FWIW though on the topic above... If I had to stake a player to play a live tourney with a great structure and I had the option of a player with excellent cash results or a player with excellent MTT results, I'd be backing the cash player without a shadow of a doubt.
FWIW though on the topic above... If I had to stake a player to play a live tourney with a great structure and I had the option of a player with excellent cash results or a player with excellent MTT results, I'd be backing the cash player without a shadow of a doubt. Posted by Lambert180
FWIW though on the topic above... If I had to stake a player to play a live tourney with a great structure and I had the option of a player with excellent cash results or a player with excellent MTT results, I'd be backing the cash player without a shadow of a doubt. Posted by Lambert180
Obv not if it's a sick MTT player with a long track record of crushing MTTs.
I was talking more about the kinda scenario like 'hey I've played 300 MTTs and won quite a few so that means I must be amazing at MTTs'.
What I mean is that the variance in MTTs is so ridic high that if I had a relatively small MTT sample to look at (which most people have) then I'd trust a sample of good cash results far more. Even more so if the player is going into a very deep, well structured event where they will probably be in their element for a pretty long time (stack size wise)
I.E. If you play 100 MTTs and you're in profit... purely from them stats it's hard to really know anything about them. If you play 100 hours multi-tabling cash and you're in profit... you're probably at least a winning player. (the same can't be said about someone who plays 100 MTTs and as in profit)
I know MattBates has crushed on here and pokerstars for a very long time, so doesn't apply to my arguement.
My point was.... someone winning 1 qualifier MTT or even saying 'let's see who has the best results over 100 MTTs played during August' is not necessarily going to result in the winner being a great MTT player.
Just for the purpose of an example I'll use his name cos you mentioned it... it's not that unlikely that over the course of 100 MTTs Matt Bates could make a loss, does that mean he's rubbish and you thus wouldn't want to stake him? (No but that's only cos you know him and know his long term results)
Likewise, a rubbish player could run really well in just 2-3 games and make a decent profit over 100 games, does that mean he's great and you'd want to invest in his action?
So if someone says 'look at how great my results are after 300 MTTs, wanna start staking me?'. I'd be pretty meh. Imo a player who has crushed cash for a similar period of time is much less likely to be influenced by positive variance*
*It obv still could be positive variance and some people run like god for insane periods of time, but generally speaking.
I don`t think you can just totally forget cash or stts players what because they don`t play as many mtts as most of the top mtt players on site.They are a lot of good cash and stt players that I reckon if played more mtts could be just as good as most the top mtt players imo but they obviously do really well at their chosen format.
but as I have posted before in previous thread about promos/TSP they should be 3 leagues for each format mtts/stts/cash and then they should be spilt into 2 or 3 tiers for different levels so regardless if you are a micro player or high stakes everyone gets a fair chance.
Then the top 10 finishers from each tier and format could play in a mtt and top 6 get a tsp place obviously they can be tweaks to this idea but it`s a start.(similar to the old league system years ago)
I don't wanna get into this whole debate abuot cash player v MTT players on this thread. If people do wanna continue it, I don't mind taking part but someone can create a new thread just to avoid this TSP thread being derailed.
So my final food for thought in this thread will be this....
Can you think of a single cash player that crushes cash but doesn't do very well in MTTs? (I can't) Can you think of a single MTT player that crushes MTTs but can't do the same at cash? (I can name ALOT)
I'm not just referring to Sky in the above questions, have a think through every famous pro.
In Response to Re: Team Sky Poker - The Next Generation... : Yeah you've got me there! Sucks so much to only have 2.2million worth of cashes. Obv that's not even considering his online results. http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=50670 Posted by Lambert180
Didn't he brick the 1drop x 2 though? so he's instantly break even with just those 2 fails.
durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr where even is he now anyway what happened to all the crazy televised cash games where he was running 500k+ bluffs?
Everything seems to be about mtts/sngs now in TV poker
In Response to Re: Team Sky Poker - The Next Generation... : Didn't he brick the 1drop x 2 though? so he's instantly break even with just those 2 fails. durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr where even is he now anyway what happened to all the crazy televised cash games where he was running 500k+ bluffs? Everything seems to be about mtts/sngs now in TV poker Posted by DOHHHHHHH
In Response to Re: Team Sky Poker - The Next Generation... : Didn't he brick the 1drop x 2 though? so he's instantly break even with just those 2 fails. durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr where even is he now anyway what happened to all the crazy televised cash games where he was running 500k+ bluffs? Everything seems to be about mtts/sngs now in TV poker Posted by DOHHHHHHH
FWIW, I'm pretty sure they changed the 1drop from 1mil to £111k after the first year.
In Response to Re: Team Sky Poker - The Next Generation... : quite right too had these cash players hogging the limelight for far too long Posted by GELDY
Its the same players just playing a different format.
Comments
I'd take on ANY of you MTT guys on, OI OI!
I know you lot wet yourselves in terror whenever you get above a 20bb stack, haha
I was talking more about the kinda scenario like 'hey I've played 300 MTTs and won quite a few so that means I must be amazing at MTTs'.
What I mean is that the variance in MTTs is so ridic high that if I had a relatively small MTT sample to look at (which most people have) then I'd trust a sample of good cash results far more. Even more so if the player is going into a very deep, well structured event where they will probably be in their element for a pretty long time (stack size wise)
I.E. If you play 100 MTTs and you're in profit... purely from them stats it's hard to really know anything about them.
If you play 100 hours multi-tabling cash and you're in profit... you're probably at least a winning player. (the same can't be said about someone who plays 100 MTTs and as in profit)
Anyway, just my opinion of course
I know MattBates has crushed on here and pokerstars for a very long time, so doesn't apply to my arguement.
My point was.... someone winning 1 qualifier MTT or even saying 'let's see who has the best results over 100 MTTs played during August' is not necessarily going to result in the winner being a great MTT player.
Just for the purpose of an example I'll use his name cos you mentioned it... it's not that unlikely that over the course of 100 MTTs Matt Bates could make a loss, does that mean he's rubbish and you thus wouldn't want to stake him? (No but that's only cos you know him and know his long term results)
Likewise, a rubbish player could run really well in just 2-3 games and make a decent profit over 100 games, does that mean he's great and you'd want to invest in his action?
So if someone says 'look at how great my results are after 300 MTTs, wanna start staking me?'. I'd be pretty meh. Imo a player who has crushed cash for a similar period of time is much less likely to be influenced by positive variance*
*It obv still could be positive variance and some people run like god for insane periods of time, but generally speaking.
Vs Batesy, MrD, or any MTT grinder.
There for the taking Dr.IDCU and Professor Sly!
EDIT: just realised how self-serving these posts sound. Not trying to attention wh ore guys, I pwomise. Just a stone-cold-degen
So my final food for thought in this thread will be this....
Can you think of a single cash player that crushes cash but doesn't do very well in MTTs? (I can't)
Can you think of a single MTT player that crushes MTTs but can't do the same at cash? (I can name ALOT)
I'm not just referring to Sky in the above questions, have a think through every famous pro.
Sucks so much to only have 2.2million worth of cashes. Obv that's not even considering his online results.
http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=50670