« More Thoughts | Main | Fun With Editing »
 | |
| Latest poker news |
February 14, 2006
Why PocketFives Is The Dumbest Site On The Net
A reader asks:
I'm just curious if you guys would say someone like JohnnyBax or Gigabet are just overbown internet celebrities who can't compete against good poker players.
You're half right. They are overblown internet celebrities, though they are probably also winning players in any major tournament. I'd guess they are probably solid tournament players, they just aren't phenoms.
Actually someone I know who knows Bax well and knows tournaments far better than I says that yes, he's just mediocre. I have very little personal experience with him, so I have no first hand opinion.
I'm going to tell you all a secret: tournaments aren't hard. In fact they are very easy. Add to that the fact that almost everyone who plays in them online is completely and totally clueless and anyone even remotely intelligent (and regardless of his poker ability Bax, I am told, is a very bright guy) can become a relatively big winner. And if said person plays a lot of tournaments they are going to post some nice scores.
If they then post regularly on that one certain forum then obviously they are going to be put on the top of the list. It's that simple, and that meaningless. Bax will agree with that I think, as I heard him say something of that effect to Card Player at the WSOP.
Since I've been talking to math guys a lot today I thought I would write a little equation to illustrate this principle.
Maroon's Theorem of Internet Poker Celebrity
H + P + F = I
Where:
H = Have an above room temperature IQ
P = Play a lot of tournaments online
F= Post on forums
I = Become an Internet poker celebrity
Here's another equation that shows why everyone who plays enough tournaments to get on any of those lists isn't very good at poker.
Maroon's Theory of Why Nobody On The Pocketfives Leader Board Will Ever Be As Good At Poker As I Was Five Years Ago
Wr > Wt * 5
Where:
Wr = Win rate of an excellent player at online cash games.
Wt = Win rate of an excellent player at online tournaments.
Posted by themaroon at February 14, 2006 4:56 PM
Comments
also thier site doesnt acount for people like myself (i have played less than 40 tournaments in the past year and have 4 top tables) Wonder how many tourneys a week JJProdigy plays
Posted by: giantbag at February 14, 2006 5:09 PM
I remember back in the day when I ran SnG's all day, playing with the likes of Gigabet and ZeeJustin.
Pretty much the extent you knew they were good was that they played all day, and could fold AQ. It wasn't until 2 years later and venturing over to 2+2 that I found out they were celebrities. I guess since 7 of the other players in all the SnG's were donkeys, I didn't recognize the genius.
The main point being, even if they were superior players, once you get to a certain level there's only so much of an EV advantage one can have over another.
Posted by: andy at February 14, 2006 5:38 PM
While I agree that Maroon has probably won more money than 90 percent of the people on that list (if not more), there are at least a handful of very, very good No Limit Hold 'Em players on there.
Posted by: Matt M at February 14, 2006 6:11 PM
"I'm going to tell you all a secret: tournaments aren't hard. In fact they are very easy."
Now that's the kind of writing that makes this blog the funniest on the net.
Posted by: henry at February 14, 2006 6:34 PM
I don't know about PocketFives being the dumbest site on the Net. Have you already forgotten about FlopTurnRiver.com?
Posted by: Boobie Lover at February 14, 2006 6:59 PM
Everyone mentioned in this conversation is so far above me in skill that you might as well be equal. Maroon, Bax, Gigabet, or Brunson, I'm sheep to the slaughter.
But I have to admit it's been fun going back and forth from here and p5s watching the blather. I'll take you all on in sudoku any day of the week :)
Posted by: ben at February 14, 2006 7:02 PM
Oh... Meant to add... I find cash games boring. Even when I win. I just enjoy tourneys more.
So the theory seems to be that a good tourney player would lose in a cash game to a good cash player. WHat about the other way? Once you get to heads up, you might be better than a Bax or a Gigabet, but perhaps they are better at taking chips from the "dead money" in a tourney situation?
Posted by: ben at February 14, 2006 7:05 PM
Matt, I'm working on getting to H in your formula. I feel like I am really close, though it's no fun leaving the A.C. on full blast in the winter.
Posted by: DonkDetector at February 14, 2006 8:56 PM
Gigabet probably makes a lot more $$$ than you do, that's a super bad example.
Posted by: Gabe at February 14, 2006 10:05 PM
Come on. Did you never think of the possibility that some people just love tournaments and can't stand cash games?
To say that anyone from pocketfives is a joke, and to say the things about johnnybax without even knowing him is just ridiculous.
I repeat: just because someone doesn't play cash games (for whatever reason), it DOES NOT mean that they are not good at poker.
Someone of your intelligence should be able to understand that and not be so obtuse.
Posted by: Jordan at February 14, 2006 10:43 PM
Actually yes it does. And it's not obtuse to mention second hand information as long as you properly denote it as such. Try taking a science class.
Posted by: Matt at February 16, 2006 2:18 PM