Pros Hate Playing Novices. . .
 

. . .But they love the money that the novices add to tournaments. Would Hellmuth, et al, really rather go back to the WSOP of 10-15 years ago, where they played the same pros each year, but the winnings were relative peanuts? If so, there's nothing stopping them from starting their own, exclusively pro tournament. But who can turn down the winnings of the main event?

Instead of berating players for bad moves, they should be happy that donks contribute to the purse they are trying to win. It is tremendously frustrating to lose to bad beats, but as others have pointed out, they are part of poker. A pro should shrug it off, and take the long view, confident that the donks, as a category of player, overall pay him far more than they take.

Cheers, Carl.

Re: Pros Hate Playing Novices. . .
 

I think getting bad beated in the Big One is much harder to "shrug off".

Re: Pros Hate Playing Novices. . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
.
A pro should shrug it off, and take the long view, confident that the donks, as a category of player, overall pay him far more than they take.


[/ QUOTE ]

This logic seems to apply more to cash games than tournaments with 5,000+ players. I'm guessing that's why most pro's call them "mine fields"

Re: Pros Hate Playing Novices. . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
.
A pro should shrug it off, and take the long view, confident that the donks, as a category of player, overall pay him far more than they take.


[/ QUOTE ]

This logic seems to apply more to cash games than tournaments with 5,000+ players. I'm guessing that's why most pro's call them "mine fields"

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe it doesn't seem to apply to tournaments but it definitely does.

Re: Pros Hate Playing Novices. . .
 

No pro who was thinking clearly and hadn't just been knocked out of a tournament (or taken a horrible beat) would seriously say they hated playing against novices. Well, no pro who was actually a winning player, anyway.

Re: Pros Hate Playing Novices. . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would Hellmuth, et al, really rather go back to the WSOP of 10-15 years ago, where they played the same pros each year, but the winnings were relative peanuts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Back when the fields were smaller, Hellmuth would give his left nut to face a field of 300 flounders in the WSOP, and his right nut NOT to face guys like Stu Ungar, Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, Johnny Chan, and the other big dogs in pursuit of the bracelet. His chances of winning a Big One would boost obscenenly if he only had to face 300 other guys and all of the were bad. When the field grows to 5000+, however, Phil's chances of CASHING IN, much less winning 1st, will be VERY slim, no matter how many good or bad players are in the tournament.

[ QUOTE ]
A pro should shrug it off, and take the long view, confident that the donks, as a category of player, overall pay him far more than they take.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be so true if you didn't count the last four Main Events WHICH WERE WON BY NOBODIES!

[ QUOTE ]
If so, there's nothing stopping them from starting their own, exclusively pro tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is ESPN the only channel you have?

Re: Pros Hate Playing Novices. . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A pro should shrug it off, and take the long view, confident that the donks, as a category of player, overall pay him far more than they take.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be so true if you didn't count the last four Main Events WHICH WERE WON BY NOBODIES!

[/ QUOTE ]

Our own Greg Raymer is a nobody?? I understand that the pros are frustrated with tournaments they can't win. With 5000+ WSOP entrants, the field must be, what, 80% or more amateurs? Given that some of those amateurs are pretty talented, the chances that the winner will not be a well-known pro are excellent (I hesitate to say "inevitable", but it may well be).

Pros can't have it both ways - if the let the donks into their tournaments and take their money, they have to recognize that the dynamics of the game change, and they will suffer more bad beats.

I realize that is not any more comforting to a Hellmuth, in the heat of the moment when he lost the Main Event like he did, but a classy professional would have apologized later for his insults, and a savvy professional would apologize, if for no other reason, then to avoid scaring off that donkey money from their tournaments that the pros have come to depend upon.

Cheers, Carl.

Re: Pros Hate Playing Novices. . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
A pro should shrug it off, and take the long view, confident that the donks, as a category of player, overall pay him far more than they take.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason the pro's don't like the amature is that they are no longer the loose/passive fish they used to be. More and more the unknowns are aggressive players, this makes it much harder to play against them. Some of them are good players and some are LAG's and until you play them for awhile you don't know which are which.

Course without the fish, the tournaments wouldn't be profitable.

Re: Pros Hate Playing Novices. . .
 

RoyalLance, I have no clue what you are talking about.

Personally, I suspect Hellmuth would rather have fewer entrants. His EV would go down if no fish entered, but his chance of winning the bracelet would go up. And I think he cares way more about the latter than the former.

Re: Pros Hate Playing Novices. . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
That would be so true if you didn't count the last four Main Events WHICH WERE WON BY NOBODIES!

[/ QUOTE ]

Moran