|
Plaza will host the largest poker tournament of the year
|
Not!
This may be the largest buy-in of the year, but it will not be anywhere near the largest. I am guessing that several events will have larger prize pools and larger first place prizes. I have heard very little about this event from the other players during the last few months, and don't expect to see all that many people in it. However, I have been wrong many times before.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan) |
Re: Not!
Are you going to playing in it?
|
Re: Not!
I imagine I won't, unless it's going to generate enough TV time that PokerStars wants to pay the entry fee. I like to think I have decent game selection skills, and I don't expect this event to be very good in that regard. You won't have any dead money to speak of here, so my edge, if any, will be small. And who needs a low edge, high variance tournament for $50K?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan) |
Re: Not!
I agree, at top level, having the price be that high, it's hard to imagine many sats into it even.
The Plaza is such a ummmmm slimey place too, it's kinda surprizing that it's the one doing it, but the owner himself plans PAN there regularly, another unusual twist to the place. Now if they'd get rid of that urine smell.... 8) >TW< |
Re: Not!
I can't imagine that many people being in it, let alone anyone who even someone like Greg could consider defeatable on any given day.
|
Re: Plaza will host the largest poker tournament of the year
Interesting. They are taking the time slot of the WSOP and making this the biggest buyin. They seem to be trying to create what the WSOP was. The $10K side event is scheduled for 5 days. The $50K main event in scheduled for 2 days, so they must not be expecting a huge field.
$50K is probably a little more in real terns than $10K when the WSOP started out. To really create something like the old WSOP you might need a $100K or $200K buyin. If there are online satellites, it will probably bring in more players, plus some 2nd rung pros attracted by the online qualifiers. Still at $50K it should be the toughest noninvitational tournament around. |
Re: Not!
Have you been back to the Plaza lately. There's new owners and some renovations going on???
Just curious! I'm staying downtown 1 night next month, I'll post my thoughts about the poker area |
Re: Plaza will host the largest poker tournament of the year
You make a point. 35 years and the main event buy-in has been $10,000. So what would $10,000 in the year 1970 be worth today? 3x or 4x?.... It never did increase with inflation only in event population of players. Greg makes a fine point. The Plaza may need to catch the attention of TV media for more of a online participation. But who knows.
www.worldpokerclassicchampionship.com |
Re: Not!
I have tried my very best to force the Plaza to get the ball rolling on this. Print ads, TV, etc. I have called and called Ben Magee. One of our local cardrooms down in Laughlin has been trying for months to run satellites for the WPC, with lammers that can be used for any event entry. Not only is Ben dropping the ball totally, he won't even return phone calls nor will he send the lammers! Right now the CRM has been giving out certificates or cash, whichever the winner prefers.
They have completely bombed on this one, regardless of the free offers of help they have received, which have been numerous. I still have my hotel reservations for the duration of this festival, but I doubt I will be able to make many events, as I will be recovering from surgery, then going into chemo as soon as I am able. Why do I always back losing causes? Strong reminders of the WPPA are flashing in my crazy brain! Felicia [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] www.felicialee.net |
Re: Not!
Felicia,
I can't imagine any event bombing as bad as the WPPA did. I'm sure the Plaza wouldn't actually let a tournament with 2 people in begin. Kevin... |
Re: Plaza will host the largest poker tournament of the year
More than you think. $10,000 1970 dollars is equal to $49,432 2005 dollars.
BLS CPI Inflation Calcultor |
Re: Plaza will host the largest poker tournament of the year
Oh, and I also meant to say, this isn't the biggest buy-in so far this year.
There is one called Poker: Quest of Champions It is a 10 table shoot-out, 100 players max. The buy in is 250k. Yes, you read that correctly, $250,000. The ad in CP doesn't tell where the tourney is being held, but the phone number has a 702 area code, which is Vegas. Felicia [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
Re: Not!
With all due respect, just listen to yourself. TV time? Pokerstars paying entry? You won the WSOP and you wont play in a 50k buyin tournament because you think it may not be +EV? How about the challenge? How about playing a tournament with some great players to see how good you are? Man.
|
Re: Not!
Because, gosh, he needs to spend 50K to prove how great a player he is.
He's a poker player - whether a situation is +EV or not is probably always a consideration. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
Re: Plaza will host the largest poker tournament of the year
Theres a tourny advertised in cardplayer. 100 person, 10 shootouts. 250k buy in, 15 million guaranteed for winner. 5% goes to charity.
|
Re: Not!
[ QUOTE ]
With all due respect, just listen to yourself. TV time? Pokerstars paying entry? You won the WSOP and you wont play in a 50k buyin tournament because you think it may not be +EV? How about the challenge? How about playing a tournament with some great players to see how good you are? Man. [/ QUOTE ] Well, when it's your money, you can decide how to spend it. I don't need to play in this or any event to see how good I am. I know how good I am, and even if I didn't, I know enough to understand that one tournament, no matter how tough the field or great the structure, tells you almost nothing about how good you are. And the challenge? From my point of view, doing something for the challenge of it is for children. I don't need to do anything to be happy with myself, or to have confidence in myself. I believe in myself and my talent for poker without overcoming any challenges. I don't find any problem with somebody who wants to do something to prove something to themselves, or for the challenge of it. I just think that if that's the ONLY reason you're doing it, you either lack confidence or maturity or something. I have no need to do anything, except be true to myself and take care of my family. Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan) |
Re: Not!
[ QUOTE ]
Felicia, I can't imagine any event bombing as bad as the WPPA did. I'm sure the Plaza wouldn't actually let a tournament with 2 people in begin. Kevin... [/ QUOTE ] what was the deal with the WPPA? they didn't get many entries or what? |
Re: Plaza will host the largest poker tournament of the year
[ QUOTE ]
Theres a tourny advertised in cardplayer. 100 person, 10 shootouts. 250k buy in, 15 million guaranteed for winner. 5% goes to charity. [/ QUOTE ] This tournament will be held in some guy's garage and you can only buy-in with 250K in hundred dollar bills, non-consecutive serial numbers, in an unmarked case. Also you will be robbed at gunpoint upon entering said garage. "Winning" is not getting shot. |
Re: Not!
I think the bad things that Felicia and others related during the first WPPA event, mainly with Louis Asmo and WPPA really put a damper on things for the 2nd (and so far last) WPPA event
Kevin... |
Re: Not!
I guess we won't be seeing that one on GSN. Maybe on the local cable access channel [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img].
|
Re: Plaza will host the largest poker tournament of the year
Speaking of big buyins, did anyone ever figure out how the buy-in for the first PSI was 400k and the first prize only a million?
|
Re: Plaza will host the largest poker tournament of the year
I think it 1M for the championship table winner, and they awarded prize money for the first 2 "series".
Kevin... |
Re: Not!
By your reasoning, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Kobe, etc etc are lacking something. They are doing it just to win, not for the money, not because its +EV, just to win, to test themselves. Now I highly doubt any of these guys have a confidence problem and Tiger and Roger certainly aren't immature, so what are they lacking? I cant believe that you wouldnt want to try to win a big buy-in tournament just because it may not be +EV. Surely it cant be too much -EV. Lets say you figure to dump 5k on average. 5k for a few days playing with great players and the chance to win big seems like it may be worth it. Also, I dont think you do know how good you are. In poker, good is only a relative term. So unless you know how good everyone else is, you dont know how good you are. Hence the need to test. Your lack of competitiveness is astounding.
|
Re: Not!
Is there anyone in the $50K tourney that he isn't going to play in the WSOP ME for a mere $10K? Or any other tourney? It's not like the $50K is going to attract any additional competition, more likely it'll drive it away.
The others play the top competition because there's no choice, if you want top money you play in top events. And recall that in those sports, you either get a salary or just invest your time. Tiger Woods doesn't put up a substantial part of his Nike money just to play the U.S. Open. And you can bet if Tiger could make more money playing in a minor event or hustling some CEO vs. a Tour event, he does it. Come to think of it, the PGA has had this problem for years, with major stars taking appearance fees to play in Asia and Europe vs. the Tour. That's why they had to implement a minimum number of events in order to stay on the Tour. Greg or any pro has nothing to prove by playing in ANY event. And how many poker pros have avoided tourneys for years because the cash games were more lucrative? They're going to play in the best event for them. Are they lesser players for doing so? Not many people I know want to tangle with Chip Reese, even if he isn't a tourney regular. We all choose the games we think we can do best at, from the WSOP champ to the $5 SnGers at Party. Anything else is foolish. More power to all of us. |
Re: Not!
To suggest Tiger Woods would prefer spending time hustling CEOs than entering the US Open is flat out ridiculous. Why do you think that poker pro's have nothing to prove? They have everything to prove, to themself, to people who dont believe, to the public at large. The appearance fees that pro golfers take are to play tournaments and miss out on regular season PGA tour events, but they NEVER EVER take an appearance fee to miss a major. They are playing to compete, to prove to themselves and others that they are great golfers. Ask a rookie pro golfer if he would prefer to play an old man for $150k (which he is guaranteed to win) or play in the US Masters, where his EV is certainly less than that, and I guarantee he takes the US Masters. Its called competitive nature. As for your mentioning cash games over big tournaments, Id suggest that playing in a big cash game is much more competitive than playing a tournament. The WSOP for example is not what it used to be. When it started, it wasnt hugely +EV to play for a pro, because it was mainly the best people playing. Now any hack plays and it is large +EV for a good tournament player, but the competition isnt as strong as sitting in a huge cash game. The very best at most sports/business/games play for the competition, thrill and satisfaction that comes with beating the best. To suggest that money is the only motivation is just wrong.
|
Re: Not!
Your points are invalidated because of the huge sort term luck factor.
|
Re: Not!
As usual David you make a sweeping generalisation. Which points are invalidated? My point that a rookie golf pro would prefer to play the masters? My point that Tiger would prefer to play the US Open than hustle a CEO? My point that a poker player may prefer to play a big cash game because it may be against the best players or my point that playing in tournaments may be more +EV than it used to be? Overall my point is this: it is ok to play poker for more than just money. Pride and competition should be a prime motivator.
|
Re: Not!
and his point is that staking your pride on one tournament is so stupid that no skilled poker player would do it.
|
Re: Not!
So no skilled poker player ever plays a tournament???? Is that what you are saying? Do you think Dan Negreanu, Phil Ivey, etc , who have millions of dollars, are playing the main event of the world series because its +EV?? Why dont you ask them?? I bet they say that they just want to win it and that it would be more +EV for them to play cash games. You dont have to 'stake your pride' on a tournament to be trying to win it just to beat a group of good players and feel satisfaction. Does Tiger 'stake his pride' when he plays the US Masters?? Hell no. He plays, tries his hardest to win, but no one thinks less of him because he didnt win it last year. You can guarantee his self pride isnt feeling dented because he didnt win. Some of the guys at this forum have the wrong outlook about poker, that it is all about the money. The money is one thing, but there has to be more. The competition, the sense of accomplishment, that doesnt mean anything????? Anyone who says that is limiting themselves, the way the Greg Raymer, WSOP Champion, is limiting himself. I pity him and anyone that turns down a situation to feel satisfaction because it may not be +EV. The very best love to play with the very best. Enjoy the challenge as much as the money made.
|
Re: Not!
[ QUOTE ]
He plays, tries his hardest to win [/ QUOTE ] You're still missing the point - it's poker, you can try your ass off to win but if the cards dont come that day, there's nothing you can do about it. Poker skills are not cut and dry like dunking a basketball or hitting a golf ball 300 yards. There's no element of chance involved with accomplishing those two feats. |
Re: Not!
But here's the difference... in the case of a professional athlete, they are being paid no matter what the outcome. Most high-end pro golfers do not pay to get into tournaments, and they are paid to go to tournaments that they normally wouldn't play in.
At this point in its development, the sport of poker is unique in that everyone (unless they are being backed or sponsored) has to put their cash on the line in any event. Greg said that he didn't want to play because he didn't feel he would have much of an edge given the buy in and the likelyhood of who would be playing. What I'm learning is that in poker sometimes the best/worst decision you can make is to sit down at a particular table or enter a particular tournament. He's saying unless the risk is hedged, it is probably not worth playing because: 1) There wouldn't be a lot of dead money so the playing field would not have as many opportunities 2) Variance being what it is, any one tournament doesn't make you or break you in terms of your skill, it is somethign you prove over the course of time/events 3) There are other things in life than poker. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] If I missed anything, let me know BoB |
Re: Not!
I am sure any of us couold go broke playing in big games to prove how good we are. It seems like Raymer, Moneymaker, and Varkonyi have done a good job of not blowing their prize money.
Raymer was playing in pretty big cash games and tournaments before winning the big one. There have been stories of Varkonyi playing 5/10 stud or 6/12 holdem and of Moneymaker playing 2/5 no limit holdem and $10 online rebuys. They probably know what games they can beat, and winning the WSOP doesn't change it much. Someone like Stu Ungar with an egotistical undisiplined reckless approach would only play in the biggest games. |
Re: Not!
I never suggest Tiger Woods would turn down an opportunity to play in the U.S. Open, the Masters, the British Open, the PGA Championships or the TPC for an opportunity to hustle a CEO. His reputation lies on winning those majors. But lots of pros turn down the lesser Tour events to play elsewhere in even lesser events in return for a guaranteed payout. And you can be damn sure that if Ed's Buick started a tournament, invited all the top pros, but told them, there's a $50,000 entry fee, I get a rake, and you all get to play for the fabulous prize money, you wouldn't get a lot of takers.
The $50,000 Plaza tournament is the Ed's Buick Open of the poker world. No history, it's just another tournament, albeit one with a big entry fee. A big entry fee doesn't mean it's a big tournament. Now, if they had an entry fee of $50,000 plus got AB to toss in another million in sponsorship fees, you might get some action. Ain't gonna happen. |
Re: Not!
They may not want a huge field like the WSOP ME. They scheduled it for 2 days, so they are not expecting 500 players. The website for this tournament implies it will be likewhat the WSOP used to be. While a lot of pros like Raymer will avoid it, there will be some top players who will want the challenge of playing in maybe the toughest tournament, even if it isn't very EV+. With all the popularity of poker, there will be some unknowns too, although probably not as much dead money as in other major tournaments.
|
Re: Not!
[ QUOTE ]
and his point is that staking your pride on one tournament is so stupid that no skilled poker player would do it. [/ QUOTE ] http://www.poker-images.com/images/n...helmuth_jr.jpg |
Re: Not!
I think there are some tournaments that Greg is interested in playing in....so he does. And there are others that he is not as interested in playing in....so he doesn't.
But he does acknowledge the possibility that he would be more interested in playing in a tournament he otherwise wasn't that interested in if someone wanted to cover the entry-fee or stake him. In other words, Greg doesn't just play every tournament that comes along....nor should he. The fact that the whole thing seems kind of disorganized and is not exactly at the best casino in the world indicates to me that many other top players may take a pass on this one also. If Greg Raymer says "Meh....doesn't really turn me on." you can be sure that Negreneau, Ivey, Lederer, Ferguson or Greenstein or others may be thinking the same thing. Negreneau finished 2nd in the PPM III cruise last year. This year he didn't even play in it. Why?? Because he didn't feel like it. This isn't exactly rocket-science. What a silly thread. |
Re: Not!
[ QUOTE ]
If Greg Raymer says "Meh....doesn't really turn me on." you can be sure that Negreneau, Ivey, Lederer, Ferguson or Greenstein or others may be thinking the same thing. [/ QUOTE ] No criticism at all meant of Greg for not playing. I think some of the players you mentioned and probably Brunson and Hanson will see the big entry fee and small field as making this more EV+. Some of these and other pros will be ego-driven to attend. I expect there will be a very strong field. It may not attract as many top pros as the WSOP and WPT Champ, but it will have a higher percentage of top pros. It is possible one reason they are not that interested in promoting it is that they want to keep the field strong, which may not be the best approach. |
Re: Not!
[ QUOTE ]
Your lack of competitiveness is astounding. [/ QUOTE ] As is your lack of understanding. Winning a poker tournament doesn't prove anything. It only proves that I had the best combination of skill and LUCK that day or week. I judge myself at poker by the quality of the decisions that I make, not the quality of the opposition that I do it against, nor by what I do or do not win in that game. It sounds to me like you think it is the results that matter. They matter, but only if we're measuring your past income and your current marketability. They do not matter when it comes to your future expectation as a player, nor your skill level. It is the quality of your decisions that will determine your likely future EV, and your current skill level. I think you just need to grow up, or increase your knowledge base. Maybe you need to reduce your testosterone levels. Something. Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan) |
Re: Not!
My understanding is certainly not flawed. Results mean nothing?? What a load of garbage. If you play in 1000 tournaments each consisting of 20 players and dont win one, your play is certainly not very good (with confidence level >99%) Results DO matter. Maybe not for one tournament at a time, but over the long run, if you are a better player, you will win more than a bad player. Agreed? So while this one tournament IN ISOLATION may not mean much, neither did the 97 Masters. And yet if tiger took that view every year, that THIS YEAR IN ISOLATION doesnt mean much, and didnt play, how many Green jackets would he have won, Greg? If you consistently view each tournament as a one off, you wont see the big picture. For some reason you think that winning the WSOP means that you know what you are talking about. Its astounding that you dont.
And the idea that poker is completely different from other sports/games with regard to luck is wrong. Lets consider golf. Sometimes a pro can put VERY well all day and consistently shave the hole. Other days he puts well and they go in - luck. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.