Plaza will host the largest poker tournament of the year

[TimTimSalabim]

I guess we won't be seeing that one on GSN. Maybe on the local cable access channel [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img].

[TimTimSalabim]

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?

[Kevmath]

I think it 1M for the championship table winner, and they awarded prize money for the first 2 "series".

Kevin...

[Leonardo]

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.

[MrMon]

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.

[Leonardo]

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.

[David Sklansky]

Your points are invalidated because of the huge sort term luck factor.

[Leonardo]

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.

[MLG]

and his point is that staking your pride on one tournament is so stupid that no skilled poker player would do it.

[Leonardo]

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.