[thesnowman22]

The blinds are raised too fast in PSSII, and while Moneymaker got lucky a few times, you have to to win a tourney of that size. Anyone arguing he sucks probably cant carry his jock. And to base whether a player is good or bad based on one tourney or a short series like PSS.... its just not enough of a representative sample size to do so.

[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.

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".

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

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.

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).

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.

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!

- RogerThat!

P.S. Anyone know when the final heads-up between J.C. and Todd Brunson is being shown again? They should run that one a few times!

[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.

[RogerThat]

Don't get hung up on the little things, bro. Just because I said it was a newbie outlook, don't take it personally!

I never said it was the ultimate tournament, or that a sprint is better than a marathon. I only tried to explain the alternates to some - actually, a lot of - people who categorically dismissed the Tourney as an "All-in" festival.

For example, you are confused why I said it emphasized pre-flop AND post-flop play, thinking it has to be one or the other. That's a narrow outlook, because post-flop play has many levels to it, depending how many chips already invested, did you hit, reads and tells, potential cost of the turn and river for draws, and much more... A great pre-flop call can easily turn bad on the flop, and vica-versa. It's what you do AFTER you see the flop that determines much of the hand. Therefore, with blinds so high, it ABSOLUTELY puts pressure on good post-flop decisions. But ALSO pre-flop decisions - they're all connected, SEE? Email me if you want to discuss it further.

It's called Poker Superstars for a reason, and many people will need some more experience to truly see why it was great. YES, meaning, in the way that the 100 yard dash is great. Because, if you don't want to see the final shot at the buzzer, and prefer watching all 4 rounds of a golf match, PSS is just not for you.

Ultimately, when you've played some more poker and read some more books, you'll see arguing with my conclusions is FUTILE - Because they are just opinions!

Enjoy!

--

[RogerThat]

Originally Posted by Klopzi

He chose when to go all-in and when not to, and he made the right choices.

Not that I want to get embroiled in a MoneyMaker argument, because his performance since the WSOP pretty much speaks for itself, but this sentence above is just plain misleading and also kinda ignorant.

The nature of the game is such that you don't always have to be great to win, and obviously, when someone with a strong hand is raising to push you out, and you stay in and suck out, you get inflated chip stacks = MoneyFaker.

But when you say he made "the right choices", you're only saying that because he won them, in 20-20 hindsight. Technically, any winning long-term strategy will advise AGAINST pushing all in with few outs, and you can't justify his expertise or decision-making just because he won. It's like saying, "My chip stack is bigger, so I'm better".

Anyone can gain a solid understanding of the game in a few months playing online and reading a few books, and anyone with or without that knowledge can win any game! It's just the way poker is.

All I'm saying is that MM's performance and play is less than optimal for the long run, which is actually the point of playing "good" poker.

Aiiight?

And just for the record, we can add Aaron Kanter from WSOP 2005 to that list of MoneyFakers.

...

[JasonKirk]

Originally Posted by RogerThat

Don't get hung up on the little things, bro. Just because I said it was a newbie outlook, don't take it personally!

Hmmm....I don't recall taking anything personally. Why would you think that?

I never said it was the ultimate tournament, or that a sprint is better than a marathon. I only tried to explain the alternates to some - actually, a lot of - people who categorically dismissed the Tourney as an "All-in" festival.

And I was simply providing counterpoints to the points you made.

Ultimately, when you've played some more poker and read some more books, you'll see arguing with my conclusions is FUTILE - Because they are just opinions!

What does how much poker anyone's played - or how many books they've read, for that matter - have to do with the futility of arguing opinions?

[dylan236]

haha ya... moneymaker is a fluke. Man i can't wait to catch pokersuperstars 2 the 1st one was great to watch. I agree also i like the way the whole tournament is set up. The tournament defiantly takes skill with out a doubt. I bet johnny Chan does good in it, he always seems to get in top places. He's the man.

[AGreen]

Looking way back, how did most players say they loved the structure when a majority of the upper-echelon players didn't play in it? And some of those that decided to play in PS I didn't play in PS II, I don't think it was the buyin that made them not want to come back. It's basically a TURBO tourny.

[hulk75]

ok they might know the odds,been around for a long time and not scared to put there chips on the line but i think that most people would have a chance in a six/10 handed game against theese pro's. i just dont see anything on there that i have not seen even on betfred.i would love to play in that game maybe i could be in pokersuperstars 56 lol

[zXJaEXz]

well obviously money maker was extremely lucky to win. but of course luck comes in all forms. he did suck out to win a lot of chips as shown in one of the hands on tv and he makes pretty bad risky plays but gets away with them headsup against sam farha. but to win sucha big event u have to combine skill with luck and in his case he got his luck when he needed it and used it luck when he needed it . Look at craig raymer and all of his lucky flops and hands but he played them right and u didnt really see any suckouts . he did make some decent calls and got extremely lucky by cracking aces but thats poker and he also had tons of luck. but as i said u gotta have a ton of luck to win such a big event.
and Poker superstars 2 and the many tourneys they hold really does show how skillful they are although they dont play much flops. i think the first series showed more plays on the flop and yea i do think they should slow down the blinds a little but either way the series just shows their great decision making