View Single Post
  #86  
Old 01-26-05, 06:00 PM
cognito20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well, Adam, perhaps you shouldn't be quite so presumptuous as to assume that I -HAVEN'T- participated in any of the tournaments you describe. In fact, I just recently returned from the Bahamas where I placed 52nd in the WPT no-limit event there, which I qualified for by finishing second in a satellite at PokerStars. I also won the May 2003 7-Card Stud Hi-Lo Split tournament at Turning Stone, have made 4 final tables at limit Hold 'Em and 7-Card Stud tournaments at the same venue, and have won at least one multi-table buy-in tournament $10 or above at PokerStars in -every- format of poker they offer -except- Omaha High and No-Limit Hold 'Em. So your tacit assumption that I am one of the 16-year-olds that you mentioned who play for $5 is, to be blunt about it, flat fucking wrong. And you're right, I COULD afford to play some medium-to-high-buyin tournaments with my $10-20-level bankroll, but I generally don't. I choose not to. Why the hell should I? The 10-20 and 20-40 games at Turning Stone are, quite frankly, so damn soft and fishy that it's not worth my while to subject myself and my bankroll to the vagaries and luck of tournament poker when I can play ring games at this venue and make an absolute killing. There's a reason, Adam, that most of the greatest players in the world prefer cash games. And while I don't claim to be anywhere near their level, I DO claim to be, at the very least, one of the 3 best players at the venue and the level I play at, which makes it a lot more +EV for me to stay at Turning Stone and continue the fishing expedition rather than prove my manhood to you by playing in a tournament setting where luck is the overriding factor in who wins and who loses. Not to mention, how is it "backing up my abusive post" re: Mr. Varkonyi for me to play in more of the tournaments you describe. Even if I fell flat on my face in all of them (which I wouldn't...I'd make the money and/or final tables as much as the next guy would), how would that make Robert Varkonyi suck any less? What would that prove? I have no animosity toward the man, I've never even met him, but I call them like I see them. Varkonyi was lucky. Damn lucky. And any player with even the slightest understanding of probability should understand that it is VERY possible for a lucky streak to last for 7 or more days. The long run does not equal one week. Despite iveyfan05's assertion, it is NOT hard to say that he got lucky throughout a tourney that lasted more than 1 day.$35-$50 an hour is a rather nice wage for an occasional second job, thanks. I'll be satisfied with that and pick and choose my spots to enter tourneys rather than get greedy and possibly lose it all. In a tournament, a spell of bad luck and I could lose a good chunk of my bankroll. If I play the particular ring games I do for long enough, it is inevitable that I win unless Chip Reese, Ted Forrest, Phil Ivey, Doyle Brunson et al. all decide to move to upstate New York.Incidentally, I never asserted that Varkonyi was worse than EVERY player on this board. My assertion was actually a counter-assertion to a previous player that Varkonyi was better than ANYONE on this board, which is a much more debatable proposition. I would like my chances against him better than any one of the -players- (not commentators, I think I could probably take Shauna Hiatt, and wow would I like to :-P) listed on the left side of this page, by about a factor of 5.