You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
Players chosen should be talented both on and off the felt. I find it bemusing how many Micro stakes grinders that don't have excellent people skills feel they should have a shot at being an SPT member.
If anyone, pick like, a Neil Channing-esque guy of the Sky Poker world imo. Great people person, and can hold his own at the tables too.
EZ
I really don't think it'd be fair to subject ANYONE to my jibberish. :P
Plus, I doubt I'd do a great job repping Sky. 5mins into an MTT and I'd already be on the rail doing a Hellmuthian strut. No to mention I'd be too keen trying to get some HU4ROLLZ action on the go anyway!
But hey, in for a penny in for a pound, in for a grand, in for a milly. Count me in the hunt.
Tommy makes sense as does Tikay.
I'd like to see a TSP MTT league, with it broken into quarters, so everyone has 4 goes a year to qualify and different people get to play for Sky. Julian should play all the time + the most successful player from the previous quarter should get a pass as well. If management want picks then fair enough.
Forget cash and stt players. When you play live poker at an SPT or anywhere else then I believe you want MTT players playing. I'd stump up £100 for an MTT but I wouldn't play cash for the same amount as they are very different games.
In order to get everyone involved you could run this as a series of lower stakes MTT's £2, £3, £5, so that everyone has chance to get there. This would also increase the traffic in the MTT's as this would give more balance to the B/H dominated site that we have at the moment.
I also agree with the smaller buy-in tournies as once again the cake will go further, for those lucky enough to get there it's the taking part that counts, if u cash then that's a bonus. I don't think it matters to most recreational players if it's £250 or £1000 buy-in, if they are like me they just want to play.
Adrian
I'd take on ANY of you MTT guys on, OI OI!
I know you lot wet yourselves in terror whenever you get above a 20bb stack, haha
I was talking more about the kinda scenario like 'hey I've played 300 MTTs and won quite a few so that means I must be amazing at MTTs'.
What I mean is that the variance in MTTs is so ridic high that if I had a relatively small MTT sample to look at (which most people have) then I'd trust a sample of good cash results far more. Even more so if the player is going into a very deep, well structured event where they will probably be in their element for a pretty long time (stack size wise)
I.E. If you play 100 MTTs and you're in profit... purely from them stats it's hard to really know anything about them.
If you play 100 hours multi-tabling cash and you're in profit... you're probably at least a winning player. (the same can't be said about someone who plays 100 MTTs and as in profit)
Anyway, just my opinion of course
I know MattBates has crushed on here and pokerstars for a very long time, so doesn't apply to my arguement.
My point was.... someone winning 1 qualifier MTT or even saying 'let's see who has the best results over 100 MTTs played during August' is not necessarily going to result in the winner being a great MTT player.
Just for the purpose of an example I'll use his name cos you mentioned it... it's not that unlikely that over the course of 100 MTTs Matt Bates could make a loss, does that mean he's rubbish and you thus wouldn't want to stake him? (No but that's only cos you know him and know his long term results)
Likewise, a rubbish player could run really well in just 2-3 games and make a decent profit over 100 games, does that mean he's great and you'd want to invest in his action?
So if someone says 'look at how great my results are after 300 MTTs, wanna start staking me?'. I'd be pretty meh. Imo a player who has crushed cash for a similar period of time is much less likely to be influenced by positive variance*
*It obv still could be positive variance and some people run like god for insane periods of time, but generally speaking.
Vs Batesy, MrD, or any MTT grinder.
There for the taking Dr.IDCU and Professor Sly!
EDIT: just realised how self-serving these posts sound. Not trying to attention wh ore guys, I pwomise. Just a stone-cold-degen
So my final food for thought in this thread will be this....
Can you think of a single cash player that crushes cash but doesn't do very well in MTTs? (I can't)
Can you think of a single MTT player that crushes MTTs but can't do the same at cash? (I can name ALOT)
I'm not just referring to Sky in the above questions, have a think through every famous pro.
Sucks so much to only have 2.2million worth of cashes. Obv that's not even considering his online results.
http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=50670