Greenstein - Good Article.

[adamstewart]

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


Adam

[elmitchbo]

that was extremely interesting. barry is a badass. i was just asking in another post who the big 4 are in the big game. apparently it's the big 5... barry, chip, doyle, chau, and phil. i'll say they're all badass.

i must be wrong, but i always thought that tournament play required more skill than cash game play. i realize that barry is talking about a special breed of cash player.... but is it true in general that cash games players are the real studs? it just seems to me that tournament play requires two sets of skils, the poker skill and the tourney management skill. but maybe the tournament structure really negates the poker skill necessary to win.

i feel like i may be falling into the trap... buying what ESPN is selling me with daniel n., howard lederer, and other tourney players.

[dealer_toe]

My first response too, he's badass. But you are falling into the "trap" if for one second you think tournaments take more skill than cash games. Cash games are the marathon and tournaments are the 20 ft dash.

[elmitchbo]

explain. i don't think it's the media that made me think tournaments require more skill. if all you play are tournaments, and you play them all the time, how is that less of a marathon than playing cash games?

my other point... in a cash game you only have to beat 9 players under one set of conditions. in a tournament you have to beat hundreds or even thousands of players. and you have to deal with constantly changing conditions. in a cash game you can just get more chips if you bust... in a tournament you can't just get more chips.

what is it about a cash game that requires more skill?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
what is it about a cash game that requires more skill?

[/ QUOTE ]


Its not so much to do with the struture, but the players.

Tournament players face far weaker players. People who arent great players.

In big cash games, the bad players are still very good players. They are just slightly worse than the best.


(FWIW, this is 100% from reading, and 0% from any first hand experience)

[elmitchbo]

so that means i'm right. hypothetically....you take any group of players. what's the best way to decide who's the best? play a tournament and see who wins, or play cash games and then see who walks away with the most money? i think the bes tway to decide is to play a tournament.

playing in either situation better players are just plain better players. my point is that the structure of a tournament requires more skill.

[jman220]

He implies that a lot of the current "pros" are actually losing players. I'm really curious as to which pro's he's talking about here. It seems like the implication is people like phil helmuth, Negreanu, etc. Anyone know?

[Buccaneer]

You are right, this is a good article. The following quote from the article, I found, says it all. [ QUOTE ]
There isn't any tournament player you're going to put in our game who's going to beat it. They'd be drawing dead. They'd be the live ones. We'd play 'til they're broke. But they already are broke, for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]

[grimel]

In a cash game the blinds stay the same.

In later stages of a tourney, as the blinds rise, the players are forced to pick a spot and push with any two cards and the rest of the table knows this is happening.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
so that means i'm right. hypothetically....you take any group of players. what's the best way to decide who's the best? play a tournament and see who wins, or play cash games and then see who walks away with the most money? i think the bes tway to decide is to play a tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

I left off the other most important agrument. (after rereading my post, I dont know how I failed to mention this).


Late in tournaments, the blinds:stack ratio dictates your play. Basically, the decent, good and great players are making a lot of the same plays, simply because of the pot size and their stacks.

This tends to blur skill.


This is NOT true in cash games or early in tournaments. As such, cash games are far and away the better skill determinant.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
phil helmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Negreanu

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[joker122]

i've never heard of the asian guy. what has he won/done?

[x vikram]

Just a thought; Mr. Greenstien says that they arent winning poker players or rather he implys this.

However "winning" in terms of a cash game means being above break even at least, in my opinion, therefore would not "winning" in a tournament be finsihing in the money at least?

Rarely on TV you hear about who came 30th and finsihed in the money however these are probably poker players with skill to a certain degree at least.

Players should not be penealised, in my opinion, because they finsih 1st in a tournament and happen to have well known "personalitys" through the media and they should not be rewarded, i mean cmon, they have already won alot of money, what more do they need?

I dont think you can say cash games require more skill than tournaments and i dont think you can say that tournaments require more skill than cash games because, in my opinon, it is like comparing football to basketball. Both require one to have skill with the ball as well as other aspects of the sport however both are very different and therefore are, in a way, impossible to compare in terms of which one requires more skill.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think you can say cash games require more skill than tournaments and i dont think you can say that tournaments require more skill than cash games because, in my opinon, it is like comparing football to basketball. Both require one to have skill with the ball as well as other aspects of the sport however both are very different and therefore are, in a way, impossible to compare in terms of which one requires more skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

The obvious counter to this is:

- The best big cash game players are able to beat tournaments at the highest of winrates. But opt not to.

- The best tournament players cannot beat the biggest cash games.

- The best basketball players can almost never also be the best football players.

- The best football players can almost never also be the best basketball players.

[wall_st]

[ QUOTE ]

The obvious counter to this is:

- The best big cash game players are able to beat tournaments at the highest of winrates. But opt not to.

- The best tournament players cannot beat the biggest cash games.

- The best basketball players can almost never also be the best football players.

- The best football players can almost never also be the best basketball players.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be true if tournaments were played with an UNO deck and cash games were played with a regular deck of cards.

I do not think you can use this counter here because you are comparing two things that have very similar skill sets, to two things that have very different skill sets. Maybe it is just a bad analogy to begin with.

It appears that Barry views cash games as the best measurement of one's poker skill. Especially the games that he plays in because he is competing against the best in the world on a nightly basis. He sees some of the winning tournament players as below him because they likely play much smaller stakes (cash games) than he does. Not only that but most of these guys are beating much weaker opponents to win these tournaments, whereas barry has to go up against the best in the world for the highest stakes.

[x vikram]

True, the above article does have a good point. However playing with more $ does not nessecerally mean the game requires more skill.

[Cerril]

Here's an interesting take that's hard to refute, unfortunately (because I'd very much like to puncture Barry's little vision).

First, it's usually conceded that winning the maximum at any given limit or tournament or tournament structure takes a different skillset (anywhere from subtly to drastically). The best player in the toughest cash game in the world will likely not manage the same earnings as the best player in their respective best game at a lower limit or different type (tournament, even divided into different tournament types).

Thing is, it's pretty easy to just shrug that off as unimportant because poker taken in the broadest sense has one scorecard that holds across the games, earnings in raw dollar value. While he may concede that he's not as good a 2/4 player as the best 2/4 player out there, it doesn't matter because the best 2/4 player out there doesn't make what he does in his game. That's where poker differs from other games and from sports. You could measure an athlete's skill by his earnings, but there are independent statistics, win records, and so on to show who is actually more skilled.

In poker, all you have is $, or some other derived number (BB/100 in limit games, ROI in tourneys, etc.). It pretty much comes down to $/hour though.

Interestingly, what I got from Greenstein's claims isn't that his game is the best strictly because it has the best players (that's implied but not explicit), but that his game is the best gauge because there's simply no way even the best tournament poker player can come close to the earnings you can make in that cash game - because tournaments don't have stakes at that level (and with the variance of huge MTTs, it's easy to see why), certainly not year to year.

But the logic is easy to follow:

Q: How do you 'win' in poker.
A: Make money.

Q: How can you tell if player A is more skilled than player B?
A: Player A makes more money per hour from poker than player B over a sufficiently long period.

Q: Of all the game varieties, which currently has the highest potential earnings over a sufficiently long period?
A: Cash games.

Q: Who are the best player in the world?
A: The ones who are the most successful in the highest limit cash game(s).

Of course you can pick apart any point, but that seems to be what he's stating.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
so that means i'm right. hypothetically....you take any group of players. what's the best way to decide who's the best? play a tournament and see who wins, or play cash games and then see who walks away with the most money? i think the bes tway to decide is to play a tournament.

playing in either situation better players are just plain better players. my point is that the structure of a tournament requires more skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're thinking way too shortterm. A tourney is shortterm. And way too results oriented. Just winning a tourney doesn't mean you're the best. Look how many hands the average tourney lasts. You only need to run well in a short period of time to do it.

There is more luck required to win a tournament than to beat a cash game. In a big tourney you can sit out for awhile while people are busting out. That doesn't mean you're better than those that busted out.

You don't think the media has biased people? How many tourney players can you name that you think are real good players compared to top ringgamers even in the mid+ limits? Ringgamers get little if any press at all. There's a reason some of the best money games are the sidegames at tourneys with the tourney money winners in them.

The best way to tell who's best? No tourney needed. Watch them play, listen to their thoughts/reasoning regardless of their results. You can tell how good someone is (theoretically) without even watching them play a hand. You can get a good idea of someone's skill just by having a conversation with them.

That said, there are different skills involved in beating both games. Not many players crossover that well.

b

[lehighguy]

Tournaments and cash games a just different. One isn't superior to the other because its like comparing apples to oranges.

I think the problem he has is when the media assumes that because Chris Moneymaker won the WSOP he must be a good player. Or because Howard Lederer has so many braclets he must be the best.

The media lumps "poker" all togethor, and doesn't realize tournament play and cash are totally different games. If the media talked about my workplace they would call us all stockbrokers, even though a salesperson and a trader and a researcher all have different jobs with entirely differnt skillsets.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a thought; Mr. Greenstien says that they arent winning poker players or rather he implys this.

However "winning" in terms of a cash game means being above break even at least, in my opinion, therefore would not "winning" in a tournament be finsihing in the money at least?

Rarely on TV you hear about who came 30th and finsihed in the money however these are probably poker players with skill to a certain degree at least.

Players should not be penealised, in my opinion, because they finsih 1st in a tournament and happen to have well known "personalitys" through the media and they should not be rewarded, i mean cmon, they have already won alot of money, what more do they need?

I dont think you can say cash games require more skill than tournaments and i dont think you can say that tournaments require more skill than cash games because, in my opinon, it is like comparing football to basketball. Both require one to have skill with the ball as well as other aspects of the sport however both are very different and therefore are, in a way, impossible to compare in terms of which one requires more skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then compare the opposite. The amount of luck needed to beat one or the other.

b

[Atropos]

Tournaments require skill too, but not nearly as many as cash games. When the blinds are high the skill dies, the game becomes pure math.

Put me in a heads-up match against Greenstein at the final table of a tournament, even stacks, we both have only 7-8 BB left. I would not be able to gain a significant edge if all he did was push his Stack all-in...

Let me play a heads-up match against him where we both have 100 or even 1000 BB stacks - now he is in for some serious trouble /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sure if you played cash games with a crazy blind structure, you would have the same outcome as tournaments. But because nobody wants to play a game without skill, those cash games dont exist.

[Rozez]

[ QUOTE ]
i've never heard of the asian guy. what has he won/done?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing I know about Chau Giang is that he won the WSOP
Pot Limit Omaha Championship last year.

[dealer_toe]

He was at the final table of the first televised WSOP event last year. The NL Hold 'em event that the British Backgammon player won. He ran into quads against that snaggle tooth dude.

[Emoney]

he got second to john stoltzman at whichever WPT event it was that stoltzman won, if that's the type of result you're looking for. best part of that episode is giang winning a big pot, taking the chip lead and announcing he's playing every hand from then on. he gets rags the next hand but calls a raise PF and flops two pair. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[emil3000]

That was a nice hand. Michael Mizrachi made an absolutely horrible turn bet and then had to fold to Chaus all in when he had 14 outs, if I recall correctly.

Barry's right.

[elmitchbo]

i'm still not totally convinced. i will concede that the true measure of poker skill and succes is $. the poster that said you can tell who is a good player just by talking to him is in left field. unless you're talking to him about his giant BR.

i agree that barry makes more money than alot of the 'famous' tourney players, and that is hard evidence to refute, but that is because he plays at such huge limits every day. even if you really were the best tourney player in the world you couldn't earn what he does because there isn't a $500,000 buy in tournamet every day.

never the less... i still think that a successful career tournament player at a given buy-in level is more skilled than the equivalent limit cash game player, assuming that they end up with equal ROI. in other words, it is harder to maintain long term success in tournaments than in cash games at the the same $ level.

the argument that tournamets become all in luck fests ignore the skill necessary to make it to a final table with a big stack, and or survive with a small stack.

oh... and chau giang has been getting killed on poker superstars. barry has been too for that matter. moneymaker is done for. guys like sklansky and johnny chan are killing them.

[propervillain]

i feel like i may be falling into the trap... buying what ESPN is selling me with daniel n., howard lederer, and other tourney players. [ QUOTE ]


You're trapped

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
so that means i'm right. hypothetically....you take any group of players. what's the best way to decide who's the best? play a tournament and see who wins, or play cash games and then see who walks away with the most money? i think the bes tway to decide is to play a tournament.

playing in either situation better players are just plain better players. my point is that the structure of a tournament requires more skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is completely wrong.
-James

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so that means i'm right. hypothetically....you take any group of players. what's the best way to decide who's the best? play a tournament and see who wins, or play cash games and then see who walks away with the most money? i think the bes tway to decide is to play a tournament.

playing in either situation better players are just plain better players. my point is that the structure of a tournament requires more skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is completely wrong.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
i will concede that the true measure of poker skill and succes is $. the poster that said you can tell who is a good player just by talking to him is in left field. unless you're talking to him about his giant BR.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're in left field if you're only consideration is how big his bankroll is. If you can't assess a players skill based on an honest conversation with him about concepts and plays, you need to study the game more. But then again, ESPN/media is telling you all you need to know about the game.

This is equivalent to saying when you come to a table, the one with the most chips in front of him is the best player at the table. You're not alone in thinking this way, I hear it all the time on tables from players who don't know how to assess opposition.

b

[Snoogins47]

"never the less... i still think that a successful career tournament player at a given buy-in level is more skilled than the equivalent limit cash game player, assuming that they end up with equal ROI. in other words, it is harder to maintain long term success in tournaments than in cash games at the the same $ level. "

A sound set of reasons as to WHY you think this would go a long way.

I think a lot of the problem actually is thus: even if consistently turning a profit in MTTs was equally as hard as it was in Cash Games, there would still be a subset of players who had won large amounts of money who were weaker players, or even losing players. This sort of thing is almost unheard of in cash games.

[jstewsmole]

i have to agree with ISh in the long run cash games are a better way to resolve whos better. When u get to the end of a tournament theres people that are forced to do things they wouldnt in a cash game like go allin on short stacks and etc and raising blinds. Im a winning player online at 2/4 and i sometimes play in home games against horrible players and imean horrible, and well play a single table style NL tourney with the blinds raising up everyso often and ive lost more than ive won.(over a small sample size albeit)and id bet my life that if we were playing cash games id kill thes e same people over the long run.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Tournaments and cash games a just different. One isn't superior to the other because its like comparing apples to oranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize this logic could be applied to high limit and low limit games right?


400/800 holdem requires a different skill set than 1/2 holdem.


The obvious follows:

A player beating 400/800 is MUCH more likely able to also beat 1/2 than someone beating 1/2 being able to beat 400/800.

Same thing for tournaments.

The best cash players can also be the best tourney players. The converse is not true.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
i've never heard of the asian guy. what has he won/done?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read in a Card Player article (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=201&m_id=7) that he was voted the third most successful cash game player.

This was back in 2001, and it goes to show how much things have changed sine.

[jumister5889]

I semi agree with Barry. Although, his facts are straight i dont agree with his reasoning. I think its harder to have a high win percentage in tournaments, because once you're out, you're out. But in cash games, you can keep playing and making investments in order to recieve a return. That said, its obvious that cash gamers make more money. Also, playing tournaments is almost completely different from playing cash games. Therefore, people who play tournaments try to play cash games, they inherently lose. So its true that poker players who play cash games get a lot more experience and can pick up pots in tournaments, in the long run, a tournament player will still beat the cash player in tournaments over time. So i dont really think that either one is better or worse.

[grimel]

Okay, what are the odds of any of the last three WSOP main event winners leaving Greenstein's game with their shirts much less winning money?

If you watched Moneymaker's run to the gold I'm sure you noticed a few very questionable calls that gave him that "skill required to make it" big stack at the final table.

My first >$1 MTT had 650+ players, I finished in the top 40. My fifth >$1 MTT was 500+ players, I finished 3rd (went out flopped set over flopped set). What does that have to do with anything? Well, I'm about 5x the player now that I was then and I've never finished better in a MTT than 3rd.

[JTG51]

[ QUOTE ]
i've never heard of the asian guy. what has he won...?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots and lots of money.

[michiganfan9]

I kinda disagree with Greenstein. Yes they are all good players but what about others such as johnny chan, t.j cloutier, and even lederer

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
He was at the final table of the first televised WSOP event last year. The NL Hold 'em event that the British Backgammon player won. He ran into quads against that snaggle tooth dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that was David Chiu. Chau Giang won the PLO event at the WSOP.

[michiganfan9]

I totally forgot to mention my favorite player as well, daniel n. I totally think that the players such as dan harrington who consistantly make it to final tables year after year are better than the ppl who win the wsop once and never win but the consistant ones are better than the cash players. I think that tourny's take more skill than cash games.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
I kinda disagree with Greenstein. Yes they are all good players but what about others such as johnny chan, t.j cloutier, and even lederer

[/ QUOTE ]

Chan - plays big cash games, but doesn't frequent the biggest cash games

Cloutier - Good tournament player, but tournament players often face significantly weaker opponents than cash games opponents face. Also, is addicted to craps and thus is always staked by a backer in the big tournaments. Makes a lot less than you think.

Lederer - expert in game theory, but chooses not to frequent the biggest cash games.

[michiganfan9]

How are cash games the marathon's when you can cash out anytime you would like. Tournaments are much more mentally strenous than cash games.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that tourny's take more skill than cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll make this one easy for you:

The top cash games players (Reese, Brunson, Greenstein, Ivey, Giang) have all made final tables and won MTT's.

However, the "MTT" pros like Hellmuth, Cloutier, Ferguson, and Hansen couldn't even hold their own in 300-600, much less the 4k-8k games the top cash game pros frequent.

That's why you see guys like Hellmuth and Lederer making tapes and DVD's on how to win at poker that will make them a couple hundred grand, while big cash game players make and lose more than that in a night.

[michiganfan9]

I totally agree with elmitchbo. In tourny's you have to beat so many people and are moving tables and what not. Cash games your at the same table against the same people. Easier to learn to play with those guys and pick up on tells and betting patterns.

[michiganfan9]

callmeishmale does have a good point but in tournaments when you get to the final couple of tables you can't tell me those players aren't good.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
callmeishmale does have a good point but in tournaments when you get to the final couple of tables you can't tell me those players aren't good.

[/ QUOTE ]

You highly underestimate the short-term variance required in multi-table tournaments.

If you keep posting in 2+2 and get involved in strategy posts and the whatnot, a year from now you'll look at your posts in this thread and realize how ridiculous you sound.

[michiganfan9]

the stucture of the tournament does require more skill. Say your in a cash game and you aren't very good. But you get a streak of say 3-5 hands where you get great cards. You can do so much damage. In a tournament you play soo many hands. You will go throug huge droughts and even when you go through times with monster hands consecutively you're still a long way from the end of the tournament.

[michiganfan9]

"A tourney is shortterm"
I don't think so. WSOP is a lot longer than an hour cash game.

[checkmate36]

Are the blinds 4k-8k in the big cash game that they mention?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
"A tourney is shortterm"
I don't think so. WSOP is a lot longer than an hour cash game.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only 5 or 6 days. Even a losing player can run decent for 5 or 6 days.

Besides, cash games last much longer than an hour.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
How are cash games the marathon's when you can cash out anytime you would like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can play 21k hands an only break even even if you'r the best player on the table. You won't ever play 21K hands in a tourney. You don't have 21k hands to wait for the tide to turn. Eventually in a tourney, you will have to take chances and get lucky.

You don't win every session in a cash game. You can go weeks/months without winning even though you're playing very well.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
callmeishmale does have a good point but in tournaments when you get to the final couple of tables you can't tell me those players aren't good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of them aren't.

b

[wall_st]

[ QUOTE ]
"A tourney is shortterm"
I don't think so. WSOP is a lot longer than an hour cash game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your view on cash games is very short term. Cash games have no end, therefore are infinite. The game continues next time when you sit down at the table. A tournament has a distinct beginning middle and end and is therefore a finite event.

I believe you may need to do some more research on the topic , you sound rather uneducated about the difference between the two games.

[CallMeIshmael]

Was anyone else under the impression that Ted Forrest was also beating the biggest games?

[michiganfan9]

I still think they are really good players. Personally I think Daniel N. is a lot better than barry greenstein.

[Snoogins47]

[ QUOTE ]
"A tourney is shortterm"
I don't think so. WSOP is a lot longer than an hour cash game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to run good to win a tournament. It's self-evident, given the nature of the beast: one bad decision, or bad beat, or one single time the cards don't fall your way, and you are gone. You can no longer play and make those better decisions than your opponents, even if you're far and away the best player at the table. You must run good to win a tournament.

This in itself doesn't lead to the conclusion that tournament poker takes more or less skill than live poker. However, it clearly illustrates how somebody who has a good tournament record might not really be all that great.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Was anyone else under the impression that Ted Forrest was also beating the biggest games?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard this.

[Snoogins47]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think they are really good players. Personally I think Daniel N. is a lot better than barry greenstein.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're basing this on what, may I ask?

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
callmeishmale does have a good point but in tournaments when you get to the final couple of tables you can't tell me those players aren't good.

[/ QUOTE ]

You highly underestimate the short-term variance required in multi-table tournaments.

If you keep posting in 2+2 and get involved in strategy posts and the whatnot, a year from now you'll look at your posts in this thread and realize how ridiculous you sound.

[/ QUOTE ]



michiganfan9,


Take this man's great advice. Stop making a fool of yourself.


FWIW, it sounds like you'll be a valuable addition to the "WPT, etc" and the "News, Views, Gossip" forums.


Adam

[BoxLiquid]

I think a lot of people are forgetting that these high stakes cash players (The elite 5) that Greenstein mentioned sometimes take home earnings that exceed the 1st place prize for the WSOP tournaments and WPT tournaments. If 1st place for winning the WPT is like 2 million and these guys sometimes take home around 500 thousand to a million a night, which they probably do. Then which players are better? Who would you be more afraid of? And counting "earned money" from poker is definetely an accurate way to measure who is better. If these tourney players could play the biggest cash games and beat them consistently for 500 thousand a night do you really think they would put so much energy into tournaments? And let's face the truth... Howard Lederer doesn't play the biggest cash games in the world on a nightly basis because he isn't comfortable there. In other words... He isn't ready and he's not good enough. And, No I am not saying he sucks.


One more thing... The WSOP 2005 main event is going to be a crap-shoot. There won't be even one player's name that you will recognize at the final table. And if Dan Harrington makes it to the final table again, I will never post on 2+2 if that happens.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
callmeishmale does have a good point but in tournaments when you get to the final couple of tables you can't tell me those players aren't good.

[/ QUOTE ]

You highly underestimate the short-term variance required in multi-table tournaments.

If you keep posting in 2+2 and get involved in strategy posts and the whatnot, a year from now you'll look at your posts in this thread and realize how ridiculous you sound.

[/ QUOTE ]



michiganfan9,


Take this man's great advice. Stop making a fool of yourself.


FWIW, it sounds like you'll be a valuable addition to the "WPT, etc" and the "News, Views, Gossip" forums.


Adam

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, IMHO NVG is WPT without the idiots.

[dealer_toe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He was at the final table of the first televised WSOP event last year. The NL Hold 'em event that the British Backgammon player won. He ran into quads against that snaggle tooth dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that was David Chiu. Chau Giang won the PLO event at the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeaaaaa, you're right

switch that...reverse it.

[dealer_toe]

you must be his agent? or did you buy his hockey jersey?

[michiganfan9]

Don't get me wrong I agree that the better players play in some of those cash games but I disagree with Greenstein's elite 5 players. I believe that playing a tournament is much harder than a cash game though.

[CallMeIshmael]

http://www.rgj.com/news/files/2004/01/13/38271.jpg

[dealer_toe]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong I agree that the better players play in some of those cash games but I disagree with Greenstein's elite 5 players. I believe that playing a tournament is much harder than a cash game though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define harder? Harder to find? Harder to win? Harder to make a living in?

Cash games are not hard if you play against worse players, But they do gauge skill much better.

[dealer_toe]

If you think cash games are hard, you're either:
A) no good
B) Have horrible game selection.

[grimel]

okay, so who are your elite 5?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
okay, so who are your elite 5?

[/ QUOTE ]

This kid is 15. Leave him to his delusions.

[Triumph36]

You're mistaken.

Yes, there may be more 'pressure' in a tournament. But someone who makes bad decisions in a tournament can still easily win one, whereas someone who consistently makes bad decisions in a cash game will go broke. It's that simple. That's what Greenstein is talking about: some schmuck wins a big $10K tournament and he's a 'great player', but put him in the cash games that Greenstein plays in, and he's a fish.

[mdeck]

TOURNAMENTS ARE OBVIOUSLY HARDER THAN CASH GAMES BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE TEE-VEE HURRRRRR

http://www.nd.edu/~ndecker/rolleyes.gifhttp://www.nd.edu/~ndecker/rolleyes.gifhttp://www.nd.edu/~ndecker/rolleyes.gif

[wall_st]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong I agree that the better players play in some of those cash games but I disagree with Greenstein's elite 5 players. I believe that playing a tournament is much harder than a cash game though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you cannot take advice from one of the best players in the world this thread is suddenly making a lot more sense.

Also I thought this quote from (michiganfan) the going pro thread should be included

[ QUOTE ]

Anybody got some advice that I can tell my parents to let me open up a poker acccount online. I'm 15 years old and I don't think they will let me. I want to just put in like $20 and play in .25-.50 blinds and stuff. Some rooms you can play .05-.1 blinds. Got any advice?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where you are playing, but I have this feeling that you lack the overall experience to make the claims you are making. You sound like you are pretty intellgent for a fifteen year old, but you need to be more humble when taking into acount the opinions of other posters, especially someone like greenstein.

[grimel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
okay, so who are your elite 5?

[/ QUOTE ]

This kid is 15. Leave him to his delusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed that part. I'll leave the kid alone.

[stu-unger]

there really is no argument unless u are not experienced int he field. cash games r the real guage, not that tourneys dont take skill, they just involve more skill. fact: daniel N. dropped over $500,000 to barry heads up this month. Fact: howard l. used to play this game as the article states, and was successful. Fact: johnny chan plays limit at something like $4000-$8000 and kills it along with the likes of ted forest and a lot of other successful players. barry isn't hating on tourney players he's just saying the ones who cant beat a cash game regularly cant hold his jock strap and this too is a fact.

[JasonP530]

The problem Barry has, as I read it, is that many people are getting publicity and endorsements for being "great players" after having won a tournament that was heavily promoted. This does not take into account the number of tournaments they have entered or the amount of money spent on airfare, hotel etc. The entire measure of skill is winrate, which cannot be determined by one tournament. I agree that many people whom the public sees as great are not. I think his egotisitcal comments about being among the 5 best in the world underscore this point.

FWIW. If you were a winning player, would you not need extraordinary circumstances to be backed by someone?

[PatJ]

The problem Barry has is that:

'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."

I'd guess there is a tinge of damage to his ego, but a swelling BR goes a long way toward ameliorating that pain. What he's admitting to lashing out against is the public validation and acclaim of these poorly behaving 'giants' of the game.

[chucksim]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong I agree that the better players play in some of those cash games but I disagree with Greenstein's elite 5 players. I believe that playing a tournament is much harder than a cash game though.

[/ QUOTE ]


Have you sat in the $4000/$8000 game lately? I'll take Barry's word for it, as I haven't sat with those guys in the big game. Over an infinite period of time, I'd be very confident to say that Barry's 5 players will wind up with ALL the money in a cash game.

Not taking anything away from the top tournament guys, but as been stated many times, you can be the 10th best player in the world, and if you sit with the other 9 guys, you are THE FISH.

Even a 14 day tournament would be a sprint. At some point, the blinds will catch up to the stacks and by definition it has to become an all-in fest. Even the worst player in the world could theoretically have enough luck to get to the point where everyone is short stacked, win a race or two, and win the thing. Not likely, but possible.

Cash games have an infinite life span. The better player will never get pressured into having to gamble for all his money as he will in a tournament. Therefore, cash games have a much lower luck factor, and will show you who the best players are over the long term.

[elmitchbo]

the problem here is that 'cash game guys' seem to think that there is only one tournament. you enter one and when it's over your done forever. my point is that you can play tournaments with the same consistency that you can play cash ganes. results in one tournament can easily be 'luck', but consistent results over 100 tournaments are skill..... just as much as consistent returns in a cash game are based on skill. the entire 'tournaments are luck fests' argument is bogus, if you consider a larger sample of tournaments.

[grimel]

Okay, let's go with your theory of consistant tourney wins. Who has the best tourney hold'em history? Not the last 4 or 5 years, let's say the last 10-20 yrs.

I'll just piss everyone off and say Hellmouth. Why? "Everyone" says the WSOP is the crown jewel and he has more WSOP hold'em braclets than anyone, he has WPT, European, etc etc, etc. Even during bad streaks he's ITM a goodly portion of the time.

How do you think he'd fair with Greenstein's 5?

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, let's go with your theory of consistant tourney wins. Who has the best tourney hold'em history? Not the last 4 or 5 years, let's say the last 10-20 yrs.

I'll just piss everyone off and say Hellmouth. Why? "Everyone" says the WSOP is the crown jewel and he has more WSOP hold'em braclets than anyone, he has WPT, European, etc etc, etc. Even during bad streaks he's ITM a goodly portion of the time.

How do you think he'd fair with Greenstein's 5?

[/ QUOTE ]



Here's a hint: he wouldn't finish better than 6th.

[grimel]

Look up several posts, I'm on the cash game side!

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
True, the above article does have a good point. However playing with more $ does not nessecerally mean the game requires more skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif
skill level of games: .50 < 1/2 < 3/6 < 15/30 < 50/100 etc... Same with tourny buy ins.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Look up several posts, I'm on the cash game side!

[/ QUOTE ]


I know.... my hint was for elmitchbo /images/graemlins/tongue.gif


Adam

[Triumph36]

The difference is that the payout for first place is so huge that a bad player can take one or two first place finishes and be profitable in a year where he played bad poker, whereas in a cash game, this is far more unlikely, especially a game with Greenstein, Giang, etc. Not to mention that tournament play requires pre-flop all-ins and the everpresent 'coinflip situation', two things that involve mostly luck.

Luck evens out in a cash game. But if someone spikes a two-outer in this year's WSOP to win first place, do you think the guy who came in second place will ever face that situation again in his lifetime?

[michiganfan9]

I guess now I have shifted and on the cash game side. But I still believe that the players who consistantly make it to final tables such as Dan Harrington should be in the elite 5. But I do understand that next year another no namer will win the wsop.

[grimel]

Okay, sometimes I need to be whacked with a clue x 4.

[EStreet20]

There's a part of Super System where Brunson states that in order to find the overall best player at any poker game out of a particulay group you would have to have the same group of people play every night for a year, starting with the same size stack every night. No new players, no changes in environment etc, and that would determine the best player.

A poker tourney is definitely not the ideal way to find the "best" player out of a group. All the proof you need of this is to look at the concept of the "bad beat" and the fundamental theorem of poker. In a cash game, Sklansky says you should welcome bad play from others, even if they get lucky and suck out to win a hand because you know that the money will come your way eventually. In a tourney, the same thing happens, you played correctly, the other player made a huge error and now you're on the rail watching or you're so short stacked that you have no chance to win. Now there's no way the guy who just rivered his two outer has demonstrated a higher skill level than you, but he's still playing and you're done with no shot at the money coming back to the better player. That's why short term luck can save a tourney player, but a bad poker player trying to make a living in cash games will simply give his/her money away over time, simple as that.

Good luck at the tables,
Matt

[EStreet20]

haha he's won millions of dollars, 'nuff said.

[michiganfan9]

I totally agree with you. When the blinds get raised high enough everybody is going all in pre-flp wit low pocket pair and somebody is callin with two overs.

[Joshssj4]

Great article.

[willthethrill]

i agree, it is a great article. barry greenstein just went up on my list. he truly is a great poker player and person

[PorscheNGuns]

<and these guys sometimes take home around 500 thousand to a million a night, which they probably do>

You think "these guys" make 150 to 350 million a year? Get your head out of your ass.

-Matt

[PorscheNGuns]

Stop licking this guy's balls everyone. He didn't state anything that anyone already didn't know.

All he does in this article, besides discreetly take a [censored] on other pros names, is name himself along with Brunson and Reese as the best player in the world (along with a black guy and a chinese guy so as not to offend anyone)

Yawn.

-Matt

[ChuckyB]

Greenstein is hilarious! Heaven forbid poker players would use their fame to diversify their income sources. That's just common sense. You don't lose $1,000,000 in a night on your DVD sales.
Plus, he just wrote a book himself -- how can he criticize?

The media could care less about cash games.

You can't sell cash games to the viewers - therefore, they are not interested.

Tournaments are dramatic. There are storylines. There is an ultimate outcome - a "winner" - and there are pivotal moments and key showdowns on the way. Tournaments are EVENTS.

What can you do to dramatize a cash game? Who "wins" at a cash game? Who "loses"?

We all know that in a cash game, the winning and losing occurs in the long term, not in the short term. And the media is interested in the short term.

When is the last time a tourney player had to decide wether to call a $200,000 bet/raise that was actually worth $200,000 and not just his entry fee? That is is totally different animal than a tourney, even if you did fork over the 10k or 25k entry fee. I don't think there is any doubt that high stakes cash games are the toughest to beat, and if you can do it on a regular basis (where luck is removed over the long haul) then there is no question which is the greater test of skill.

[chesspain]

So Greenstein implies (at least by ommision) that Jen Harmon would be dead money in a game with himself and the other five great players?

[bicyclekick]

Just because somebody can't beat the top cash games in the world doesn't mean they aren't great poker players. That's the only part of barry's arguement I don't get. It doesn't really matter though, he's right about a lot of the tourney players being not good cash game players. For instance I doubt gus hanson is a winner in the poker stars 100/200 game. At least when I've seen him there.

It's obvious he's just sick of people getting all the attention that can't hang in the big game. He might as well get used to it, though, because tournement poker is much more media friendly. As smart as he is, you would think he would understand that, roll his eyes and go on about his business.

[golferbrent]

[ QUOTE ]
so that means i'm right. hypothetically....you take any group of players. what's the best way to decide who's the best? play a tournament and see who wins, or play cash games and then see who walks away with the most money? i think the bes tway to decide is to play a tournament.

playing in either situation better players are just plain better players. my point is that the structure of a tournament requires more skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would completely disagree... the reason being is that to win a tournament you don't have to be a great player... you can run lucky for a week. However, to be a great cash game player you have to make marginal decisions over the course of years that in the end make you a winner. It is a lot harder to make many correct marginal decisions over the long term then it is to run lucky in the short-term and win a tournament that may make your year!

[nmt09]

I'm not sure which has more skill:

In tournaments:
you have to survive the blinds
you can't wait around for the nuts
you're playing more people you don't have a pattern on

In cash games:
you can wait for better cards
you can re-buy so to speak

As for money being the sign of better players I can't agree, this years WSOP winner has won more than most but I wouldn't put him up there with the best.

Just because Barry plays higher stakes doesn't mean he would beat a good player who hasn't yet won the $500,000 to play in his cash game.

Another problem with the cash game idea is that the top 5 he listed would be playing each other all the time, one has to be better than the rest and under Barry's comments that would mean the other [over the long term] go home losers.

I'm just starting to get my teeth into poker and I'm trying to understand which path I want to follow - cash or tournaments.

Anyone have any advice, links, book recommendations for cash games?

If I had to make a choice I would say cash games make better players, tournaments have much more luck involved because of the blinds and as a newcomer I've placed in tournaments [a few actually] but got my arse handed to me in even the micro limit cash games...

[ QUOTE ]

Another problem with the cash game idea is that the top 5 he listed would be playing each other all the time, one has to be better than the rest and under Barry's comments that would mean the other [over the long term] go home losers.



[/ QUOTE ]

No. There are rich amateurs who "supply" the money.

[MicroBob]

as i recall...sometime around XMas Sklansky rated his top 10 smartest poker players or something like that over in the WPT forum (just for fun mostly).

Giang was near the top i believe (and Greenstein was in the top 10).

Ciau Giang is considered to be one of the very best. He doesn't play as many tournaments as some others is my understanding.


While in Vegas during the WSOP I played some 15/30 at the Bellagio with a direct view of the glass-room where they play the 'big game'.

At different times in 2 nights there you could see Barry, Ciau, Gus Hansen and Johnny Chan. At least 2 or 3 of those guys were in the game almost every time I saw it (and they were typically 5 or 6 handed).

Didn't see Doyle or Harmon or Chip in there but there was a LOT of poker still to be played at the Rio (as well as general fatigue from several weeks worth of tourneys).

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
It's obvious he's just sick of people getting all the attention that can't hang in the big game. He might as well get used to it, though, because tournement poker is much more media friendly.

[/ QUOTE ]



There's truth in what you've said. Now think about it about ....


Adam

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
i think the bes tway to decide is to play a tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAAHAHAAHAH.

fim

[JKDStudent]

Out of curiousity, and because I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread... how big IS this "big game"? Limit? No-limit? Blinds?

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiousity, and because I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread... how big IS this "big game"? Limit? No-limit? Blinds?

[/ QUOTE ]


I believe it's the limit $4000/$8000 game at the Bellagio.


Adam

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
A tourney is shortterm"
I don't think so. WSOP is a lot longer than an hour cash game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This and all your posts in this thread just make regular posters here wonder what to do :
a)dont answer
b)invent some joke about you
c)tell some old joke about you
d)make (futile) effort to make you realize that you are plainly wrong in everything you are saying here...

Think about it. How many good players saying this you need to believe it ?

[dealer_toe]

I think its a mixed game where they throw in NL Hold 'em w/ a $150,000 cap. The limits are 4k/8k in all the other games.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiousity, and because I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread... how big IS this "big game"? Limit? No-limit? Blinds?

[/ QUOTE ]


I believe it's the limit $4000/$8000 game at the Bellagio.


Adam

[/ QUOTE ]


4000/8000, LHE, PLHE, PLO, 7 stud, i think. Maybe more. I think they play more than just limit.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiousity, and because I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread... how big IS this "big game"? Limit? No-limit? Blinds?

[/ QUOTE ]


I believe it's the limit $4000/$8000 game at the Bellagio.


Adam

[/ QUOTE ]


4000/8000, LHE, PLHE, PLO, 7 stud, i think. Maybe more. I think they play more than just limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, I knew it was a mixture of different games... didn't know about the NL variation, though.



Adam

[Oblivious]

The NL and PL games have capped betting of 100K. I think the blinds in those games are 1K & 2K. The limit games also involve Stud/8, Omaha/8, 2-7, and Razz.

Sometimes you see them playing Chinese Poker when they want to unwind.

[PokerAmateur4]

Nice article. Visit his site it is very funny, listen to the music and read the "why I selected this song" for each pro. Phil Helmuth plays "It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to" and I laughed for a good long time.