Tourney donk revolt - term for cash game player equivalent? - Page 7

citanul · #61 03-26-2006, 03:22 AM

All,

Note: Gramps didn't say a damn thing about "top" cash game players who step in to the SNG realm, nor did he say that these were people who put any hours at all into studying the format. He said basically that he was talking about people who win at cash games and then just jump in to SNGs. Also note, the people who are true Tourney Donks are not necessarilly the best tournament players. They are the ones who have hit the jackpots and then go donk off six-figure sums. We all know that best and best results in the lotto tournaments are not the same things.

James/Diablo, whoever told Gramps to "ask around" about who is good at step 5s and cash games:

You can't honestly be serious right? Gramps has probably played more step 5, step 4 higher tournaments than anyone else on earth. I think he's got a pretty good grasp of what he's talking about w.r.t. who is a winner, loser, donator, in those games. On the flip side, whichever one of you who told him to do said asking probably has basically no idea at all what you're talking about.

James,

I believe that there have been many SNGs that have run at which good but not "great" cash game players would have had a negative expectation. What this says of the table and game selection skills of some very excellent SNG players, well, meh.

All,

Bringing in to any debate something as idiotic as "well the famous players they put on some tv show . . ." just should be avoided if you want to win arguments about anything, ever. The reasons should be intuitive if you either think about it yourself or read this thread.

Nick,

I think that part of the point that you're missing when you say "I think it would be pretty hard for you to find a person that is a winning cash game player and can't win at tournaments." is the exact same problem that generates the ire in Gramps. I very much doubt that the 90% of the winners of the nightly supers, and other big tournaments would have any problems at all beating the .25/.5 nl ring either. Similarly, I think that if you provided me with a list of all the winners at 5/10 and 10/20 NL over significant sample sizes I could find a lot of them who would have a really rough time jumping in and beating the average competition at a step 5 tournament. However, just as someone with 200k from winning a big tournament will jump in to play 25/50 NL instead of .25/.5 NL, someone who wins at 5/10 NL will not start at the $22 sngs, they will often jump in at step 5s, blow a few buyins (for the steps and for their normal games) and then leave, cursing and kicking as gramps counts their money.

Gramps,

I vote for "chook," myself.

c

PS: I'm staying in a townhouse in the area of London called "Ladbrokes." What's the chances there's a poker room within a mile?

El Diablo · #62 03-26-2006, 03:35 AM

cit,

I dunno who Gramps is, but I have played a fair amount w/ guys who have played tons of the big SNGs and I've played a SNG or two myself. Hell, I've even played and chatted a fair amount w/ the great ZeeJustin! So, you are incorrect, I was not just guessing about what these players think about how their opponents stack up in each of these realms.

However, I have no arguments w/ the latest clarifications Gramps made. Not all cash players are better than all tourney players. I mean, the top 2% of tourney players could definitely have a fighting chance against the bottom 2% of cash game players, no argument there!

citanul · #63 03-26-2006, 03:59 AM

el d,

like i said, i could probably make quite a long list of winning cash NL players above 5/10 who would be a negative expectation player in a sng filled with as strong subset of sng players.

continuing: when these cash game players decide to take shots at the sngs, as i said, they frequently do it exactly against these top 2% of sng players, just as the tourney donks who decide to take shots decide to do it against the very top cash players. either one having the "well i have a lot of money so i should be able to jump in at the highest game around everywhere" is stupid.

c

lacky · #64 03-26-2006, 04:23 AM

I reread what I wrote, and really don't see how it was offensive towards anyone.

If my game is limit, and I decide to give mtt's a try, I could play them perfectly for 200 games, be losing money and decide I wasnt very good at them or they wern't worth my time.

If my game is sng's, and I decide to give limit a try, I could play it perfectly for 20,000 hands, be losing money and decide I wasnt very good at it or it wasn't worth my time.

If my game is limit full, and I decide to give 6max a try, I could play it perfectly for 20,000 hands, be losing money and decide I wasnt very good at it or it wasn't worth my time.

I am saying that everybody has bad times in this games sometimes, and when they hit when you are trying something new, it is very hard to stay confident, making statements like this

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know of any top cash game players who have any trouble doing quite well in tourneys

[/ QUOTE ]

a little to simplistic.

hopefully re-explaining explained away whatever you took offense to.

James282 · #65 03-26-2006, 04:50 AM

Didn't take offense to anything, but your response was incredibly simplistic and obvious. Obviously anyone can run bad at anything because the long run is long. We aren't breaking new ground here.
-James

curtains · #66 03-26-2006, 04:59 AM

1. Obviously cash games are tougher.

2. There are some weird situations in SnGs where "good" cash game players may simply be unable to grasp the correct concept the first few times they see it. It's almost certain that these good players wouldn't have a major problem with it if they took the time to study the concepts.

3. There are many tournament players who will likely never be good cash game players no matter what they do.

4. If you want to see whether a player who played almost all tourneys can succeed at cash games, follow me for the next few months. I'm going to be devoting my time to NL cash games, mostly shorthanded. I'm starting at 1-2 and working myself up after I've won predetermined amounts of money.

Unarmed · #67 03-26-2006, 06:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm starting at 1-2 and working myself up after I've won predetermined amounts of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too!!!
I'm going to set aside 5k and starting April 1 I will play 6max 200NL and move up once I have 50 buyins for the next level up. Race? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Jman28 · #68 03-26-2006, 06:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm starting at 1-2 and working myself up after I've won predetermined amounts of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too!!!
I'm going to set aside 5k and starting April 1 I will play 6max 200NL and move up once I have 50 buyins for the next level up. Race? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Already started batches. Plus I was coached. Plus I don't mess with that sissy ass 'bankroll management' [censored]. I win.

Apathy · #69 03-26-2006, 06:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm starting at 1-2 and working myself up after I've won predetermined amounts of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too!!!
I'm going to set aside 5k and starting April 1 I will play 6max 200NL and move up once I have 50 buyins for the next level up. Race? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Already started batches. Plus I was coached. Plus I don't mess with that sissy ass 'bankroll management' [censored]. I win.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lol'd really hard.

Gramps · #70 03-26-2006, 04:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno who Gramps is, but I have played a fair amount w/ guys who have played tons of the big SNGs and I've played a SNG or two myself. Hell, I've even played and chatted a fair amount w/ the great ZeeJustin! So, you are incorrect, I was not just guessing about what these players think about how their opponents stack up in each of these realms.

However, I have no arguments w/ the latest clarifications Gramps made. Not all cash players are better than all tourney players. I mean, the top 2% of tourney players could definitely have a fighting chance against the bottom 2% of cash game players, no argument there!

[/ QUOTE ]

That's more the tone I was aiming for in all of this, I probably need to work on my language precision in my inital posts as to not rile up unintended degrees of ire. But really, the top 2% of tournament players could easily hang with the bottom 6%, maybe even bottom 10% of cash game players. Don't go exaggerating things again...