My thought on inexperienced players playing the WSOPME

[valenzuela]

In chile most teens like to lose their money in sports betting( legal in Chile). Ive tried explaining to my 51 year old uncle that he cant beat roulette in the long run by betting on the less frequent numbers, while Ive also tried to explain to my 24 year old cousin she cant beat the casino by " quitting when ahead", neither of them realizes that their betting systems dont work. ( im answering ur question about if I should be gambling)

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I understand, there are a lot more calling stations than weak tight players at the WSOP.

There people with a lot of money who go to Bellagio and sit down at the big game with Doyle, Chip, Phil, Barry, etc. They must know it's not EV+. What about all the people gambling at the table games at the casinos.

After Varkonyi and Moneymaker won, people feel anyone can win. So here's their chance at fame and fortune. I think I am about the level of Varkonyi and Moneymaker, so I would have a chance. Varkonyi and Moneymaker are not total fish, unlike many of the people pursuing the WSOP dream.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
one WITHIN my bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what your bankroll is, but your logic is wrong.

If you have $20,000, and all you play are satellites the WSOP, and the WSOP when you win a seat, (let's ignore time constraints here), your risk of ruin will be monstrous. This might not be true for the best players in the world, but it is true for the people that this thread concerns.

The reason these people don't go broke is because they play their regular low variance games on top of the extremely high variance satellites. This certainly doesn't mean they are properly bankrolled for the satellites.

FWIW, I have nothing against taking shots, or playing poker recreationally rather than for profit. I think what you don't realize is that even though setting a stop loss will set your risk of ruin to zero, that does not make you properly bankrolled. If you were properly bankrolled, you would be able to play the game 24/7 (in this case, satellites and main events 24/7, again ignoring time constraints).

Edit: Here's a bit of quick math. Let's say you're pretty good, and that if you invest $20k on satellites, you'll win an average of 4 seats, (this means you are better than 2x as good as the field). Your entire bankroll has turned into 4 WSOP entries. I don't think I need to show you math to prove that your ROR is ginormous when your bankroll is only 4 MTT entries.

[Davage]

I host a home tourney ($100+$20) for friends (and friends-of-friends) every 3 months or so (we've maxxed at 35 players). A neighbor wanted to play and bring his two sons aged 14 and 16 since "they play all the time. Before school, at school, after school, you name it."

I declined since I didn't want underage kids there (the father wouldn't have either if he knew my friends), but the interest was definately there.

Granted the sample size is small, but I think they are fairly representative.

[valenzuela]

That is ridicoulous, thats like not allowing "insert minority" to play.

[David04]

[ QUOTE ]
I host a home tourney ($100+$20) for friends (and friends-of-friends) every 3 months or so (we've maxxed at 35 players). A neighbor wanted to play and bring his two sons aged 14 and 16 since "they play all the time. Before school, at school, after school, you name it."

I declined since I didn't want underage kids there (the father wouldn't have either if he knew my friends), but the interest was definately there.

Granted the sample size is small, but I think they are fairly representative.

[/ QUOTE ]
What if the tournament had been smaller, something like a $10 or $20 tournament?

I don't think it's ridiculous to say "You're only 16, $120 is too much money for you to play in one tournament."

I think "You're 16, you shouldn't be gambling."is ridiculous.

But it is your tournament, do what you want.

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
That is ridicoulous, thats like not allowing "insert minority" to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even close. Minors (not minorities) do not have the same rights as adults in the U.S. Maybe it is different in Chile, but I doubt it. There are laws to protect minors based on their "given" lack of experience. Once they reach a certain age, it is their responsibility to become responsible. That age is typically 18 or 21 in the U.S. If the laws didn't exist, minors would be fleeced by desperate adults all the time.

[valenzuela]

bobby fischer won the US championship at 14, Martina Hingis won a grand slam at 17. Were not talking about playing roullete, drinking , driving or voting. We are talking about a competion, I dont see why kids cant play poker.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's ridiculous to say "You're only 16, $120 is too much money for you to play in one tournament."

I think "You're 16, you shouldn't be gambling."is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you've got it backwards to me.

If the 16 yo is sitting on a multi-million dollar trust fund, then $120 is an irrelevant sum of money to his bankroll, and the only issue is teaching him the value of a dollar. However, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be teaching underage kids how to gamble for money. It is almost certainly a mistake to do so. And if it's not a mistake, then it sure doesn't hurt them to be excluded. It's not like they're missing something they need to experience to become a proper adult. They can experience it when they're older, and that will be soon enough.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Jurollo]

My point was solely regarding playing in the WSOP. Not a far ranging satellite theory. I am simply rebutting the OP's comments that satellites are not worth it as IMHO they are because if you want to play a larger tourney you can essentially bring the buy in down to a level you are comfortable with, therefore eliminating the 'playing scared' theory. I realize ROR would be through the roof if you only played sats, I am not arguing with this point at all.
~Justin