Greenstein - Good Article.

[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.