|
|
| MTT Community MTT sweat and official threads as well as various contests and events |
06-21-2012, 03:39 PM
|
#76
|
|
veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: depends
Posts: 3,179
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mement_mori
Peoples fascination with the main event never ceases to amaze me. Yes it is one of the softest 10ks of the year, yes it has the biggest prize pool of any tournament and yes your ROI is probably a fair bit bigger than in most other tournaments with that kind of buy-in.
But besides that there really isnt anything that special about it. Media and players hype it up and call it a "must-play" event and a ton of people justify terrible bankroll decisions by flying out for that one tournament every year. At the end of the day its just another tournament, missing it certainly isnt the end of the world and it is by no means a must-play event for professionals imo.
|
I do agree with you(I'm the OP).. I've thought about this some more, and although I would still like to play it, being a cash reg there are plenty of other options during WSOP using $5-10K that consists of "taking a shot", for eg. bumhunt the Rio highstakes cash tables eg. $25/50 waiting for fish and pros that I am confident of dealing with before sitting in and avoiding tables like yesterday(well I saw a table with Vanessa Selbst, Brian Rast, a couple of online coaches, all at this one table)... no the payout won't be $9M like the main event but it's infinitely more likely that with excellent table selection I can make a nice profit. And playing a bunch of $1.5K's and main events of other casinos around town also add up to $5-10K but with much smaller fields lower variance I guess...
Will think about this some more, nice thread btw even some of the advice that's not correct is still making me think more about this... as is having come across many of the most terrible, richest players at cash tables in the past 2-3 weeks who said "I"m coming back for the main.. I've already bought in.."
Last edited by 663366; 06-21-2012 at 03:47 PM.
|
|
|
06-21-2012, 03:58 PM
|
#77
|
|
enthusiast
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 93
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mement_mori
Peoples fascination with the main event never ceases to amaze me. Yes it is one of the softest 10ks of the year, yes it has the biggest prize pool of any tournament and yes your ROI is probably a fair bit bigger than in most other tournaments with that kind of buy-in.
But besides that there really isnt anything that special about it. Media and players hype it up and call it a "must-play" event and a ton of people justify terrible bankroll decisions by flying out for that one tournament every year. At the end of the day its just another tournament, missing it certainly isnt the end of the world and it is by no means a must-play event for professionals imo.
|
I agree, Main Event is like Ivey, yes, he's the best player in the world, yes, he has won tens of million of dollars (at least), and yes, he can read your mind (unless your name starts with an A), but other than that there really isn't anything that special about him.
|
|
|
06-21-2012, 04:05 PM
|
#78
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,695
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mement_mori
Peoples fascination with the main event never ceases to amaze me. Yes it is one of the softest 10ks of the year, yes it has the biggest prize pool of any tournament and yes your ROI is probably a fair bit bigger than in most other tournaments with that kind of buy-in.
But besides that there really isnt anything that special about it. Media and players hype it up and call it a "must-play" event and a ton of people justify terrible bankroll decisions by flying out for that one tournament every year. At the end of the day its just another tournament, missing it certainly isnt the end of the world and it is by no means a must-play event for professionals imo.
|
well said.
I still want to go play it, though!
|
|
|
06-21-2012, 05:12 PM
|
#79
|
|
adept
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: always due
Posts: 1,011
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
u should try to blackjack satty in. imo
|
|
|
06-21-2012, 05:29 PM
|
#80
|
|
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Staking
Posts: 17,369
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
i for one, wanna see a billbibbit vancouver graph
|
|
|
06-22-2012, 04:28 AM
|
#81
|
|
newbie
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: cabo san lucas
Posts: 45
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
agree with every post except op
|
|
|
06-23-2012, 03:02 AM
|
#82
|
|
old hand
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: due
Posts: 1,354
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
Crossbooking 100% is usually good.
|
|
|
06-26-2012, 01:45 PM
|
#83
|
|
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,715
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mement_mori
Peoples fascination with the main event never ceases to amaze me. Yes it is one of the softest 10ks of the year, yes it has the biggest prize pool of any tournament and yes your ROI is probably a fair bit bigger than in most other tournaments with that kind of buy-in.
But besides that there really isnt anything that special about it. Media and players hype it up and call it a "must-play" event and a ton of people justify terrible bankroll decisions by flying out for that one tournament every year. At the end of the day its just another tournament, missing it certainly isnt the end of the world and it is by no means a must-play event for professionals imo.
|
I think all this might be even more true for the prelims.
I agree missing the main event isn't really a big deal, but I also think it's unique enough as a life experience to justify some bad BRM/shot-taking.
|
|
|
06-26-2012, 01:49 PM
|
#84
|
|
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Coaching again, PM me!
Posts: 9,551
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mement_mori
Peoples fascination with the main event never ceases to amaze me. Yes it is one of the softest 10ks of the year, yes it has the biggest prize pool of any tournament and yes your ROI is probably a fair bit bigger than in most other tournaments with that kind of buy-in.
But besides that there really isnt anything that special about it. Media and players hype it up and call it a "must-play" event and a ton of people justify terrible bankroll decisions by flying out for that one tournament every year. At the end of the day its just another tournament, missing it certainly isnt the end of the world and it is by no means a must-play event for professionals imo.
|
Is there anything that is a must play?
|
|
|
06-26-2012, 02:09 PM
|
#85
|
|
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,715
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
The best player I know is a guy I've known for 7+ years who basically had no risk of ruin the entire time. He started with a small roll and has slowly and steadily built up a 7-figure net worth.
When his roll was 70-80K, he would take occasional shots at juicy Foxwoods 10Ks or w/e (he never hit a score).
I think the essence of good shot-taking is that it has minimal impact on your long term prosperity as a player even if it looks crazy on paper. I usually agree with Billy but I think his analysis misses that point.
|
|
|
06-26-2012, 02:18 PM
|
#86
|
|
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: computers; doing whatever they do
Posts: 7,025
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CompleteDonk
Is there anything that is a must play?
|
Super Smash Bros. on N64. Life isn't complete otherwise.
|
|
|
06-26-2012, 02:49 PM
|
#87
|
|
old hand
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,561
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaniac
The best player I know is a guy I've known for 7+ years who basically had no risk of ruin the entire time. He started with a small roll and has slowly and steadily built up a 7-figure net worth.
When his roll was 70-80K, he would take occasional shots at juicy Foxwoods 10Ks or w/e (he never hit a score).
I think the essence of good shot-taking is that it has minimal impact on your long term prosperity as a player even if it looks crazy on paper. I usually agree with Billy but I think his analysis misses that point.
|
this! Great post
|
|
|
06-26-2012, 05:02 PM
|
#88
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,440
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
Shaniac,
What your friend did is still pretty aggressive but I think it's WAY more reasonable than the main event. He took shots in fields that were still very soft but much lower in variance and where he actually had a decent likelihood of hitting a score.
|
|
|
06-26-2012, 05:30 PM
|
#89
|
|
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,715
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Bibbit
Shaniac,
What your friend did is still pretty aggressive but I think it's WAY more reasonable than the main event. He took shots in fields that were still very soft but much lower in variance and where he actually had a decent likelihood of hitting a score.
|
That's an interesting point, but I'm sure the WSOP ME was also in his shot taking zone.
I guess my point was there are probably a few viable approaches to shot taking, depending on your definition of shot-taking and your poker goals/life goals and also depending on actual level of talent, discipline and ability to grind hard at your "normal stakes" (which my friend has in abundance).
|
|
|
06-26-2012, 06:56 PM
|
#90
|
|
centurion
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 160
|
Re: Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marek_heinz
You dont need 2million to play wsop me. 500k is more than enough and probably 95%+ of good players with 500k+ keep all of their action in it. The amount of good MTTers who have 500k is really small though
|
The Main Event is 10K, so yes, you do need around $2 Million bankroll. I know that one full year, Chris Fergurson didn't cash a single 10K event that he played all year. He played many WPT tournaments and WSOP 10K events.... money will go quick.
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:50 PM.
|