Greenstein - Good Article.

[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.

[Rozez]

[ QUOTE ]
i've never heard of the asian guy. what has he won/done?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing I know about Chau Giang is that he won the WSOP
Pot Limit Omaha Championship last year.

[dealer_toe]

He was at the final table of the first televised WSOP event last year. The NL Hold 'em event that the British Backgammon player won. He ran into quads against that snaggle tooth dude.

[Emoney]

he got second to john stoltzman at whichever WPT event it was that stoltzman won, if that's the type of result you're looking for. best part of that episode is giang winning a big pot, taking the chip lead and announcing he's playing every hand from then on. he gets rags the next hand but calls a raise PF and flops two pair. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[emil3000]

That was a nice hand. Michael Mizrachi made an absolutely horrible turn bet and then had to fold to Chaus all in when he had 14 outs, if I recall correctly.

Barry's right.

[elmitchbo]

i'm still not totally convinced. i will concede that the true measure of poker skill and succes is $. the poster that said you can tell who is a good player just by talking to him is in left field. unless you're talking to him about his giant BR.

i agree that barry makes more money than alot of the 'famous' tourney players, and that is hard evidence to refute, but that is because he plays at such huge limits every day. even if you really were the best tourney player in the world you couldn't earn what he does because there isn't a $500,000 buy in tournamet every day.

never the less... i still think that a successful career tournament player at a given buy-in level is more skilled than the equivalent limit cash game player, assuming that they end up with equal ROI. in other words, it is harder to maintain long term success in tournaments than in cash games at the the same $ level.

the argument that tournamets become all in luck fests ignore the skill necessary to make it to a final table with a big stack, and or survive with a small stack.

oh... and chau giang has been getting killed on poker superstars. barry has been too for that matter. moneymaker is done for. guys like sklansky and johnny chan are killing them.

[propervillain]

i feel like i may be falling into the trap... buying what ESPN is selling me with daniel n., howard lederer, and other tourney players. [ QUOTE ]


You're trapped

[James282]

[ 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 ]

Your point is completely wrong.
-James

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Your point is completely wrong.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
i will concede that the true measure of poker skill and succes is $. the poster that said you can tell who is a good player just by talking to him is in left field. unless you're talking to him about his giant BR.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're in left field if you're only consideration is how big his bankroll is. If you can't assess a players skill based on an honest conversation with him about concepts and plays, you need to study the game more. But then again, ESPN/media is telling you all you need to know about the game.

This is equivalent to saying when you come to a table, the one with the most chips in front of him is the best player at the table. You're not alone in thinking this way, I hear it all the time on tables from players who don't know how to assess opposition.

b