"They'd be drawing dead." Barry G on tournament pros... - Page 5

Vincent Lepore · #41 05-10-2005, 04:52 PM

When it is to my advantage I use the sarcasm of others to prove a point. You, of all people should recognize that.

Vince

Vincent Lepore · #42 05-10-2005, 04:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He is saying a large part of them is beating bad players,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this might be something that Barry should regret saying. A large part of "cash game poker" is beating bad players. Just ask any pro, even Barry.

Vince

trying2learn · #43 05-10-2005, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He is saying a large part of them is beating bad players,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this might be something that Barry should regret saying. A large part of "cash game poker" is beating bad players. Just ask any pro, even Barry.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

vince, i don't disagree with you often (and never in a post), but what barry is talking about is that at his level, he isn't beating bad players in cash games. he's beating inferior players, but not bad ones.

tpir90036 · #44 05-10-2005, 05:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One match or two or 4 or 5 won't prove who the better poker player is. Successful Poker playing is decided over many, many hours of play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this coming from the same person who recently said that a certain Pro Player was terrible based on 2 or 3 televised hands?

(Disclaimer: I am not a detractor or supporter of said Pro)

Voltron87 · #45 05-10-2005, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He is saying a large part of them is beating bad players,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this might be something that Barry should regret saying. A large part of "cash game poker" is beating bad players. Just ask any pro, even Barry.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Barry is saying that if the best regular tournament players who are relatively good, sat in the big game they would be losing players. A lot of Barry and the 5's profit comes from beating "bad" players (relative), the celebrities who play in the game, and a lot comes from beating very good players who are not "great". There is "very good" and there is "great". Barry is saying those 5 are "great" and the tournament players who are famous are good, but by no means the best players in the world and in the biggest games they are live ones.

Part of Barry's income comes from playing weaker celebrities and dabblers, but a lot comes from beating players who are very good but not "great". Barry is saying he can beat these "very good" players but the famous tournament professionals cannot. In a tournament you can win enough chips from bad players to negate the fact that you can't really beat the other strong players, and if you get a little lucky you get a big payday on TV.

WillMagic · #46 05-10-2005, 07:34 PM

From dictionary.com:

insult: To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness.

Did I do this? I seriously don't think so. Saying "You are stupid," is an insult. Saying "You are wrong," is not.

But anyway...we can argue semantics all day.

And of course you are entitled to your opinion. I simply think that your opinion is flat-out wrong. Am I not entitled to this opinion? It it an insult if I say that I think your opinion is flat-out wrong?

The question of whether or not tournaments are poker is a semantics question. To accurately assess Barry's thoughts on the matter, there would have had to have been some discussion of semantics on Barry's part. Without said discussion, your opinion that Barry was ESSENTIALLY saying IN EFFECT that tournaments are not poker is baseless.

Ok? I didn't insult you...I argued with you. We do it all the time on this forum. If you want to get along with others on this forum, you need to learn to distinguish the two.

Will

Analyst · #47 05-10-2005, 07:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"There are five top players: There's Doyle Brunson, there's Chip Reese, there's Chau Giang, there's Phil Ivey, there's myself," Greenstein says."

I would like to clarify something. Is Barry talking about ALL AROUND play? Surely he can't be suggesting that there is no one better than any of these five in ANY typically played game? I am sure I can name at least one person off this list who plays better than at least one person on the list in Limit Holdem, Pot limit Omaha, Eight or Better Stud and No Limit Deuce To Seven. But maybe Barry disagrees.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems almost certain that Greenstein is talking about overall play as found in a mixed game such as the $4k-8k big game. In the player analysis on his website, he does single out certain individuals as being extremely strong in specific games (e.g. Ted Forrest in 7CS 8 or better, Sammy Farha in Omaha - note that these are IIRC, as I'm having trouble accessing Greenstein's site). It seems reasonable to assume that Greenstein feels that, at least in these games, these particular players could hold their own against the "big five".

Lots of assumptions in the above, however.

Vincent Lepore · #48 05-10-2005, 08:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No. Barry is saying that if the best regular tournament players who are relatively good, sat in the big game they would be losing players. A lot of Barry and the 5's profit comes from beating "bad" players (relative), the celebrities who play in the game, and a lot comes from beating very good players who are not "great". There is "very good" and there is "great". Barry is saying those 5 are "great" and the tournament players who are famous are good, but by no means the best players in the world and in the biggest games they are live ones.

Part of Barry's income comes from playing weaker celebrities and dabblers, but a lot comes from beating players who are very good but not "great". Barry is saying he can beat these "very good" players but the famous tournament professionals cannot. In a tournament you can win enough chips from bad players to negate the fact that you can't really beat the other strong players, and if you get a little lucky you get a big payday on TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that this was very good and bares repeating.

Vince

Chobohoya · #49 05-10-2005, 08:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to get along with others on this forum, you need to learn to distinguish the two.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL where have you been man?

Vincent Lepore · #50 05-10-2005, 08:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is this coming from the same person who recently said that a certain Pro Player was terrible based on 2 or 3 televised hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me in any post anywhere that I ever claimed or initmated that that certain player was even a fair poker player let alone a professional. I said he relyed on luck and those were two instances that I used to prove my point. I never claimed he was a long term +EV poker player which would take considerably more examples to prove. But a dice player is a gambler and that's how PP plays poker. At least from what i've seen. Do you have any examples to the contrary?

Vince