Greenstein - Good Article.

[willthethrill]

i agree, it is a great article. barry greenstein just went up on my list. he truly is a great poker player and person

[PorscheNGuns]

<and these guys sometimes take home around 500 thousand to a million a night, which they probably do>

You think "these guys" make 150 to 350 million a year? Get your head out of your ass.

-Matt

[PorscheNGuns]

Stop licking this guy's balls everyone. He didn't state anything that anyone already didn't know.

All he does in this article, besides discreetly take a [censored] on other pros names, is name himself along with Brunson and Reese as the best player in the world (along with a black guy and a chinese guy so as not to offend anyone)

Yawn.

-Matt

[ChuckyB]

Greenstein is hilarious! Heaven forbid poker players would use their fame to diversify their income sources. That's just common sense. You don't lose $1,000,000 in a night on your DVD sales.
Plus, he just wrote a book himself -- how can he criticize?

The media could care less about cash games.

You can't sell cash games to the viewers - therefore, they are not interested.

Tournaments are dramatic. There are storylines. There is an ultimate outcome - a "winner" - and there are pivotal moments and key showdowns on the way. Tournaments are EVENTS.

What can you do to dramatize a cash game? Who "wins" at a cash game? Who "loses"?

We all know that in a cash game, the winning and losing occurs in the long term, not in the short term. And the media is interested in the short term.

When is the last time a tourney player had to decide wether to call a $200,000 bet/raise that was actually worth $200,000 and not just his entry fee? That is is totally different animal than a tourney, even if you did fork over the 10k or 25k entry fee. I don't think there is any doubt that high stakes cash games are the toughest to beat, and if you can do it on a regular basis (where luck is removed over the long haul) then there is no question which is the greater test of skill.

[chesspain]

So Greenstein implies (at least by ommision) that Jen Harmon would be dead money in a game with himself and the other five great players?

[bicyclekick]

Just because somebody can't beat the top cash games in the world doesn't mean they aren't great poker players. That's the only part of barry's arguement I don't get. It doesn't really matter though, he's right about a lot of the tourney players being not good cash game players. For instance I doubt gus hanson is a winner in the poker stars 100/200 game. At least when I've seen him there.

It's obvious he's just sick of people getting all the attention that can't hang in the big game. He might as well get used to it, though, because tournement poker is much more media friendly. As smart as he is, you would think he would understand that, roll his eyes and go on about his business.

[golferbrent]

[ 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 ]

I would completely disagree... the reason being is that to win a tournament you don't have to be a great player... you can run lucky for a week. However, to be a great cash game player you have to make marginal decisions over the course of years that in the end make you a winner. It is a lot harder to make many correct marginal decisions over the long term then it is to run lucky in the short-term and win a tournament that may make your year!