Re: Is a freeroll top 10 really more difficult?
[ QUOTE ]
For the sake of continuing the discussion, I will play devil's advocate here. More bad players mean more bad beats, especially with the number of all-ins that occur in a freeroll. Therefore, you have to survive many more suckouts in a 900-person freeroll than in a 200-person $50 tourney. Comments?
[/ QUOTE ]
You also get paid off more.
I think in these arguments, the problem is that bad and loose are used synonymously, as are good and tight, regularly. It would probably be easier to go far consistently in a tournament full of players who were way too tight, as you could do pretty well constantly stealing. However, that doesn't make these players good. Many people don't adjust their styles appropriately for whether they are playing loose or tight players, and probably have a style which is more well suited against playing one kind. So when these people talk about "good" players being easier to beat, I think what they really mean is that they have a style that plays better against tighter (not better) opposition.
|