tourney question for smash

[pokepoke1967 0]

This is always so stupid. If Chris Ferguson, John Juanda, Erik Seidel, or whomever find it very profitable over the long run playing tourneys what do you say to them? Nice run of luck there Erik...hope it holds up another 20 years for you! Luck is the biggest factor at any one tourney just like it is the biggest factor in any one hand or night at a ring game. So what! Give me stock in tourney results from Seidel, Juanda, and Ferguson over the next 10 years!

[Don Giovanni 0]

6. smash will come on here and say if you can make money playing tournaments, you can make more money playing cash games. (I refer you to #2 above)

hes right, at least for a very high percentage of people that is true. and your number 2 doesnt mean much. of course there are things that make people more money than poker. i think anyone would get that smash is saying that out of all the ways you can play poker, limit holdem is the best way.

[Guest]

I agree to a point. In my experience there is obviously more luck associated with tournaments than SnG's or ring play. I have played in about 50+ tournaments with everywhere from 40 to 500+ enterants, and have only won 2 of them and placed in the top 10% 2 other times. I feel this is not too bad, but the thing that bothers me is that I can usually get to the top 20 or 25% about 8 times out of 10 but have a problem getting past the bubble into the money on a consistent basis. If Ihave played conservative ortight aggresive early and am short or medim stacked heading into the later rounds it is always hard to perform well against other players who have got lucky and built up a large stack earlier. Just my oppinion.

[poguemahone68 0]

6. smash will come on here and say if you can make money playing tournaments, you can make more money playing cash games. (I refer you to #2 above)

hes right, at least for a very high percentage of people that is true. and your number 2 doesnt mean much. of course there are things that make people more money than poker. i think anyone would get that smash is saying that out of all the ways you can play poker, limit holdem is the best way.

Define "best".If it's the way to maximize profits per hour, then I would disagree again. People are all different. What works for one, doesn't work for another. One can be successful at playing tournaments cause he has incredible reading skills and he can totally suck at limit, cause he can't calculate odds on the spot.Just because someone chooses to play tournaments does not mean they're a sucker.Playing the lottery is completely different. I can say witha straight face that there are good tourney players and horrible tourney players. Not something to be said about lottery players. "That old lady sure is an awesome lottery player, look at the way she ordered that quick pick"

[blinky 0]

this thread is highly entertaining

[custom36 4]

2. If you really believe grinding out LHE is the easiest way for an intelligent person to make money, you my friend are the sucker. It may be the laziest, but not the easiest. There are plenty of other things you can do to make much more money that play poker. So I suppose if I took the ridiculous line smash and yourself take, I could say LHE players are suckers.

There are reasons that support what Smash and I (and many others) say. Would there be any logical reasons to support that statement?

[Jdr999 0]

To Smash and everone else in this debate:While tournaments have more of a luck factor than cash games doesn't mean they are not proftiable.Also, the reason so many people play tournaments is because of the huge payouts. While it is possible for some one to win a $1,000 satellite into a $10,000 tournament, and win $1 million, it is almost impossible for someone to take that $1,000 into a cash game and turn it into $1 million in a week.

[MLMarkland 0]

I'll keep it serious in a thread of dubious seriousness.It all boils down to your odds.If you're a great tournament player, it doesn't matter that you are only 50-1 to place first in a 200 person tournament, and first pays better than 50-1, then you're making a good bet by playing.Is it the best bet?It depends on your odds in SnGs or ring games.Luck really has little to do with it, in terms of making a decision. There is no more "luck" involved in any given type of poker game or game format. There are only the odds, and the decision you have to make on whether the odds are worth the gamble.

[Smasharoo 0]

While tournaments have more of a luck factor than cash games doesn't mean they are not proftiable.Of course not.Just means they're for suckers.Good luck.

[poguemahone68 0]

I'd also like to point out that if i used smashs' line of thinking on this issue than I would say he's an even bigger sucker than me. He's watched me play at final tables and I know my EV was much higher than his on those occassions. can't make much money on the rail, unless he was betting on who would win, then I'd say he was even more of a sucker.So now that we've established smash to be the biggest sucker of FCP, can we please move on.bad luck

[Smasharoo 0]

I'd also like to point out that if i used smashs' line of thinking on this issue than I would say he's an even bigger sucker than me. He's watched me play at final tables and I know my EV was much higher than his on those occassions. can't make much money on the rail, unless he was betting on who would win, then I'd say he was even more of a sucker.So now that we've established smash to be the biggest sucker of FCP, can we please move on. intresting logic.So you posting about me would make you...Man, I''m the best.Good luck.

[jakoye 0]

I'll keep it serious in a thread of dubious seriousness.It all boils down to your odds.If you're a great tournament player, it doesn't matter that you are only 50-1 to place first in a 200 person tournament, and first pays better than 50-1, then you're making a good bet by playing.Is it the best bet?It depends on your odds in SnGs or ring games.Luck really has little to do with it, in terms of making a decision. There is no more "luck" involved in any given type of poker game or game format. There are only the odds, and the decision you have to make on whether the odds are worth the gamble.

I agree with that. Personally, my results are better with tournaments than they are with ring games. It seems like tournaments reward my impatience better than ring games. I try to play limit... I really do, but I am an overall loser when it comes to that. Tournaments is how I make my money.I suppose that makes me a sucker! As long as I'm making money though, I don't really care what I'm called.

[MLMarkland 0]

Just means they're for suckers.

Your logic is ironclad.

[Jdr999 0]

While tournaments have more of a luck factor than cash games doesn't mean they are not proftiable.Of course not.Just means they're for suckers.Good luck.

If you can make $ playing them, why not?Who cares if they're for suckers if you are one of the "suckers" who makes $?Why can't this be about making $.

[Smasharoo 0]

Your logic is ironclad.It is. actually.No tournament player on the planet makes more per hour playing tournamnets over the long term than the best cash game players make per hour.Game, set, match, suckers.Now there might be other reasons to play tournaments, publicity to sell your books or your tee shirts or respect from your peers or whatever, but the money's still in cash games particularly at smaller stakes. Tournamnet players RoI per hour is never going to approach that of a cash game player's given the same bankroll. It's unarguable. Sorry.Good luck.

[pokepoke1967 0]

Bullsmash Smasharoo! I think Juanda, Lindgren, Fischman, Ferguson, and other tourney specialists have figured out how they can make the most money! It doesn't matter if their rate is less than the best cash game players.....let me explain why dumbazz.....it only matters that their own rate playing tourneys is greater than their own rate playing ring games.

[Smasharoo 0]

censored Smash! I think Juanda, Lindgren, Fischman, Ferguson, and other tourney specialists have figured out how they can make the most money! It doesn't matter if their rate is less than the best cash game players.....let me explain why dumbazz.....it only matters that their own rate playing tourneys is greater than their own rate playing ring games.They all make more money playing cash games.Well, maybe not Fischman.Good luck.

[poguemahone68 0]

Your logic is ironclad.It is. actually.No tournament player on the planet makes more per hour playing tournamnets over the long term than the best cash game players make per hour.Game, set, match, suckers.Now there might be other reasons to play tournaments, publicity to sell your books or your tee shirts or respect from your peers or whatever, but the money's still in cash games particularly at smaller stakes. Tournamnet players RoI per hour is never going to approach that of a cash game player's given the same bankroll. It's unarguable. Sorry.Good luck.

But where your logic is flawed is that you are comparing player to player. If you compare cash games to tounraments ROI within one certain player, then you're wrong. Without a doubt, there are people who can make more money in tournaments than they can make in cash games. Also without a doubt there are some poeple who can make far more money playing cash games than they can make in tournaments.Another thing to point out is that someone can make more in tournaments based on bankroll even if they are equally as good at cash games.

[Jdr999 0]

censored Smash! I think Juanda, Lindgren, Fischman, Ferguson, and other tourney specialists have figured out how they can make the most money! It doesn't matter if their rate is less than the best cash game players.....let me explain why dumbazz.....it only matters that their own rate playing tourneys is greater than their own rate playing ring games.They all make more money playing cash games.Well, maybe not Fischman.Good luck.

Ferguson doesn't play cash games.

[MLMarkland 0]

You are just plain wrong Smash.Now, taking into account odds and such, SnGs and ring games might still be a better bet, maybe 99% of the time maybe 50% maybe not at all, depending on the player, but...WSOP Main Event - 8 daysJoseph Hachem - $7.5 millionI'm not sure how many hours a day they play, but let's say 15.Not sure how Hachem got in, but let's say he paid full price.If he only played in that one event:Investment: $10,000ROI: Almost 75,000% (74,900%)If he played in 50 $10,000 buy-in tournaments in 2005, and only won this once:Investment: $500,000ROI: 1,400%Ever seen someone get a 1,400% RoI in a ring game? In a limit ring game?I'm the best

[poguemahone68 0]

censored Smash! I think Juanda, Lindgren, Fischman, Ferguson, and other tourney specialists have figured out how they can make the most money! It doesn't matter if their rate is less than the best cash game players.....let me explain why dumbazz.....it only matters that their own rate playing tourneys is greater than their own rate playing ring games.They all make more money playing cash games.Well, maybe not Fischman.Good luck.

Ferguson doesn't play cash games.

Yes he does

[jakoye 0]

Not sure how Hachem got in, but let's say he paid full price.

He did.

[poguemahone68 0]

smash won't admit he's wrong on this issue, just like he will never dig 10 examples of himself admitting to being wrong in the past out of his ass.Bad luck

[KDawgCometh 2]

censored Smash! I think Juanda, Lindgren, Fischman, Ferguson, and other tourney specialists have figured out how they can make the most money! It doesn't matter if their rate is less than the best cash game players.....let me explain why dumbazz.....it only matters that their own rate playing tourneys is greater than their own rate playing ring games.They all make more money playing cash games.Well, maybe not Fischman.Good luck.

Ferguson doesn't play cash games.

and Norman Chad has said that Phil Hellmuth doesn't drink when phil has said many times that he was drunk on x occasion, don't base poker facts on what Norman Chad or Lon McEarhon say

[poguemahone68 0]

I'd like to publically apologize to custom36 for saying he was kissing smashs' ass.custom36 is not an asskisser