Greenstein - Good Article.
 

I like this article.


Adam

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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?

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

[ 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)

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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?

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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 ]

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

[ 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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

[ QUOTE ]
phil helmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Negreanu

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

[ 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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

[ 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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

[ 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

Different Games
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

[ 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

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

[ 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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

[ 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

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

[ 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 ]

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

[ 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

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

"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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Different Games
 

[ 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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I read in a Card Player article 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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots and lots of money.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

[ 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.

Re: Greenstein - Good Article.
 

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.