There were only like what, 35 people in the tourny and DNegs finished 10th and then he said "these guys are better than me". Also, what only like 7 out of 35 cash. From all indications it seems he knew he wasnt +EV.

This is just my personal opinion but I think DNegs knew this was a loaded field that he was not one of the favorites and he did the prop bet thing to try to get him pumped up into trying to accomplish something he knew was a reach for him.....

"By claiming a $918,000 prize, Schulman takes the early lead in the Poker Masters competition, which will see the player with the best results (highest total earnings) throughout all five tournaments (four $50,000 buy-in tournaments capped by a $100,000 freeze out finale) – win The Poker Masters Purple Jacket™."


If they are using gross money won, I think using net money won is a better method. So if a guy had 1.8 mil in gross wins with 300k in buyins for 1.5 mil net win and another had 1.75 mil in gross wins with 200k in buyins, for a 1.55 mil net win, the guy with 1.55 net win should get the jacket. Thoughts?

Quite a run from goose.core this series, 4 FTs out of 5.

Also RIP Ben Toblerone, my personal poker hero. Victim of German singularity solver mafia #neverforget

Justin Bonobo goes apesh*t: barrels the river like Donkey Kong

I like the idea

I have come up with a traditional Player of Year type formula and applied it to the poker masters. I have based my formula on buyin, finishing position, and field size. (not money won or ROI). Here are my standing after 4 events, and the points that will be awarded to the final $100k event.


Since Sontheimer is guaranteed 41.95 points to get over 455, nobody can catch him. Even if Sontheimer had not cashed and Holz had won, Holz would have had 412 points and still finished 1 point behind Sontheimer. So kudos to Sontheimer.

Yeah no doubt Sonty deserves to win the jacket. If not I think we can say the scoring system is flawed. Hard to criticise too much, the first WSOP was decided by a vote wasnt it? Teething problems.

Do you guys have any idea how ridiculous it is to argue about what a "fair" system is to determine the "best player" after a random 5 donkament sit and go sample?

You are absolutely insane.

This is the way that I wanted it to be calculated from the very start. It makes total sense and really, I am not sure how this could even be debated.

I would not go so far to say that they are insane but I do see your point also. I am not sure that even Poker Go would just outright believe that whomever wins this is the BEST but if they feel that they must use that title, then the above suggested method of calculation, is the way to go about it for the sake of this tournament series.

BTW - Everyone see that King of the Hill 2 is already set up and ready to go?

He easily has my vote. To say that I am impressed, with his performance, is an understatement!

No system is perfect, see NASCAR and PGA playoffs. With 'random' guy still able to win the jacket after not even playing in any of the 4 prelims is pretty weak IMO. But they want drama and a lot of these players can't/wont commit to playing in all 5 events.

PokerGo limits their coverage to force you over to PokerNews live reporting as well. It's hard to keep switching back and forth on a phone .. is everyone watching on large screen devices where you can switch more easily?

DNegs went back to his old HSP ways and played the part of the OMC in the 2pr v 75 hand. The lack of emotion and patience shown by these high stakes regs is amazing but not good for the general public at all. They overbet DNegs when they hit the nuts ... and he calls. They overbet PHell when they miss ... and he folds. Thus DNegs and PHell go right at it on Twitter since there's no one left that the general public can relate to left.

Both DNegs (Live Reads) and PHell (White Magic) lose some advantages when they play these young bots. PHell beat Jungleman and Polk, both of whom are talkative/emotional players. Jungleman wins his match 'every' time if it's online and he isn't swayed by the banter during the match. (Yes, there are chat boxes but it's not the same IMO.)

This event is something new and shows the power DNegs and PHell still have in poker world. No one is talking about 'same old' WPT Borgata or how WSOPe is coming up soon. Give some credit to WPT-Alpha 8 for stirring the pot with these high rollers, but they just couldn't harness it since they are still pretty much stuck putting out 'most' of their product on TV. GL

The purple jacket is just a prop that probably appeals more to guys like Negreanu and definitely Hellmuth. It's something that PH, if he won, could wear around and impress the casual / non-poker player.

Overall, having a week-long series of $50k turbos culminating in a $100k event was enough to keep me interested. It is enough action to attract the top pros and the PokerGO production has been pretty good and well worth the subscription fee.

I hope the series is deemed a success and maybe they can run something in the spring time that is similar to this before the WSOP.

Whoever wins the jacket should seriously just give it to Sontheimer. I mean, I don't think any of the players left "care" about the jacket if they win, it's about the $$$ for these guys. So giving it to Sontheimer would at least give legitimacy to the game I think and just be a over-all positive of gamesmanship and good community in poker. Right?.. I mean:

(regardless of today's outcome) hmmm who do we give the jacket too?

They're not trying to decide the best player, just who performed the best over these 5 'donkament sit and gos.'


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any scoring system that doesn't have PH at #1 is flawed. #whitemagic #GOAT

Beat me to it, thought this was pretty obvious.. as pointless as working out who the best player over 5 donkament sit and go's is... it would be nice to see a fair system.

Except for Seth Davies, everybody else is a (super) high roller regular. So my guess would be the reason is that you haven't been following those tournaments recently?

The two biggest names (arguably), Holz and Bonomo are the only ones without a 7-figure score this year. Again, except for Davies.

He actually FT'd every event. He bubbled #3 in 8th place. I think they don't count that as an FT because he didn't make it to the TV FT on day two though.

We have a metric for that; money won

The FTs are kinda weird stats now ... Since this was a 7-handed tournament from the start the FT is the last 7 players. So even if they had paid 10 places a player could cash but 'not' officially FT in the last 7.

WPT was even stranger that you could make the FT but not the TV FT at 6.

I think it's an interesting dynamic in all tournaments when you get 'short' that there is some short-handed play and then you're back up into the grind of a 'full' table. GL

There's nothing about the system that seems "unfair" to me. The system was clear and public from the start of the event, and gave all players an equal opportunity to compete for the jacket (assuming they had the money to enter).

In some ways, a system that only rewards winning is the most "fair" in that it is least like to incentivize collusion. Systems where there is a big difference between points awarded and money earned can be particularly problematic in encouraging collusion or very degenerate play.

That was an extensive discussion when Gaelle Baumann finished 10th in the WSOP ME and some people argued she didn't make the FT because it's a 9-handed tournament and others said she did make the FT because all remaining players were seated at the same table.

By the way people arguing that getting a couple of 3rd and 4th is "a better performance" than a straight win in 1 donkament without playing any other, that is saying that you performed better in a cash game because you won more pots when a nit just took a fish for all the gold in 1 hand.

If money won isn't the metric for performance in poker then we're not playing the same game.

Net money won should be the standard (because that's why most play the game).

So Jamie Gold is better than, say, Gus Hansen?