|
|
#11
04-04-2005, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Not!
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] He was playing the wsop circuit event at the rio. [ QUOTE ] What a silly thread. [/ QUOTE ] Indeed it sucks. We've had, in increasing order of silliness: - a flawed golf analogy (there is no dealer in golf, everyone is placed in the same situations of skill equity at every hole, excepting wind: [ QUOTE ] My point that Tiger would prefer to play the US Open than hustle a CEO? [/ QUOTE ] He would get a lot of endorsements if he just played CEOs. And he'd be really famous, too. Have you ever read his contracts? Do you know for a fact that he is NOT required by his sponsors to play a certain number of specific events every year? -suggestions for hormone therapy - Then there's this zinger from Leo, in a discussion about a single $50,000 tourney: [ QUOTE ] Results mean nothing?? What a load of garbage. ... Results DO matter. Maybe not for one tournament at a time" [/ QUOTE ] Think about it this way.. How many times do you expect to cash in this tourney regardless of your place? Even being slightly +EV, the vast majority of times you play you will leave with $50,000 less than you had at the outset. It may be hard for you to realize it, but this is a significant amount of money no matter what greg's bankroll is. It's not like when you play.. say... 5% of YOUR bankroll in a $5+1 sng on party. $50,000 can buy 5 kias. $6 can get you a 5 course meal-- at wendy's. The "big picture" does not exist for $50,000 tournaments. You will never play 1000 of these. You will most likely never play 100. Why? There will never be that many. BTW, anyone wanna lay an over/under on entrants? 
|
|
|
Threaded Mode