Greenstein - Good Article.

[bernie]

[ 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