[JasonKirk]

Originally Posted by RogerThat

PokerSuperStars II is actually a great tournament, and calling it a crap-shoot is simply a newbie outlook on it, and I'll tell you why, IMHO.

I think it's a bit dismissive to call not liking the structure a "newbie" outlook. There's little to no post-flop play on the very first level of each tournament, and once the blinds start to rise, the question becomes "Do I really want to play this hand?" It's all about the player's willingness to gamble from there on.

a] It's a great example of late tournament play. It's as if for each match up, they took the NBA All-stars, put them into a game in the 4th Quarter with 2 minutes left on the clock, and said: "Go show us your best clutch games".

Fair enough comparison. Remember, however, that some people prefer NBA Live to NBA Jam. I don't think there's anything "newbie" about preferring the marathon to the sprint.

b] Puts a huge emphasis on pre-flop hand selection. An essential skill for any good player.

But it takes away post-flop skill - which most pros will tell you is the difference between good players and great ones.

c] Strong emphasis on post-flop play. Good players need to decide here if they will Fold now, or play it out to the River.

Can't agree with you here. So many hands end up all-in either preflop or on the flop. How can the structure emphasize both pre-flop and post-flop play? It's either one or the other.

d] Shows the advantage of good bluffing, and aggresion, late in a tourney. Plus the power of all-ins, and also the disadvantages. (Carlos made it far in II, and Gus Hansen won number I).

Both of these players have also won WPT titles, and in Carlos' case WSOP titles. Please explain how bluffing and aggression are more valuable in PS than in those tournament situations.

e] How could it possibly be a crap shoot if Carlos Mortensen and Johnny Chan made it to the finals? And the fact that Money Maker got busted so early pretty much confirms it to me - he's a crap shoot professional.

Plenty of other top-flight pros didn't make it to the finals. That's the whole thing with PS - it's supposed to bring the best in the world to the table. No matter who made it to the end, you could say, "See? WCP Player A and WCP Player B made the finals! What a great structure!" whether those players were Doyle, Johnny, Carlos, Ted Forrest, Kathy Liebert or whoever else.

And calling Moneymaker a "crap shoot professional" is blatantly unfair. The man accomplished one of the greatest feats in modern poker history - all in his first live tournament. Downplaying Moneymaker's accomplishments because he was an amateur is to downplay the amount of luck anyobody needs to win a tournament. Anybody who wins a tournament has to get incredibly lucky - and pro will tell you so. This is all beside the fact that he ran an inspired bluff on Sam Farha heads-up, and survived a final table with "Action" Dan Harrington. Could you do the same? Could any of your poker-playing friends do the same? I don't think Moneymaker is one of the best in the world, necessarily, but I've played against him before and I think he is a NL player with a solid skill base.

f] All the pros said they loved the structure. Think about it. Every match was like playing a final table, BUT with everyone starting even. The most exciting part of any poker tourney!

I'll have to withhold any opinion on this matter for lack of information. I'll have to ask Chris Ferguson when I see him again exactly what his opinion of the structure is - he's the only pro who's played in them with whom I've discussed the PS tournaments at all.