All money is real, its just people in society are one of two ways: savers or marshmallow getters

A saver will earn a steady income, focus on saving and investing conservatively.

A marshmallow getter typically likes money in larger sums, all at once, and therefore usually lacks a sense of longevity always being in a rush...

This is coming from a marshmallow getter...however, the marshmallow getter can change but the saver rarely does.

You just gotta figure out which one you are and move forward with it, and if it bothers you, then change your season (your focus) and how you go after those goals and do it better for yourself

By that definition, the real money is in Powerball and Mega Millions.

lol...could we ever one time have THIS? $$$

You let me know when you need to drive my truck bro

What happened to the 40k you made in one month while a junior in college?

Yes.

ummmm 7 years??? what kind of question is this? Trolling because of politics posting?

DMW-

Tournaments may be where it's more profitable to play, but saying it's because you can win 6 figures in one shot is just stupid. It's either more profitable in the long run overall or it isn't. The final grand prize count is irrelevant.

Is it stupider than asserting; cash games are the best long term plan because I say they are? Nobody really knows what is more profitable in the long term so I felt justified in not posting an essay on the subject.

DMW trolling? No way!

Making a claim is not a troll, it's the opposite of trolling.

No. Don't know anything of your politics posts. Saw this thread for the 1st time, read the 1st 3/4 pages and saw your responses.

it is known

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foqUPiwMiOM

such a waste of a great porn intro...

Cash games are generally better because they are a far more constant stream of income and have smaller bankroll requirements than a tournament player making the same amount per hour would require. This isn't really debatable. Tournaments are only better if you're better at tournaments, which is easily plausible.

Apologies then. My first 40k month was March 2007. That was a house, a wife's doctorate, three cars and two years of medical school ago.

My biggest score was a 160k BBJ win, and that was fun.

Lord's rich blessings, 2 reasons in one post. a is true because cash games run round the clock (although I find you don't want to play them when the donkament is starting). Hopefully they are a steady winrate but that doesn't speak to win potential and moving up in stakes.

b, Your hourly potential speaks to the strength of the field not your starting bankroll. I'll grant a small bankroll lasts longer in cash than tourneys, but it's also true that both are highly likely to go bust. You have a much better chance of turning a small roll into an adequate or large one via large field tourneys.

Can't choose your seat in a tournament.

A more constant win rate with cash games is not due to games running around the clock. It's due to the nature of how payouts are structured in tournaments.
This is hot garbage. Playing tournaments requires a larger bankroll compared to cash games because, again, how payouts are structured.

What you're talking about is the likelihood of changing a little bit of cash to a ton of cash.... you're not talking about how to make money as a professional poker player.

Yes yes everyone knows tournaments are high variance so I never said they weren't. But cash has its variance too and most don't just sit and get their $x/hr.

I don't know how many people can play live 1/2 pay their bills and climb into 5/10 but there's at least one lucky sonabitch a month in CP who did it with a tourney score which brings me to:

Ace in the River: back in 2008 when I still listened to 4's podcasts: Barry Greenstein, Doyle Brunson, Antonio Esfandiari all said basically the same thing; Real poker was always cash but now everyone wants to play these tournament things, so we're playing them too. And they didn't sound very happy about the changing of the tide, it was something they had to do because that's what the fish were doing.

And that's universal reason. If the donators prefer that game then that's what the pros should be playing.

No one disagrees with this. Why are you acting like you're making a point?

I'm not sure why you're posting. If you're rolling at 1/2 unable to pay your bills and grow a bankroll, then you're not a viable pro tournament poker player either. It's, at best, tangential to what you were talking about before. Combined with your ****ty attitude, I don't see any reason to try to help you out anymore. Good luck.

Because you kept repeating it?

wtf are you talking about? This thread isn't about me and my attitude itt isn't the problem here.

It had a lot more to do with getting endorsement deals than the amount of money they could win. The cash players saw luckboxes getting hundreds of thousands of dollars of guaranteed money from poker sites. They wanted that money.

Greenstein thought so little of the money he was winning in tournaments at that time that he gave it away. Even before black friday, Ivey was doing prop bets force himself to play tournaments because otherwise they weren't worth his time despite his involvement with FTP.

Guess it's no longer "Mr. & Mrs. Ikestoys", but rather "Mr. & Dr. Ikestoys" now.

The latest news out of CP is that endorsements are going to be awarded based on a player's market power in a country. Meaning it's probably better to be a good soccer player.

I don't think Greenstein's split of the tournament/cash winnings lasted as long as it was reported. Sometime midway through the tv poker era I heard it was history.

Ha we looked it up, it's Dr and Mr. In two years it will be 'The Doctors Ikestoys'