Barry Greenstein's HUGE Psychological Edge

[Dan Mezick]

OK, here is is:

If you beat up Barry Greenstein, you are beating up Children Incorporated.

That's a huge UNSPOKEN edge for Barry. Add to this his incredible talent .... and 2+2 = "alot more that 4".

I didnt tape it, but in the Tunica episode of WPT that aired on 7/28, I distinctly heard head-up Randy Jensen make some kind of disparaging remark about "those kids".

In other words, his comments seem to indicate more than a little validity regarding my thesis. Clearly "the kids" were on Randy Jensen's mind, as he **mentioned** them.

I'm sorry, but my completely indefensible thesis that Barry Greenstein has a huge edge is not something I am going to argue.

From my point of view it is simply an empirical fact. Anyone at a final table with him knows that beating him literally means that thay are DIRECTLY taking food out of poor kid's mouths.

Everyone knows Barry gives 100% of his poker winnings to Children Incorporated. This charity feeds children and is a completely worthwhile target for charity funds.

I am willing to bet that if and when other players follow through with 100% kid-based charity funding from poker prizes, we will see what I am saying more clearly and conclusively manifest itself.

Even those who 'would bust their mother' have to deal with the reality of playing against Barry Greenstein.

Barry Greenstein is a courageous, inspiring individual and excellent example for others to follow.

He is a hugely talented tournament poker player, and a worldwide poker visionary in the most positive sense of the term.

I'm sure poker history will ultimately judge him along these lines.

[toots]

Interesting thesis, and not necessarily one I'd be willing to argue with.

And, if Barry was just using it as a front to really rake it in, BABY! it'd be sort of annoying. But so far, I'm willing to take him at face value and believe that he makes good on the promise.

At which point, we can really ask what the downside is. Someone who loses can salve his conscience that he "did the right thing" by not taking candy from the kids, and if someone beats Barry, he might be more inclined to "do the right thing" by contributing some of his winnings as Barry would have.

Yes, it colors the play of the game, but at the end of the day, it really isn't such a bad thing.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Everyone knows Barry gives 100% of his poker winnings to Children Incorporated.

Not to nitpick, but this is not true. He donates his *tournament* winnings, not his cash game winnings.

Anyone at a final table with him knows that beating him literally means that thay are DIRECTLY taking food out of poor kid's mouths.

This is perhaps the most offensive statement I've ever read at 2+2.

Even those who 'would bust their mother' have to deal with the reality of playing against Barry Greenstein.

Are you suggesting that one should not try to defeat Greenstein? No offense, but if I'm ever at a table with Barry Greenstein, I'm going to do everything in my power to bust him out and make sure he wins $0, not because I want poor children to go hungry, but because to do anything other than give 100% effort to win would be dishonesty bordering on collusion, and I'm sure Greenstein himself would be appalled if he thought people were soft-playing him.

[FeliciaLee]

Naw, anyone who plays against Barry gets into the spirit of the game and plays like they would against an opponent who is keeping all of his tourney winnings. I've never seen anyone softplay Barry, and I've played with him a bit.

He was transferred to my table at the series this year, and tried to take me out. I was a shortstack, he was the bring-in. I completed with my split jacks, he hadn't looked at his hand (I still can't figure out why WCP's don't do this). He woke up with kings and raised me. I made it three, he capped.

I caught perfect on fourth with a jack, and bet the whole way. I dug myself out of the hole with that hand, while crippling Barry. He was out not long after.

My point is, Barry is no slouch. Almost 100% of the time, if he was the bring-in, he would raise anyone who dared to complete on him, lol. He put a lot of pressure on his opponents. When, in the heat of battle, you are under that pressure, the last thing you are thinking of it, "Jeez, I better not take this pot off of Barry, cuz I might be taking charity away from kids!" In the heat of the moment, it's every man for himself.

Barry plays hard, he is very aggressive and tricky (sometimes pretending to be asleep and then raising "in the blind," an old Johnny Moss trick). I have never seen anyone softplay Barry. I watched him win one of the draw tourneys this series, and come in second on another. These guys are playing against Barry for the title, not trying to give him a win for charity.

He's a great guy, but all of those thoughts leave your head the moment you are in a hand with him.

Felicia [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
www.felicialee.net

[Blarg]

I'm going to donate all my winnings to Hamburgers for Hindus. Please start throwing pots at me.

[David Sklansky]

It is laudable that Barry gives his tournament winnings to charity. BUT- if you beat him out of x dollars you will still be quite a bit poorer than he will be. Nothing forces Barry Greenstein to make the decision that his charity is so dependent on the turn of a card. Possibly he thinks that the publicity of that strategy helps the charity to a much greater degree than the amount of money involved between first and second in a tournament. But if that is true, you are also indirectly helping the charity merely by competing against him.

[Lawrence Ng]

Even those who 'would bust their mother' have to deal with the reality of playing against Barry Greenstein.

But that is exactly how real competetive poker should be played. I would bust my own mother if she sat down in my game.

While Mr. Greenstein's ambitions to help Children Inc. are highly admirable, he must know that there are no ambitions of such sort when we are all on the poker table. We are there for the sport of the game and to take each other's money. I highly regard him as a wonderful philanthropist, but that doesn't mean I won't try and bust him if sat down on the same poker table as me.

[Franchise (TTT)]

Wow, that was dead on what I was going to say.

Constructive and contributive commentary from David Sklansky.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

I don't think it would make much difference to me at the table (but then I don't see Barry and I meeting anytime soon, as he rarely frequents rural Moose Lodge tourneys).

[Mayhap]

The fact that any whoseewhatsis celeb gives a large amount of money to charity is just an instance of grandiosity. After each of us arises from bed each day, we all have the opportunity and responsibility to make the world better in small, unremarkable ways. Consistency in doing so is a true measure of success.

Further, the psychological edge you describe is a guilt trip. So it is an effective edge against people who are prone to feeling guilty. I would think that the poker playing population is probably highly immune to feeling guilty.
/M