Evidence please? As I understood it, most "pros" make their living from cash games because the money is more consistent.The majority of long-term pros make their living on cash games.
As I understood it, most "pros" make their living from cash games because the money is more consistent.
Yes we are. Somehow I misread your post.Aren't we both saying the same thing???
Nailed it.to Kain8 I would say that someone with a larger bankroll than me in a cash game can take more risks too. Had a kid sit down in a 1/2 game with a $200 cap while he waited for a 2/5 seat. He proceeded to raise EVERY hand blind to $100, and was willing to play for stacks (and would put it in on the flop if he was just called, NEVER looking)
I managed to get it all-in with AQ against his QJ and a drunks AT, and the drunk spiked the T to hit a $600 pot. After the gambler left, the drunk was raising to between $30-60 each hand and was playing terrible but running well. He wound up winning over $2,000 in a game with a $200 cap. I managed to only lose $200 for that session.
But someone who doesn't value money can make plays others can't in a cash game as well. Or can go to Vegas and know they are playing 38 tournaments so the one tournament YOU managed to scrounge up the cash to play doesn't matter as much to them as it does to you, so they can take more risks.
I don't see players being backed to be as big of an issue as the unlimited rebuys in events, where players for the first 9-11 freaking levels can just throw buyin after buyin at it.
to Kain8 I would say that someone with a larger bankroll than me in a cash game can take more risks too. Had a kid sit down in a 1/2 game with a $200 cap while he waited for a 2/5 seat. He proceeded to raise EVERY hand blind to $100, and was willing to play for stacks (and would put it in on the flop if he was just called, NEVER looking)
Ego is a hell of a drug, too bad he didn't get cleaned out.
and we can probably all agree the mythical "all in blind guy" doesn't occur with anywhere near the same frequency in a tournament.
Playing the $150 Little Slick 100k guaranteed at Tampa Hard Rock
Starting stack 12k
Blinds 300/600 with a 50 ante
Kid minraises UTG to 600, button calls, I shove 8k with in the SB
UTG reshoves with (I can't make this shit up)
Flop is 567 but fortunately KT is the runout and I double up
"John Smith had $650,000 in tournament winnings at the WSOP last year and so could you!" No he didn't and no you probably can't. He won $650,000 before taxes but had $250,000 in buy-ins, most of which he didn't cash, and sold over 50% of his stake. He won like $75,000 after taxes.
This sadly is the same in every sport. How much did Serena Williams win in the US Open? How much did Juan Pablo Montoya win in the Indy 500? There are expenses. Trainers, crew, managers... many (if not all) who get paid a share of the winnings. Poker staking is no different.I have zero problems with staking or the way people handle professional tournaments. It gives players a chance to play bigger/more tournaments and gives people a chance to participate who don't have the talent or bankroll to compete in these tournaments. It grows fields and adds more money to the tournament pots when players have the choice to get backers or not play at all. It feels like a win/win to me.
My issue has always been with the way the media reports winnings. It almost feels like a giant MLM scam.
"Karen makes $6,000 a month selling makeup and so could you!" No she didn't and no you can't. She had $6,000 in sales, $5,000 of which went back to suppliers and $500 went to her up-chain. She made $500 last month.
"John Smith had $650,000 in tournament winnings at the WSOP last year and so could you!" No he didn't and no you probably can't. He won $650,000 before taxes but had $250,000 in buy-ins, most of which he didn't cash, and sold over 50% of his stake. He won like $75,000 after taxes.
This sadly is the same in every sport. How much did Serena Williams win in the US Open? How much did Juan Pablo Montoya win in the Indy 500? There are expenses. Trainers, crew, managers... many (if not all) who get paid a share of the winnings. Poker staking is no different.
My only "issue" is that there could be collusion - even unintentional - with staked players. If I own 50% of you, should I jam or fold? WSOP tournament director has said that if he knows players are together, wh will make an effort to sit them at different tables. Staking is invisible though. It's pretty minor, but when the money gets big, any minor advantage carries a bigger $ on the EV.
About 13 years ago I was tempted to try it, just for the lark.
If it only cost $25 to be 13 years younger...I got $25 on it.
Actually, there is an entry fee for the US Open. It is an "Open" event, just like poker. Anybody can plop their money down and play - however, they are playing during week 0 (the qualifiers)....
I see...Not true. In the first place, you must be a paid USTA member. Then there's the actual US Open qualifying, which is itself a five day tournament for only 128 men and 128 women.
And behind that immediate qualifying is a whole hierarchy of qualifying events to qualify for the actual USTA qualifying. Entry to those lower levels is granted by rankings, not to anyone with cash.
Even 13 years ago, $125 would have bought you a seat to watch, and maybe lunch.
You can't even simply buy an entry into a USTA amateur national event. That's a pipe dream...
Doug Polk addressed something similar a while back with (IMO) a rather egregious example:
Basically, it puts players at a major disadvantage when two players at the same table have a financial interest in one another. I don't necessarily have an issue with playing against those whose own money is not at risk... it's not much different than someone who plays a rebuy tournament recklessly only to re-enter a dozen times.
But if it gets to a point where there's outright collusion similar to what we've seen with the numerous scandals that have plagued online poker, then it'll need to be addressed. The most likely solution is disclosure - where a player's financial support is public knowledge.
Man this absolutely nails it Moxie. If everyone is getting backed, there needs to be full disclosure about where the backing is coming from. Or probably a better way to control it is to say no backing of other players that are playing in the same tournament as you are. Failing to comply can result in forfeiture of your earnings etc. I like this idea better vs disclosure due to the ability to enforce it.
I would be surprised if the WSOP isnt already all over this in their rules & regs.