T.J. Cloutier = J9 of clubs on stars??

[F0LD--IT]

i believe it was confirmed but does he really need to play a $8+R sat. starting with the 1500 only. there has to be someone else that plays on his account if thats him.

tourney #39112716

[A_Junglen]

[ QUOTE ]
does he really need to play a $8+R sat

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Confused1]

I've played small sats with TJ before, but he'll also play $2600 events. He has a lifelong backer for most of his live play (Lyle B., iirc) - but it doesn't hurt to drop and play low/sat in when you need to. I do it a lot - I played $1.75 18 man sngs Sunday and woulda played the $1K the same day if my retarded HU opponent wouldn't have sucked out multiple times (btw, I did end up ~$1K on Sunday ;-) ). Don't let your ego ever dictate where you play or you'll violate the tenants of solid BR management.

I played in a $175 DS for a WSOP seat with fossilman the year after he won it and someone there said 'why don't you just buy in directly' to him at the table. He said 'because I won't have to if I win this and $10K spends the same for me as it does for you.' I think he's a genius.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
I've played small sats with TJ before, but he'll also play $2600 events. He has a lifelong backer for most of his live play (Lyle B., iirc) - but it doesn't hurt to drop and play low/sat in when you need to. I do it a lot - I played $1.75 18 man sngs Sunday and woulda played the $1K the same day if my retarded HU opponent wouldn't have sucked out multiple times (btw, I did end up ~$1K on Sunday ;-) ). Don't let your ego ever dictate where you play or you'll violate the tenants of solid BR management.

I played in a $175 DS for a WSOP seat with fossilman the year after he won it and someone there said 'why don't you just buy in directly' to him at the table. He said 'because I won't have to if I win this and $10K spends the same for me as it does for you.' I think he's a genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, confused1, but your post is filled with lots of nonsense and misapplications.

[Confused1]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, confused1, but your post is filled with lots of nonsense and misapplications.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which parts are which?

I think I'm saying the same thing as Fischman did in this article. Is he also filled with nonesense and misapplication?

Scott Fischman: He must be broke

[kindling]

Bankroll management should dictate that you play within your bankroll, according to some rule of thumb, or your own comfort level. Maximizing your hourly rate would mean that you should play as high as you can within that bankroll, and as long as you feel you are a winning player at that level.

I think the issue they're taking with your post is that if you have the skill to have a positive ROI at $100+ MTTs, that you're wasting your time playing $1-$10 MTTs, assuming you can play your A game in both. Also, it probably depends on availability of MTTs at the stakes you want to play when you have time to play.

Unfortunately, I don't have the bankroll to play the $100+ MTTs, but then I also don't play the freeroll and $1 or less MTTs either. I don't consider them worth my time, but I did when I had a smaller bankroll.

[DVaut1]

Confused,

No one is claiming that it's "stupid" to play $1.75 SnGs or $8r sats if you're a player on the circuit or are rolled for much higher games. I can think of some great reasons to play such games. Maybe you're drunk, or simultaneously watching porn, or you're teaching your GF how to play, or your head hurts and you don't want to think at all. Who knows.

The nonsense is claiming that "mixing in $1.75 SnGs with $1k MTTs is just part of solid bankroll management". Uhh, no it's not. If you're properly rolled for $1k MTTs (which means you have a 6 digit plus BR) and a winning player at those levels, there's really no tenant of solid bankroll management that dictates you also play $1.75 SnGs. That you think there is such a tenant is bewildering at best.

In sum, mixing in low limit games (like a $1.75 SnG) during a serious high limit session (if you're playing a $1k MTT, for instance) is almost surely -EV; and high-limit players (like someone with a 6 digit plus BR) devoting sessions to low limit games (like $1.75 SnGs) for BR management reasons is equally, if not more '-EV' once we consider time and $/hr in the equation.

There's some other stuff in your post that's subtly retarded, such as implying that high stakes MTT players ought to be playing <$2 SnGs, except their pride gets in the way; again, the "don't let your pride get in the way of a profitable opportunity" advice is usually applied to situations where a high stakes cash game player is forced to choose betwee a 'tough' game at their 'regular' level and a juicy game at a lower level they don't usually play at.

For instance, let's say someone who typically plays $50/$100 walks into the casino and finds his regular game unappealing because the table is too tough. Some ego maniacs may not want to go 'drop down' to $10/$20 where the local tourists are giving away their money like it's going out of style -- and may instead try to beat the much tougher (but less profitable) $50/$100 game for reasons of pride. Here's where the 'don't let your pride get in the way' advice is legitimately applicable, because that player will find the $10/$20 game, while below his typical limits, the much more profitable opportunity.

Where that advice doesn't really apply is to players on the tournament circuit dropping down to play $8 rebuys. Yeah, there might be a few good reasons for someone like TJ to play an $8r, but rest assured "good BR management" is not one of those reasons, hence the misapplication.

Lastly, I don't quite know what "it doesn't hurt to drop and play low/sat in when you need to" means -- yeah, maybe it doesn't 'hurt' (although I'd suggest it certainly could 'hurt' a profitable players $/hr)...but if someone like TJ (who has won millions on the circuit) *needs* to drop down and play an $8r sat, I feel pretty confident I don't want to be taking BR management cues from such a person.

[pokerraja]

[ QUOTE ]
I've played small sats with TJ before, but he'll also play $2600 events. He has a lifelong backer for most of his live play (Lyle B., iirc) - but it doesn't hurt to drop and play low/sat in when you need to. I do it a lot - I played $1.75 18 man sngs Sunday and woulda played the $1K the same day if my retarded HU opponent wouldn't have sucked out multiple times (btw, I did end up ~$1K on Sunday ;-) ). Don't let your ego ever dictate where you play or you'll violate the tenants of solid BR management.

I played in a $175 DS for a WSOP seat with fossilman the year after he won it and someone there said 'why don't you just buy in directly' to him at the table. He said 'because I won't have to if I win this and $10K spends the same for me as it does for you.' I think he's a genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think i feel dumber after reading this.... [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[gobboboy]

[ QUOTE ]
i believe it was confirmed but does he really need to play a $8+R sat. starting with the 1500 only. there has to be someone else that plays on his account if thats him.

tourney #39112716

[/ QUOTE ]

He's up to 8+r's? He must be taking a shot.

[F0LD--IT]

He's up to 8+r's? He must be taking a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh noooo, that bad. i heard some stuff but hes that bustooooo. i couldn't play under that name if i was him