Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]


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


Adam

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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?

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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

Determining who the \"Best\" Player is...
 

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

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

Great article.