PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.





SCOOP 2019

Earn Tickets to SCOOP and play for a share of $75,000,000+ GTD!


See more
See less

which would you prefer?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • which would you prefer?

    Would you prefer to be a player that wins 5 or 6 tournaments a year, and those are your only money finishes?

    Or, would you rather be a player that finishes in the money 15 to 20 times a year, but never wins?

    And a follow up question to this is, which player would you consider to be the better poker player?

  • #2
    With the information given, I would definitely rather be the player winning 5 or 6 tourneys. The money pulled in by that many wins more than trumps 20 "in the money tourneys", unless the second player had many, many second/third place finishes.

    Aside from the money, the guy winning 5/6 tourneys is definitely the better player. Obviously he is an extremely agressive player, do or die if you will, but he has proven his ability to "finish the job" which many players cannot do.



    • #3
      i have to agree 100% with gojacketz..........

      jmuzzey lsogc


      • #4
        i prefer to bust on the bubble all year round! the jam has been spread...


        • #5
          Loaded question... it's easy to come up with a scenario where finishing in the money ONCE is better than winning 5 tournaments.

          Let's say I finish tenth in the WSOP main event and it's the only money finish for me all year.

          Another player wins 5 local tournaments that have $25 buyins. I'm still going to be way ahead of that player.

          Or better yet, finishing "in the money" but not "winning" includes finishing second. Given 20 tournaments with equal buyins, the guy who finishes 2nd in all 20 makes more money than the guy who wins 5.

          I don't think there's a way to measure who's "better", but there is definitely way to measure who's made more profit after the given tournaments.

          TotalPayout - TotalBuyin = TotalProfit

          Do that for each player. Whoever has more money was the more profitable player - doesn't matter how "good" they are.


          • #6
            I don't want to sound like a broken record, but as I have said before,
            bankrolls shoud be a more important part of any ranking method.

            In the real world, it's MONEY that determines who is best.


            • #7

              Bankroll in the real world: Most important
              Bankroll at PSO: Almost meaningless

              It's important to distinguish between the two. Here are a few examples (using PSO Detail Theoretical Bankroll):

              player x1
              Current PSO Bankroll: 5500
              Theoretical Bankroll: -8200
              Difference: 13700

              player x2
              Current PSO Bankroll: 6500
              Theoretical Bankroll: -35000
              Difference: 41500

              player x3
              Current PSO Bankroll: 2400
              Theoretical Bankroll: -24000
              Difference: 26400

              Current PSO Bankroll: 25000
              Theoretical Bankroll: 7400
              Difference: 17600

              Due to unlimited refills, added money in almost every tournament (totally unrealistic), and no entry fees taken the PSO bankroll really doesn't say much about how profitable a player is.


              • #8

                I agree 100% with your post. First time I ever played with the Detail program, pretty darn cool. Thank you for putting the time in on that.

                I think we have gone away from the basis of the school. From what I remember at the beginning, and I have been here from the beginning, our main goal was to establish a bankroll and treat that bankroll as we would a real bankroll. That was stressed over and over, but it does not seem to have materialized.

                I don't know the plans for the new year, I know they are many, but this is something that needs to be tackled, making bankrolls more important and using them. Perhaps sponsorship points should be accumulated from cashing in your pokerschool bankroll, though there would obviously have to be a cap somewhere as many would play every event possible.

                Just some thoughts,



                • #9
                  I don't think in the real world bankroll is the only measurement that matters. Whoever has the most money wins? Is the highest paid baseball player the best one? Football? Hockey? CEO? Dr.?

                  What determines who is the best poker player is their skill, the quality of their decisions at the table. Not how much money they have. Many of the best poker players are always broke because they cant manage a bankroll well. They gamble it away on other games. Bankroll management is certainly a part of being a succesful professional poker player. It is part of the job. It is a part of the job for a professional athelete to be well represented by agents and attorneys for skillful contract negotiations. Are Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts the two best actors in the world? They make the most per film. Money is not a measurement of skill.

                  Who is the better poker player - 1. A $30-60 player who makes 2 BB/hr and has consistently for 2 years. 2. A $300-600 player who makes less than 1/2 BB per hour for 2 years.

                  Based solely on that information, you cant make a determination. What criteria would you use to determine who is the best out of the two? Just money? Who plays in tougher games? One who plays in tougher games may be better at the table, but what about game selection skills? You couldn't make such a determination without looking at a wealth of criteria.

                  Is Tiger Woods the best golfer in the world because he makes the most money? If so, then Anna Kornikova is the best tennis player in the world. Tiger is the best golfer because of his skill on the golf course. He has the most money in part because of that skill, but also because he is extremely marketable.



                  • #10
                    In a way, the rankings are counterproductive. If someone needs to finish 20th to cinch a spot in the next round of the Big One II for the week, he is going to play very tight and really does not care if he finishes in the money, and that kinda worries me.

                    To create an environment that is more "real world", players playing in tournaments have to do anything and everything in a tournament to get in the money, and more importantly to win the tournament. I personally play differently here trying to qualify for tourneys than I play in tourneys at other sites and casinos. At the later two, I want money, here, I want/need ranking.

                    What the answer and compromise between ranking and bankroll is, I do not know, but it is something that we need to look at.


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Greagar
                      Is Tiger Woods the best golfer in the world because he makes the most money? If so, then Anna Kornikova is the best tennis player in the world.


                      wrong tiger makes the most money ON THE COURSE in the golfing world, the fact he makes the most money OFF THE COURSE is due to his marketing value.

                      Anna makes very little money ON THE COURT compared to the williams sisters, seles, capritia, hingis etc etc. but duw to her looks she makes the most money OFF THE COURT.

                      so tiger is the worlds best golfer and Anna is a top 30 ladies tennis player but both are good looking young players with a commerical look that sponsors LOVE.



                      X Cookies Information

                      We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.