this thread. Why I don't play touranments and why I stay at the limit I do? I responded openly and honestly. Then this PP hero worshiper at the behest of his idol makes a personal attack towards me. Where is the outcry for banning him for his behavior!

Vince

[IgorSmiles]

[ QUOTE ]


Also, isn't the point of poker from a strictly financial perspective to make the most money with the least effort?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the point is to make the most amount of money, period. To be considered the most "successful" poker player, you have to make the most money. But to be considered the "best" player, you have to make the most money against the toughest competition.

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Also, isn't the point of poker from a strictly financial perspective to make the most money with the least effort?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the point is to make the most amount of money, period. To be considered the most "successful" poker player, you have to make the most money. But to be considered the "best" player, you have to make the most money against the toughest competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

[skaboomizzy]

I think Barry is getting at this:

Think of all the poker players you would normally see in an imaginary 1000-player WPT field. Pick an imaginary player who's maybe... #250 in the field in terms of total all-around poker ability. Player #250 goes on a great run for 4 or 5 days, and wins the tournament for $3,000,000.

Off of that $3,000,000, our good friend player #250 can:

- play WPT and WSOP events for years, hoping to get lucky and win another.
- make a couple hundred thousand dollars off of a DVD, book, commemerative chipset, etc.
- get tons of airtime and a sponsorship from a site, or a B&amp;M, or whatever
- constantly have a "champion" image in the eyes of Fishy Joe because, HEY HE WON A TOURNAMENT ON TV!

On the other hand, Player #250 can sit down with Barry, Chau, Chip and Doyle with no observers, no cameras, no publicity and play some $20k-$40K mixed games.

Between being a "tournament pro" and playing with the 4-5 best players in the world, which do you think is the better career move for Mr. #250?

I think Barry is just DYING for Mr. #250 to play. I'm not so sure that's the most +EV move for #250, though.

[That guy]

isn't what Barry saying essentially:

cash games have the right blend of skill &amp; luck

with tournaments, the luck factor is just too disproportional relative to skill

---------

but it is this 'tournament' luck factor that is really driving the popularity of poker (Moneymaker, WPT, ESPN etc...)

My impression is that Barry G is basically calling Gus Hansen and Daniel Negreanu the real live ones... and he is implying it about guys like John Juanda, Phil Hellmuth and Chris Ferguson.

They really ought to get something like 'Live at the Bike' going for the 'big game' or just have it on whatever the biggest game at the Bellagio or Wynn is... That could be HUGE.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

Regardless of what he is referring to, he came up here spouting bull and lying and ragging one me. Look at his profile. Look at the picture he uses. What do you think his purpose was? Do you believe that he is man enough to apologize. Never! He's a Phillips idolizer! No courage or sense of fairness in these people. PP sends people up here to egg me on and then they go to his Journal and report. check it out! I was asked questions by a poster in this thread. Why I don't play touranments and why I stay at the limit I do? I responded openly and honestly. Then this PP hero worshiper at the behest of his idol makes a personal attack towards me. Where is the outcry for banning him for his behavior!

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Vince, please point out a single lie in my posts (and not confusing "smartest" with "best"). You said PP needed a team of helpers to write his own posts, I just pointed out that his "team" can't help him compile his stellar tournament record.

I'm not sure why my avatar was modified without my permission. I was only using your picture as a tribute until you made a final table at the WSOP or WPT tournament, something that should be easy for you since Paul's done it eight times already.

And note that I never insulted you. Review my posts carefully, if you can find a single insult, then you have my word I'll provide you with a sincere apology.

Lastly I have never met, spoken to or as much as exchanged an e-mail with Mr. Phillips. Like Fossilman I find his writing on poker illuminating, and I would like to read more posts by both of them. You occasionally have rare posts that are rational or interesting, but they tend to be too abrasive for me to appreciate. I hope someday you will learn to have healthy discussions with others without allowing disagreements to mushroom into bickering and hatred.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have to, since Sklansky has already said PP is one of the best poker players in the world.

Just like I don't have to ask whether he's a good tourney player with 5 WSOP final tables (three last year alone!) and two second places. Or with 3 WPT final tables and a first and second. Or over $2M in lifetime tournament winnings.

I guess I should just take the word of some random 15-30 player, when a monkey can win in the Bellagio at that limit. If you want to claim to be some poker expert, move up past 30-60 first.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Vince, please point out a single lie in my posts (and not confusing "smartest" with "best").

[/ QUOTE ]

You are almost funny but sad is a more appropraite description. You didn't confuse "smartest" with "best". Can't you tell the truth even when it hits you right between your eyes. You had me! That was what you thought. It's right there in the tone of your post. Sklansky gave you the amuntion by saying Phillips was the best! Well. He didn't! And now you say it was just some confusion.
Yeah, it was confusion alright the confusion of a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Grow up, face it, apologize when you are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why my avatar was modified without my permission. I was only using your picture as a tribute until you made a final table at the WSOP or WPT tournament, something that should be easy for you since Paul's done it eight times already.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure? I'll tell you. I asked 2 + 2 to take my picture off of you "the liar's" profile. What right do you have to put my picture on next to your handle? If it happens again I'll ask that you be banned. I don't want in any way to be associated with a you. Why don't you put your "illuminators" picture up there. I'm sure PP won't mind. You being such a fan and all.

Whether or not you consider your sarcasm as an insult is your problem, not mine. I do. You might not consider that putting my picture on your profile is an insult, I do. But I don't want an apology. I want you to ignore my posts, especially since they are to abasive for you taste. If agreed I'll make you happy and do the same for you.
[ QUOTE ]
Like Fossilman I find his writing on poker illuminating

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you bring Fossilman into this discussion? What does he have to do with this? Is this the same kind of cry for help that you made when you claimed Sklansky said Phillips was the best? I don't get it.


[ QUOTE ]
I hope someday you will learn to have healthy discussions with others without allowing disagreements to mushroom into bickering and hatred.

[/ QUOTE ]

You hope someday that I will learn! You really are funny!

Vince

[David Sklansky]

It is important to understand that poker is a bit different than almost all other games or sports in the following way:

Player A can be more of a favorite against a table full of lesser players than player B, yet still be a slight underdog to a table full of player Bs. If those lesser players are playing only slightly smaller games than what B plays in (and A is making more money) it is hard to claim that B is the better poker player.

Not saying that is the case here.

[gergery]

Seems Barry is a bit unfair.

Guys like Negreanu and others are winning big tourneys and doing well at high stakes cash games. It's hard to call them fish just because they don't play in the biggest games.

There could be many reasons they don't -- don't want $1million variance, can make more per hour in other games, enjoy tourney's more than ring games, don't want to live in Vegas, etc. that have nothing to whether they can beat that game.

[ohgeetee]

[ QUOTE ]
but it is this 'tournament' luck factor that is really driving the popularity of poker (Moneymaker, WPT, ESPN etc...)

My impression is that Barry G is basically calling Gus Hansen and Daniel Negreanu the real live ones... and he is implying it about guys like John Juanda, Phil Hellmuth and Chris Ferguson.

They really ought to get something like 'Live at the Bike' going for the 'big game' or just have it on whatever the biggest game at the Bellagio or Wynn is... That could be HUGE.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're putting a lot of words into Barry's mouth IMO. he gave us a list of the top 5, and didn't mention anyone below the top 5. he listed no names, and im sure that was on purpose. If he were wrong, I think you would see a slew of pissed off pros mentioning it, but there simply arent. I bet if you asked most folks at that table who the top 5 were, they would probably agree.

He mentioned the people the media points to as being great. This list in my mind are people like Chris Moneymaker, Greg Raymer, Scott Fischman, Dutch Boyd, Phil Hellmuth, etc.

Does anyone question that Moneymaker would be out of his league sitting at the big game? Raymer is good, but could he handle the big game? not at this moment IMO, but i bet if he worked his way up he could do it. Hellmuth has never won a bracelet outside of holdem... is there any question he would lose in a game where more than just holdem were the focus? Fischman and Boyd and the crew? There just isn't a chance.

Then there are the questionables... Negreanu, Forrest, Todd Brunson, Jennifer Harmon, etc. Barry makes no inference about these guys, except that they are 6th or lower in his ranking of top players. is 6th really that bad? who says which place a person becomes a losing player?

Barry is an intelligent person, and trying to make inferences from purposely left out names is a bad call IMO. he said the names he said on purpose, and he left names out on purpose.

People beg and beg and beg to get the scoop on who is a winner and who isn't, but when someone steps up and gives a bit of insight, so many more inferences are drawn, its just going to stop more from stepping forward. The subject is so sewing circle, few people even understand the stakes and representations of the big game in different locations, and it becomes like an urban legend. Barry has even said that he only has 10 hours logged with Negreanu. These guys are playing poker sometimes 24 hours at a time, yet daniel has only played 10 hours with him ever? There are so many questions surrounding exactly how things are handled it is hard for anyone to formulate any meaningful counterargument to barry, because he is the only one talking that has any first hand info.

the bottom line is, anyone not sitting down at the big game is not in contention, because if they could win at it, they would. thats as cut and dry as it gets. If you feel a person could win "if they had the bankroll" you are completely wrong, because if they could, they would. there is no logical argument as to why someone would not want to make more money for the same time investment if they could do so, especially when the only real difference is where you're sitting and who you're sitting with, as long as your skill level is appropriate.

I think the bottom line is, the guys hocking DVDs and doing more promotional crap are doing so because they are making more doing it than playing poker, whether it is because they make the same amount for a lesser time investment, or they just flat out make more money.

[IronDragon1]

This thread really won't have all that much merit other than a discussion on something Barry probably didn't even mean to say (or was grossly taken out of context) until the Barry himself stops by.

[IgorSmiles]

[ QUOTE ]
It is important to understand that poker is a bit different than almost all other games or sports in the following way:

Player A can be more of a favorite against a table full of lesser players than player B, yet still be a slight underdog to a table full of player Bs. If those lesser players are playing only slightly smaller games than what B plays in (and A is making more money) it is hard to claim that B is the better poker player.

Not saying that is the case here.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting, and I think I see your point. But ultimately there is only 1 way to keep score in poker and that is by the size of your bankroll. It's the only true measure. So the guy who beats the biggest game for the most money has to be considered the best.

A fighter could pound through a field of 1500 palukas and make plenty of money on Pay Per View, but if he cant beat Mike Tyson, he aint the champ...

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
But ultimately there is only 1 way to keep score in poker and that is by the size of your bankroll. It's the only true measure. So the guy who beats the biggest game for the most money has to be considered the best.


[/ QUOTE ]

Has a more false statement been made in this thread?

[IgorSmiles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But ultimately there is only 1 way to keep score in poker and that is by the size of your bankroll. It's the only true measure. So the guy who beats the biggest game for the most money has to be considered the best.


[/ QUOTE ]

Has a more false statement been made in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your articulate use of the English language astounds! How do you keep score? By how many times your 8/7 cracks 10s on an all in button steal?

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]

He mentioned the people the media points to as being great. This list in my mind are people like Chris Moneymaker, Greg Raymer, Scott Fischman, Dutch Boyd, Phil Hellmuth, etc.



[/ QUOTE ]

interesting that you put hellmuth in the same sentence as greg raymer, moneymaker, fischman and boyd. I presume you have something against phil to do something like that.

yes, helmuth is a jerk but 9 bracelets should be enough to distance yourself from one hit wonders like raymer, moneymaker, boyd(barely 1 hit wonder) and fischman (minor 1 hit wonder).

All of these other players are good to very good, but phil is far and away more accomplished.

[drewjustdrew]

What are you measuring? Who has the most money or who is the best player. This is similar to college football never getting the national champion right. Until you find a way to determine who the best players are and have them all play against each other, you will never be able to determine the best player.

Playing for high stakes and making the most money at the highest stakes does not make you the best player, just the wealthiest (from poker income).

And I doubt my use of the English language really "astounds". But thanks.

[That guy]

You're putting a lot of words into Barry's mouth IMO

In the article, Barry basically called the media heroes the live ones. Who are the real media heroes? I think they are Negreanu and Gus Hansen and Phil Hellmuth... and maybe Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer. Yes I could have gotten this wrong and Barry could be talking about others than those... but that is my guess and given Barry's other comments about Gus and Daniel, I think I am right.

Moneymaker is famous for playing the role of 'accountant &amp; part-time player' that won the lottery. Nobody considers him 'great' -- not the media, not nobody. Yes he is famous and signs autographs but that is different than being considered great. I really doubt Barry is this grumpy about Chris Moneymaker... or Raymer for that matter...

I was chatting with Jen Harman on Full Tilt last night and she was surprised at Barry's comments. She said the big game really hasn't gone on long enough to really say who is great and who isn't...

[IgorSmiles]

If you want to make an arguement for percentage earned, you can try. Let say turning a buck into 100 is better than turning half a mil into a million...

Nah, let's face it. The only measure that is accurate and quantifyable is how much money you make. The guy who makes the most money in the game with the lowest luck element, must be considered the best.

[drewjustdrew]

But isn't there a higher luck element the closer people are in skill level? If everyone is the same skill/temperament/etc. level, luck is 100% responsible for results.

What a fruitless argument this is. I blame Barry.

[That guy]

If everyone is the same skill/temperament/etc. level, luck is 100% responsible for results

Barry is saying that everyone is not the same skill/temperament/etc...

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
If everyone is the same skill/temperament/etc. level, luck is 100% responsible for results

Barry is saying that everyone is not the same skill/temperament/etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

_________________________

[ QUOTE ]
The only measure that is accurate and quantifyable is how much money you make. The guy who makes the most money in the game with the lowest luck element , must be considered the best.



[/ QUOTE ]

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems Barry is a bit unfair.

Guys like Negreanu and others are winning big tourneys and doing well at high stakes cash games. It's hard to call them fish just because they don't play in the biggest games.

There could be many reasons they don't -- don't want $1million variance, can make more per hour in other games, enjoy tourney's more than ring games, don't want to live in Vegas, etc. that have nothing to whether they can beat that game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Negreanu and Gus Hansen have played in the big game.

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]
Until you find a way to determine who the best players are and have them all play against each other, you will never be able to determine the best player.


[/ QUOTE ]

These is a way.. it is the big cash games that Barry is talking about. People prove they are great by being great in the biggest games when everything is on the line.

[Lawrence Ng]

All of us here don't play high enough or see what goes on in that particular tier 1 game. But that Top 5 list Greenstein puts up is very close to the list I would imagine.

Notice that Ivey no longer plays tournaments as much anymore, and mostly live ring games. He IMO would be the toughest player today to play against.

I also like the way Greenstein defends the sport of poker, but I think he's being a bit too harsh on the way tournament poker has entered into the scene and how the media has redistributed the words "great poker player" to tournament poker winners as opposed to cash game players.

The media is always going to have some sort of subjective bias towards poker and everything else for that matter. But they have directly created a huge stream of new players for the regular pros all around.

I'm buying his book when it comes out. I'd be an idiot not too.

Lawrence

[Willy]

Looks to me like Barry is just fishing by throwing some bait in the water

[chopchoi]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks to me like Barry is just fishing by throwing some bait in the water

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly. i wonder who bites...

[toots]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Looks to me like Barry is just fishing by throwing some bait in the water

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly. i wonder who bites...

[/ QUOTE ]

his poker chums?

[ohgeetee]

toots, you slay me.

[TracyMiller]

OK, Barry G., I'll take your word for it - you're better than everyone in the world except those other four players you list.

Really, besides coming off sounding awfully arrogant, he comes off sounding sour grapes because the media portrays some other players as "great" players. This kind of term is so subjective you can't argue with it very much.

One of the reason people love tournaments on TV is that there is a definite winner, a definite runner-up, etc. You can even do long-term results, e.g. CardPlayer's Player of the Year, based on lots of tournaments. If these "great" cash players kept good records and published them, maybe then we could determine for sure who are the best cash players, but I haven't seen such records. Even if they did publish their results, I don't know that I would trust them, unless a third-party kept accurate records. Until then, it's all just heresay.

[AlmightyJay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So why should he care if a bunch of clueless people think that Chris Moneymaker is the greatest player ever?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think Michael Jordon wants to be considered one of the top few basketball players that ever lived? Do you think that the football greats wouldn't be a little upset if people were saying that a bunch of people who never played in the NFL (the biggest game) were great players?

[/ QUOTE ]

To add to this: the first time MJ returned to the game, his reason for doing it was that he was sick of hearing his kids say that Shaq was the best player of all time.

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
"There are five top players: There's Doyle Brunson, there's Chip Reese, there's Chau Giang, there's Phil Ivey, there's myself," Greenstein says."

I would like to clarify something. Is Barry talking about ALL AROUND play? Surely he can't be suggesting that there is no one better than any of these five in ANY typically played game? I am sure I can name at least one person off this list who plays better than at least one person on the list in Limit Holdem, Pot limit Omaha, Eight or Better Stud and No Limit Deuce To Seven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, is Vince really that good?

-- M. Ruff

[phifediggy]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that Ivey no longer plays tournaments as much anymore, and mostly live ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

he undoubtedly still plays mostly cash, but i think he's actually playing more tournaments again...

08-May-05 WSOP Circuit Lake Tahoe -- 2nd $299,360
18-Apr-05 WPT Championship Vegas -- 6th $264,195
29-Mar-05 World Poker Challenge -- 3rd $163,908
20-Mar-05 WSOP Circuit Rio Vegas -- 8th $63,270