My thought on inexperienced players playing the WSOPME

valenzuela · #1 03-23-2005, 10:20 PM

I dont get why many play the WSOP...I just dont get it, whats the point of playing on a 10K buy-in tourney if youre going to fold jacks after the pro goes all-in with 83o, why play if youre folding AQ on a AJ9 flop after the pro pushes with 57s. I dont see how can somebody that has never played a $500 tourney in his/her life is suddenly ready to play with 10K, on the other forum I just read the stupidiest comment ever( no offense to the poster)He basically said he will pay 10K to attemp getting his money back.

As for satelites, they dont make sense to me ....its like playing a tourney( im 16 )where the first 5 places win a playstation 2, while i really would like a PS2 i much rather have the original cash.

If youre going to play the WSOP with little experince play the smaller events.

Voltron87 · #2 03-23-2005, 10:36 PM

First of all you got things a little mixed up. In 2004 the pros were going all in with 83 and the amateurs were calling with jacks. And they never folded AQ to AJ9.

Second, if you don't see why so many people want to play the ME you are pretty thick.

But you are right that people should play small events first. But that's no revelation.

valenzuela · #3 03-23-2005, 10:47 PM

Im saying that many amateurs are playing with scared money thereby they make tight-weak play ...its only natural...If Greg played in a 20millions buy-in tourney im sure he would play tight-weak( of coures hes smart enough to not play on a 20million buy-in tourney).

RiverDood · #4 03-23-2005, 10:51 PM

Why do people spend a fortune to go to the SuperBowl when it's on TV for free? . . . Why do brides want $20,000 weddings when a basic marriage license costs $25? . . . Why do rich people pay for first-class tickets on short-haul airplanes when it just isn't that different from coach?

Because it's a thrill. Because it creates a whole new bunch of "brag stories" that you can tell friends until they're tired of them. And because for some people the extra cost just isn't that much money (whether it's $10k for an immediate seat at the WSOP or the smaller satellite fees)

I agree with you that it's a shabby spectacle watching people play ugly, scared poker for high stakes because they're way outclassed. And it's a shabby spectacle watching people play ugly, kamikaze poker because they're way outclassed, too.

But if everyone who lacked the skills to win didn't show up -- well, I'll contend that every poker game from the main event at WSOP to the nickel/dime game at the Sesame Street Elementary School would gradually perish for lack of players.

Heck, let the thrill seekers, braggers and rich guys come to the table. Even if they don't win, they may get what they came looking for. And for the people who know what they're doing, why get angry at the arrival of dead money?

ttleistdci · #5 03-23-2005, 10:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Im saying that many amateurs are playing with scared money thereby they make tight-weak play ...its only natural...If Greg played in a 20millions buy-in tourney im sure he would play tight-weak( of coures hes smart enough to not play on a 20million buy-in tourney).

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a survey of how many people would pay 10k to play a single World Series (baseball) game or in a Super Bowl. Sure you're gonna be crapping your pants when you take a Randy Johnson fastball up high or run across the middle for a pass knowing Ray Lewis is waiting to lay you out, but it's worth it for a lotta people to say they were there and they did it. And some people, especially some regulars on here, have the talent to compete on that level even though they're still considered amateurs.
Poker is much more accessible than other sports. You don't need to run a 4.4 40, be 6'4", or be able to throw 90mph to compete. That's what makes it attractive...for a minimal fee (in satellites), you can have the chance to sit next to Phil Ivey or your favorite poker pro and compete against them at the highest level.

valenzuela · #6 03-23-2005, 11:00 PM

I must admit your post makes sense, sadly im even scared to a 30 bux tourney.

Jurollo · #7 03-24-2005, 12:24 AM

First off I definately think that players who have never played in a large live event should buy directly into the WSOP ME. That is absurdly obvious logic which follows the same line as not playing over your head online as far as bankroll goes. But as far as satellites go you are completely off base. Players that enter satellites are effectively making the $10K buyin whatever buyin they are comfortable with paying for a satellite. This is the very purpose of them, for those that want to play in a larger tournament but cannot afford direct entry, it is simple. If you want to play for cash, you play in cash tournies, fairly straightforward. I agree that even some who won seats via sats will play scared and weak tight but that is by far not the majority, most online players, including myself, think they have a shot at fairing rather well in the tourney and are already far ahead of the game in that we got a $10K seat for much less than $10K. I won my seat on the Empire VIP freeroll for free, and turned that into a seat, I am ALREADY playing with house money, I have no shame in bowing out in 6,000th place as I won a trip to vegas, I come out ahead either way. This doesn't mean I will push all-in with 77 in front of me first hand, but it doesn't mean I am folding it either, this will be just another tourney for me, more importantly, one WITHIN my bankroll.
~Justin

The Ocho · #8 03-24-2005, 12:36 AM

It's their money, let them spend it how they please without judgement from you. Just because you can't justify the expense does not mean they cannot also. It is really none of your business. That last sentence applies to all matters concerning other's money, and not just poker.

valenzuela · #9 03-24-2005, 12:55 AM

I preety much agree with everyone except you, why dont u play anthr tourney instead and if u win 10K, u buy-in. IMO The only reason to play satelites is because you may do better with that kinda tourney. anyway it just my two cents. BTW do u rather have $8k or that seat?( i took this from anthr thread)If youre answer is the seat, do u rather have $10K or the seat?

RiverDood · #10 03-24-2005, 01:01 AM

No quarrel at all with your main points -- but you're rebutting an argument that I didn't make.

I'll gladly agree that lots of people like you (and Greg Raymer) who win satellites belong at the WSOP, have the potential to do very well at the WSOP, and can play comfortably within their bankroll at the tournament. They regard satellites as a way to get rewarded for superior skill even before the main event starts.

My point was that many of the people who enter WSOP satellites do so with what they regard as loose change. That's true whether it's middle-income folks at $40 or rich guys at $1000. If sufficient thousands of them play, at least a few of them will get lucky -- and end up winning seats at the main event. And then they're there for all the reasons already discussed.