Re: Skalnsky\'s system said it was, relied upon early capital accumulat
 

I heard Dids bought a TV with his poker winnings.

Re: Skalnsky\'s system said it was, relied upon early capital accumulat
 

it's pretty amazing that you can write longwinded posts about the nature of variance and how even the most successful online player of the past year has a risk of ruin if he is not conservative with bankroll management...

...and then show a complete lack of understanding when it comes to understanding the nature of tournaments, which are run over the course of extremely few hands, with rapidly escalating blinds which determine players' actions far more than any sort of interactive mental battle, and with the field including everyone from the best players in the world to complete amateurs - meaning even something as basic as table draw plays a huge part on your chances.

given all you've said about sbrugby, who has dominated cashgames for hundreds of thousands of hands vs very tough opponents, how can you not understand that variance in tournaments is much, much, much, much greater than cashgames, and thus one person winning one isolated event can never really mean anything?

Re: WSOP ME is not a donkament
 

Larger fields, more coin flips with 200bbs=more skill. Got it.

Re: Skalnsky\'s system said it was, relied upon early capital accumulat
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's any proof that winning vs a field with high % of bad players is any more or less difficult than winning vs a field with high % of good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol donkaments

[ QUOTE ]
I think that what the modern-day WSOP ME and other big-field big-purse tournies do is spread final outcome variance significantly outside the realm many pros are comfortable with.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol donkaments

And in an ill-advised moment of non-sarcasm, let me just say I don't think you understand what is meant by lol donkaments.

Re: WSOP ME is not a donkament
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know the common wisdom is that it is more difficult to win against good players, but I've never seen any rigorous analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool! Following your sound logic, I am joining the NFL. I have sent a letter to the Roger Goodell's office informing him of this fact. I have informed him that I will be playing for the Pittsburgh Steelers and would be quite happy with the NFL minimum salary. And to think, I haven’t played organized football since high school! Then again, I was pretty darn good in HS, and since is no rigorous analysis proving that it is more difficult to win against good players, I should be just fine competing in the pros. Thanks OP!

Re: Skalnsky\'s system said it was, relied upon early capital accumulat
 

op made my brain hurt.

Re: WSOP ME is not a donkament
 

wow this is an ill-informed OP

world class players play donkaments for two reasons

1)they're full of donkeys
2)potential tv time = endorsements and other ancillary income

Re: WSOP ME is not a donkament
 

So i just got dne with the thread where busted is asking, "what isn't a donkament?", etc..

now this, LMAO

Re: WSOP ME is not a donkament
 

isn't the OP still mad that Full Tilt Pros play on Full Tilt Poker?

it's a donkament... but alot of us play them for the chance at a big score. it's like the lotto with much MUCH better odds if you are even remotely decent at poker.

Re: WSOP ME is not a donkament
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know the common wisdom is that it is more difficult to win against good players, but I've never seen any rigorous analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool! Following your sound logic, I am joining the NFL. I have sent a letter to the Roger Goodell's office informing him of this fact. I have informed him that I will be playing for the Pittsburgh Steelers and would be quite happy with the NFL minimum salary. And to think, I haven’t played organized football since high school! Then again, I was pretty darn good in HS, and since is no rigorous analysis proving that it is more difficult to win against good players, I should be just fine competing in the pros. Thanks OP!

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's you analysis? I don't think you have any to offer.

You argue by analogy to pro football, but pro poker is rather unlike playing in the NFL. Do you just make football analogies in your brain every time you want to analyze something? I don't think that will get you very far.

In financial markets it is well-known amongst successful players that in many types of trading it is more important to understand the "madness of the crowd" than to understand the economics and business of the underlying companies that serve as vehicles for speculation. And the same is true for tournament poker, and plays a role in analyzing player styles and guesstimating ranges and fold equity.

There is a very simple theorem in the markets: profit is proportionate to the amount of dumb money in the market. The periods of greatest profit for successful professional traders are during the expansion phases of bubbles.

By successful professional trader, I mean someone who knows how to take advantage of others ill-advised risk-taking without exposing himself to excessive risk. This is not easy and is the reason 95% of prospective traders go busto.

The same should be true in poker tournaments: there is a positive correlation between the expected profit of a tourney poker pro and the % of bad players in the tourney.

However, once again, taking advantage of bad players is not easy, due to variance of results caused by a wide range of styles amongst bad players.

I don't think it's clear at all that it's more/less difficult for a pro to win a tournament with high % of bad players than one with low %. What is clear, is that expected profit is far greater, and that's why all these guys play WSOP ME, etc.