How many of the BIG GAME players are the real deal? - Page 13

Smoothcall · #**121** 05-10-2005, 09:38 AM

Or not.

Smoothcall · #**122** 05-10-2005, 09:55 AM

First off. I never challenged El d. I simply said somethig rude to him as i felt he was being rude to me my snipping a one line quote from me and taking it out of context to try and prove i could not be good.

Next you can make any bet you want. But you will be a losing better if you make your bets when you don't know the abilty of both opponents.

Smoothcall · #**123** 05-10-2005, 09:57 AM

Don't be sorry for not knowing what you are tlaking about.

Your Mom · #**124** 05-10-2005, 10:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
First off. I never challenged El d. I simply said somethig rude to him as i felt he was being rude to me my snipping a one line quote from me and taking it out of context to try and prove i could not be good.

Next you can make any bet you want. But you will be a losing better if you make your bets when you don't know the abilty of both opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on your posts, I can deduce your intelligence which helps me determine how good you are at cards. Based on this, I would have no problem wagering a hefty amount on Diablo.

exeph · #**125** 05-10-2005, 11:18 AM

I think it's pretty clear that this is a case of "he's not good enough to realize how much better the best players are." For example, I always thought it was a little funny to think of how a lot of people consider all MIT kids to be brilliant, but within that group there's smart and there's SMART. It's hard to know the difference between the subgroups unless you're already pretty darn quick.

Lurshy · #**126** 05-10-2005, 01:24 PM

There is a lot to be said for smoothcall's point. The highest stakes games may have the richest players, the players with the most guts, but not the best players.

There certainly is a correlation though to skill and the ability to remain in the big-game long term, whether you are rich or ballsey, you will need skill to survive long term. Bad luck can probably knock many out PDQ though.

This still doesn't say that the long term big game survivors, though skillful, are the best in the world or certainly better than all of the rest of us that have not taken a shot at moving up.

Yet in the absense of another metric, long term bankroll growth especially if in the big game, is a pretty good proxy for who the best are.

Someone 'stuck' in 30-60 or 15-30 has a pretty weak argument that they can move up and be succesful, that they just don't want to risk their bankroll. Like it or not, having the balls to wield a bankroll is all part of being the best. Someone that moves up, and plays differently because of their bankroll considerations, isn't proving themselves. While it is possible all else being equal they are better, they have a pretty weak argument, as they are not in fact 'getting it done'. Conversely, if someone that regularly plays at very high stakes, steps way down to 15-30, and loses, you still don't have a strong argument that either is better, as the high stakes player may not be focused at the lower levels.

Getting it done is the measure. Getting it done here means making big money and lasting. I don't think people care if its tourney success or big ring game success, but continued success. But you make the most money in the big games, and key tourney's that is what garners the attention - and makes you earn respect as world class. Being a succesful grinder may earn you a living, respect of your peers, but like it or not, it will not garner you world class status, neither will saying but I could beat them if only..., after all I am succesful at my level, how much better can they be? But they are getting it done. That is the difference.

Recently, David Sklansky, brought on a bit of controversey by indicating he felt had he taken a different road, he could have earned a Nobel prize. This was based largely on his belief that he was one of the smartest people in the country, as well as having the personality to think outside of the box. While some people agree and others disagree, I beleive his argument is moot as we will never know, as he did not go down that path, and get it done.

Unless the basis of measurement changes, or people step up, we will never know. People don't come from the same backgrounds. Money is the measure here. I just don't see the best deciding to play for body parts, health, family memembers, or something else we all hold equally dear.

Tournaments are somewhat of an equalizer, as we all put up the same amount and can put up no more (forget rebuys, and yes the buy-in can mean more to some....). Some unkwowns get vaulted to the top by a big win. Others shoot them down as being lucky. Some of the new found tourney heroes, will flame out, others may go on to long and profitable careers. I don't begrudge them for the shortcut big bankroll win. I hope my favorites proove themselves in the long term as truly world class.

Smoothcall seemed to begrudge Phil Ivey because while grinding up in levels, he padded his bankroll with tourney success, enabling him to leapfrog levels and continue on. Seems to be a pretty weak argument against Phil Ivey, as he has had continual success in both ring games and tournaments.

Oh, and from me sitting way down in levels, I would also think that sitting in the 4k-8k game is a poor choice of games even if my bankroll could afford it. Many pros I think agree as well, and avoid it. But I think the presence of the odd less-skilled whale, or egoist taking a shot (above their bankroll comfort level), continue to make the game really profiitable for those grinding at that level but that is just a guess.

Smoothcall, I sure they would welcome you into the big-game for you to prove your skill level.

KramerTM · #**127** 05-10-2005, 01:35 PM

It requires more skill to play at these higher limits. It would be like you saying that you could solve a simple addition problem just as fast as Fibonacci. Obviously he is still better at math than you.

Lurshy · #**128** 05-10-2005, 02:13 PM

Barry Greenstein answers this question. The number of Big Game players that are the real deal = 5

Thread on Greenstein ESPN article

Smoothcall · #**129** 05-10-2005, 03:17 PM

You must be a player yourslef with those great reads.

Smoothcall · #**130** 05-10-2005, 03:43 PM

You say alot and some things i agree with but others i don't. The big thing i dont agree with is you are telling me they are better becaseu they atrempted to move up and i didn't. To me that is a weak argument. My lack of guts or comfort level does not make me play limit holdem worse than them. That is not skill. Skill is the abilty to outplay your opponents. That means if they all cam and played 15-30 they should all be able to play better than me. I don't think htis is the case. And the ones that do probably don't have thta huge and edge on me. Because limit holdem is a somewhat simple game then i have learned to play successfully. Unless they can abbracadabbra there wholecards on the river to keep ending up with better thands than me i cant see how i could be at such a disadvantage. I shouldn't have to move up to them to prove my skill level. You see the higher i go i am at a disadvantage becasue i am not as wealthy as them. But skill shoudn't be about wealth. Its about skill. So let play my game and show me that they will outclass me. I'll beleive it when i see it.

And the ivey winning money in tournies thing. I don't hold it against him for winning money in tournaments and leapfrogging everything. What i said was when you do it this way you have not proven your ability yet. You just happedn to find yourself in that game becasue you won soem poker tournies. Not becaseu you are the greatest live player in the world. May he become that . Its possible but just becasue he's in the game doesn't prove this. Same with Daniel.