![]() |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
But the best part is the passion with which this argument raged for pages, at the end of which we learn that the tournament where Greg Raymer tragically disdained a chance to prove that he is the best actually attracted only 11 people. At least 3 of whom were family members. You can't make this stuff up. Greg might not rethink his decision to avoid this tournament, but I bet he would like to take back his prediction that it would not be significantly +EV for him. [/ QUOTE ] Looks to me like it would have been EV+ for a lot of pros. When you said 3 members of the same family, I was wondering if Doyle Brunson or Howard Lederer had another poker playing relative. |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] If money is the means by which the score is kept in poker, then it doesn't make sense to choose a negative EV situation simply out of "pride," or whatever. |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Quote: I can't fathom people doing things solely for money. [/ QUOTE ] wow, of all the stuf that got quoted and made fun of this never got touched?!?!?! I though the WPT forum was better than that... [/ QUOTE ] Ah, I was just gonna do that. I don't talk much on forums, but that statement really surprised me. Where I live (Earth), so many things are done solely for money. For example, I have a job. I don't work because it's fun! |
![]() |
|
|