[uncleto]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

aceonriver=barry greenstein?

i've enjoyed this thread immensely, fellas.

I don't think so, Barry Greenstein can afford a keyboard with a shift key and a spacebar on it.

[AceOnRiver]

im here to talk about poker.im not here to have a spelling bee or take a grammer test.why are so many of you guys worried about spelling and grammer.this is a poker thread.where not here to take a high school english test.

[Poboy]

Originally Posted by AceOnRiver

why are so many of you guys worried about spelling and grammer.

They help us understand what you are saying.

[coyote]

Originally Posted by Poboy

They help us understand what you are saying.

x2

Part of getting your opinion heard/read is being able to present it in an easily understandable manner.

A message board is no different than other communication mediums in that regard.

That said, I've seen much much worse than yours, AOR

[gpc]

What do people consider "beating the game"?

Can I assume that moving up in stakes is an effort to win more money or is it to get better or just boredom?

[yeltzen]

I have "beaten" every level I've played at in limit Hold'em and Stud. That is, I've made enough money at that level to move up to the next one. But I like playing these levels. I don't get bored by them for some reason. Maybe because I'm a sadist who likes flopping a set of aces and losing to quads? Plus, I can use the money I've made and buy something useful, like poker chips or porn.

[beekeeper]

Well, I've just scanned the last 3 pages, so if this has been mentioned, I apologize.

When I read The Professor, the Banker & the Suicide King, (I think that's the title), I got the impression that what made high stakes poker so challenging for the average player was more the general pressure the average person felt playing outside the comfort-level of his/her bankroll. The Banker was able to gain an edge on the best players in the world by raising the stakes.

Around the time I read this book, I also read the Book of Bluffs and Weighing the Odds. The combination of reading these three books around the same time changed my perspective on the role gambling plays in poker (as opposed to luck, math, hand-reading, etc). I began to respect the play of players like Ted Forrest, Barry Greinstein and Alan Goering (sp?) more.

I think the discussion in this thread overlooks the parallel between any level game. In low limit games we call players with a lot of gamble all kinds of names because we presume they are not playing correctly. But that assumes that there is a correct way (Sklanky or Harrington) way to play. As the stakes go up, players who "see a lot of flops," like Daniel Negreneau, or players who are aggressive and push a lot, like Hoyt Corkins, have our respect.

What seems to separate these professionals from the low level players most of us are used to seeing in our games is that they are risking a lot more money, and they also seem to at least understand what they are risking when they gamble--they have better hand-reading skills and when they gamble it seems to be a calculated risk.

The parallel between these players and the players we tend not to respect in our low limit games is that both types of players are unpredictable and dangerous.

I haven't played high-stakes; I've only read about high stakes games or watched them on tv. But I could play for $10/$20 stakes at my local casino, and that would be high stakes for me. The pressure of losing my mortgage money would by itself make me play tight and put me at a disadvantage.

I'd be interested in knowing, as opposed to high stakes vs low stakes, whether people thought (in NLHE) tournament or cash players were more skillful.

[AceOnRiver]

definetely cash games cause for more skill than tournys.they both take luck to win but multitable tournies(which i assume you are talking about) cause for a lot of luck to win.also in a tourney you can fold lot of hands and still win a tourny.take for example joe hachem.at the final table he folded 3/4 of the hands until it was down to 3 or 4 handed and then he started playing monster pots and ended up winning it with some luck.in a cash game you cant fold lots of hands and win consistently.if you fold most your hands in a cash game you will just be giving you money away as the blinds come to you.you must play more hands and play them correctly in cash games if you want to win which causes for more skill to win.

[rolandshoffinc]

Welcome back Yeltzen! I still think you toned it down a little.

[MacGrad]

Originally Posted by AceOnRiver

definetely cash games cause for more skill than tournys.they both take luck to win but multitable tournies(which i assume you are talking about) cause for a lot of luck to win.also in a tourney you can fold lot of hands and still win a tourny.take for example joe hachem.at the final table he folded 3/4 of the hands until it was down to 3 or 4 handed and then he started playing monster pots and ended up winning it with some luck.in a cash game you cant fold lots of hands and win consistently.if you fold most your hands in a cash game you will just be giving you money away as the blinds come to you.you must play more hands and play them correctly in cash games if you want to win which causes for more skill to win.

I'll take the "Yeltzen" position here and disagree with you -- I believe it takes a lot more skill to win a MTT than it does to "win" a cash game, for a number of reasons:

1. Number of hands required to "win": In a cash game, you only have to win one hand in order to make money. In a MTT, you've got to win a lot more than that to even make it off your first table.

2. Time/Value factor: In a cash game, you can fold hand after hand for hours, yet still only lose the blinds (In a live game, that's only 3-4 SB + BB an hour); your chipstack holds its value relative to the blinds. In a tournament, you've already lost your buy-in (unless you make it to the money), and your chipstack value declines as the blinds increase.

3. Number/Types of Players: In most cash games, you're playing against a full table, and the faces don't change that frequently. In a tournament, people get moved to/from your table, so you have to change your playing style against frequently changing opponents. Furthermore, as the tournament moves on, you won't always be playing against a full table, meaning you have to adapt your playing style in a different manner.

4. Fatigue factor: At any point during a cash game, you can step away from the table and, if you don't feel like playing anymore or don't feel like you're playing your best, you can take your chips off the table and put that money back in your wallet. During a MTT, you're stuck -- you still have to play if you want to put any money back, and you'll have to deal with your physical and mental fatigue.

I agree that if you're going to cash in a MTT, you will need a lot of luck... but it's also easier to get away from a cash game with "winnings" than it is to do the same in a MTT.