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

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Also, isn't the point of poker from a strictly financial perspective to make the most money with the least effort?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the point is to make the most amount of money, period. To be considered the most "successful" poker player, you have to make the most money. But to be considered the "best" player, you have to make the most money against the toughest competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

[skaboomizzy]

I think Barry is getting at this:

Think of all the poker players you would normally see in an imaginary 1000-player WPT field. Pick an imaginary player who's maybe... #250 in the field in terms of total all-around poker ability. Player #250 goes on a great run for 4 or 5 days, and wins the tournament for $3,000,000.

Off of that $3,000,000, our good friend player #250 can:

- play WPT and WSOP events for years, hoping to get lucky and win another.
- make a couple hundred thousand dollars off of a DVD, book, commemerative chipset, etc.
- get tons of airtime and a sponsorship from a site, or a B&M, or whatever
- constantly have a "champion" image in the eyes of Fishy Joe because, HEY HE WON A TOURNAMENT ON TV!

On the other hand, Player #250 can sit down with Barry, Chau, Chip and Doyle with no observers, no cameras, no publicity and play some $20k-$40K mixed games.

Between being a "tournament pro" and playing with the 4-5 best players in the world, which do you think is the better career move for Mr. #250?

I think Barry is just DYING for Mr. #250 to play. I'm not so sure that's the most +EV move for #250, though.

[That guy]

isn't what Barry saying essentially:

cash games have the right blend of skill & luck

with tournaments, the luck factor is just too disproportional relative to skill

---------

but it is this 'tournament' luck factor that is really driving the popularity of poker (Moneymaker, WPT, ESPN etc...)

My impression is that Barry G is basically calling Gus Hansen and Daniel Negreanu the real live ones... and he is implying it about guys like John Juanda, Phil Hellmuth and Chris Ferguson.

They really ought to get something like 'Live at the Bike' going for the 'big game' or just have it on whatever the biggest game at the Bellagio or Wynn is... That could be HUGE.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

Regardless of what he is referring to, he came up here spouting bull and lying and ragging one me. Look at his profile. Look at the picture he uses. What do you think his purpose was? Do you believe that he is man enough to apologize. Never! He's a Phillips idolizer! No courage or sense of fairness in these people. PP sends people up here to egg me on and then they go to his Journal and report. check it out! I was asked questions by a poster in this thread. Why I don't play touranments and why I stay at the limit I do? I responded openly and honestly. Then this PP hero worshiper at the behest of his idol makes a personal attack towards me. Where is the outcry for banning him for his behavior!

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Vince, please point out a single lie in my posts (and not confusing "smartest" with "best"). You said PP needed a team of helpers to write his own posts, I just pointed out that his "team" can't help him compile his stellar tournament record.

I'm not sure why my avatar was modified without my permission. I was only using your picture as a tribute until you made a final table at the WSOP or WPT tournament, something that should be easy for you since Paul's done it eight times already.

And note that I never insulted you. Review my posts carefully, if you can find a single insult, then you have my word I'll provide you with a sincere apology.

Lastly I have never met, spoken to or as much as exchanged an e-mail with Mr. Phillips. Like Fossilman I find his writing on poker illuminating, and I would like to read more posts by both of them. You occasionally have rare posts that are rational or interesting, but they tend to be too abrasive for me to appreciate. I hope someday you will learn to have healthy discussions with others without allowing disagreements to mushroom into bickering and hatred.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have to, since Sklansky has already said PP is one of the best poker players in the world.

Just like I don't have to ask whether he's a good tourney player with 5 WSOP final tables (three last year alone!) and two second places. Or with 3 WPT final tables and a first and second. Or over $2M in lifetime tournament winnings.

I guess I should just take the word of some random 15-30 player, when a monkey can win in the Bellagio at that limit. If you want to claim to be some poker expert, move up past 30-60 first.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Vince, please point out a single lie in my posts (and not confusing "smartest" with "best").

[/ QUOTE ]

You are almost funny but sad is a more appropraite description. You didn't confuse "smartest" with "best". Can't you tell the truth even when it hits you right between your eyes. You had me! That was what you thought. It's right there in the tone of your post. Sklansky gave you the amuntion by saying Phillips was the best! Well. He didn't! And now you say it was just some confusion.
Yeah, it was confusion alright the confusion of a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Grow up, face it, apologize when you are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why my avatar was modified without my permission. I was only using your picture as a tribute until you made a final table at the WSOP or WPT tournament, something that should be easy for you since Paul's done it eight times already.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure? I'll tell you. I asked 2 + 2 to take my picture off of you "the liar's" profile. What right do you have to put my picture on next to your handle? If it happens again I'll ask that you be banned. I don't want in any way to be associated with a you. Why don't you put your "illuminators" picture up there. I'm sure PP won't mind. You being such a fan and all.

Whether or not you consider your sarcasm as an insult is your problem, not mine. I do. You might not consider that putting my picture on your profile is an insult, I do. But I don't want an apology. I want you to ignore my posts, especially since they are to abasive for you taste. If agreed I'll make you happy and do the same for you.
[ QUOTE ]
Like Fossilman I find his writing on poker illuminating

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you bring Fossilman into this discussion? What does he have to do with this? Is this the same kind of cry for help that you made when you claimed Sklansky said Phillips was the best? I don't get it.


[ QUOTE ]
I hope someday you will learn to have healthy discussions with others without allowing disagreements to mushroom into bickering and hatred.

[/ QUOTE ]

You hope someday that I will learn! You really are funny!

Vince

[David Sklansky]

It is important to understand that poker is a bit different than almost all other games or sports in the following way:

Player A can be more of a favorite against a table full of lesser players than player B, yet still be a slight underdog to a table full of player Bs. If those lesser players are playing only slightly smaller games than what B plays in (and A is making more money) it is hard to claim that B is the better poker player.

Not saying that is the case here.

[gergery]

Seems Barry is a bit unfair.

Guys like Negreanu and others are winning big tourneys and doing well at high stakes cash games. It's hard to call them fish just because they don't play in the biggest games.

There could be many reasons they don't -- don't want $1million variance, can make more per hour in other games, enjoy tourney's more than ring games, don't want to live in Vegas, etc. that have nothing to whether they can beat that game.

[ohgeetee]

[ QUOTE ]
but it is this 'tournament' luck factor that is really driving the popularity of poker (Moneymaker, WPT, ESPN etc...)

My impression is that Barry G is basically calling Gus Hansen and Daniel Negreanu the real live ones... and he is implying it about guys like John Juanda, Phil Hellmuth and Chris Ferguson.

They really ought to get something like 'Live at the Bike' going for the 'big game' or just have it on whatever the biggest game at the Bellagio or Wynn is... That could be HUGE.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're putting a lot of words into Barry's mouth IMO. he gave us a list of the top 5, and didn't mention anyone below the top 5. he listed no names, and im sure that was on purpose. If he were wrong, I think you would see a slew of pissed off pros mentioning it, but there simply arent. I bet if you asked most folks at that table who the top 5 were, they would probably agree.

He mentioned the people the media points to as being great. This list in my mind are people like Chris Moneymaker, Greg Raymer, Scott Fischman, Dutch Boyd, Phil Hellmuth, etc.

Does anyone question that Moneymaker would be out of his league sitting at the big game? Raymer is good, but could he handle the big game? not at this moment IMO, but i bet if he worked his way up he could do it. Hellmuth has never won a bracelet outside of holdem... is there any question he would lose in a game where more than just holdem were the focus? Fischman and Boyd and the crew? There just isn't a chance.

Then there are the questionables... Negreanu, Forrest, Todd Brunson, Jennifer Harmon, etc. Barry makes no inference about these guys, except that they are 6th or lower in his ranking of top players. is 6th really that bad? who says which place a person becomes a losing player?

Barry is an intelligent person, and trying to make inferences from purposely left out names is a bad call IMO. he said the names he said on purpose, and he left names out on purpose.

People beg and beg and beg to get the scoop on who is a winner and who isn't, but when someone steps up and gives a bit of insight, so many more inferences are drawn, its just going to stop more from stepping forward. The subject is so sewing circle, few people even understand the stakes and representations of the big game in different locations, and it becomes like an urban legend. Barry has even said that he only has 10 hours logged with Negreanu. These guys are playing poker sometimes 24 hours at a time, yet daniel has only played 10 hours with him ever? There are so many questions surrounding exactly how things are handled it is hard for anyone to formulate any meaningful counterargument to barry, because he is the only one talking that has any first hand info.

the bottom line is, anyone not sitting down at the big game is not in contention, because if they could win at it, they would. thats as cut and dry as it gets. If you feel a person could win "if they had the bankroll" you are completely wrong, because if they could, they would. there is no logical argument as to why someone would not want to make more money for the same time investment if they could do so, especially when the only real difference is where you're sitting and who you're sitting with, as long as your skill level is appropriate.

I think the bottom line is, the guys hocking DVDs and doing more promotional crap are doing so because they are making more doing it than playing poker, whether it is because they make the same amount for a lesser time investment, or they just flat out make more money.

[IronDragon1]

This thread really won't have all that much merit other than a discussion on something Barry probably didn't even mean to say (or was grossly taken out of context) until the Barry himself stops by.

[IgorSmiles]

[ QUOTE ]
It is important to understand that poker is a bit different than almost all other games or sports in the following way:

Player A can be more of a favorite against a table full of lesser players than player B, yet still be a slight underdog to a table full of player Bs. If those lesser players are playing only slightly smaller games than what B plays in (and A is making more money) it is hard to claim that B is the better poker player.

Not saying that is the case here.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting, and I think I see your point. But ultimately there is only 1 way to keep score in poker and that is by the size of your bankroll. It's the only true measure. So the guy who beats the biggest game for the most money has to be considered the best.

A fighter could pound through a field of 1500 palukas and make plenty of money on Pay Per View, but if he cant beat Mike Tyson, he aint the champ...