Greenstein - Good Article.

[x vikram]

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.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ 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.

[wall_st]

[ 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.

[x vikram]

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

[Cerril]

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.

[Reef]

[ 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.

[bernie]

[ 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

[Atropos]

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.