It's the New York Times. They probably made the guy up.

Of COURSE the Luckbox is going to react like this to a quote like that... Fundamentally, what the guy is saying is that there's a difference between short-run success and long-term greatness. He's trying to say that you can't judge "poker" by a couple of goofy-ass Gus Hansenesque tournament runs. Playing in a tournament and grinding it out every day in ring games take two distinct sets of skills, and he's just judging them based on some perceived level of poker purity.

For what it's worth, I don't think tournament poker is "real" poker either. Or Omaha 8, for that matter.

Yeah, StB's probably right.

BG, on the other hand... while I agree with you on O8 (does anyone really play that!?!?), I can't agree with you on the tournament play. After all, even you say it's "two distinct sets of skills." Just because they are different doesn't mean one is poker and the other isn't.

It sounds like you're arguing that you can't demonstrate long-term poker success (and skill) in tournaments simply because Gus Hansen made an early run through smaller WPT fields. Tell that to Doyle Brunson and Johnny Chan.

You beat me to the punch, I was gonna write something about this. The entire quote is bizarre. Actually, I probably will write something. The whole article is riven with absurdities, contradictions, and old-fashioned bullshit. My dander is up.

The reason he states his comment that way is really simple. In a ring game, you can win your buy-in back . In a tournament, if you don't last past the bubble, you lose your buy-in and can't get it back. Tournaments "bankrupt" people because some people walk away empty-handed.

That's my guess on what he's saying anyway.

I understand his "bankrupt" point, but plenty of people go bankrupt at the cash tables too, and that still doesn't explain how tournament poker isn't real poker.

I think you folks missed the point. It was covered in more detail further down. It is the blind progressions we are seeing. That can 'bankrupt' any any good tournament player.

Hmmmm... don't buy that. His last statement is a general statement on tournament poker (at least as far as it's quoted). I agree with the point that high and fast blind structures take more skill out of the game, but there are plenty of tournaments built to the advantage of the more skillful players.

After all, I could argue that large bankrolls take some of the skill out of the ring game when you include players who don't bring as much to the table. But I would never argue that it's not real poker or that a tremendous amount of skill isn't involved.

The guy does exist and is a New York-based quant who works on Wall Street. He posts regularly on 2+2 and wilmott.com. I have no wish to defend or attack him, just to simply point out the danger of selectively quoting from a book without taking into account the full context.

Valid point... the media, and New York Times especially, is notorious for taking quotes out of context or fixing the facts to fix the stories. In fact, when I was in the Wall Street Journal, it said I ordered a well-cooked steak when I told the reporter I ordered it medium.

However, I don't think this quote was taken from his book. I believe it was taken from an interview for this story. I could be wrong.

You know, I understand "the media" complaints from people who are ignorant of "the media". But CJ, you ARE the media.

Are you saying the media is not notorious for taking quotes out of context? And why would you sign my name? Methinks you must be G-Rob!!! ;-)

I think the "bankrupt" quote is stemming from the $10 million dollar buy-in for the tournament they're describing at the "Poker Dome".

AND YES PEOPLE PLAY O8 AND LIKE IT!!! Not to mention that game is only reason why I still have a bankroll.

Stupid quote from a closed-minded player. The best poker players say that a quality player needs to be well-rounded. Usually, that means that they can play various forms of poker, but I think it also implies adaptability to conditions. So Tournament poker is not the same as cash game poker, but its still poker, damnit! Case in point, some amazing cash game players have had success in tournaments. That ain't a crapshoot.

All that said, escalating blinds are a problem. But that isn't the TV shows' fault, from what I can see. WSOP is on TV, and we all know about their great structure. I think it is selective to certain tournaments, where the establishment want to make their fee and get the game over with. Those places (cough cough Luxor) can suck it.

What I'm waiting for is a Greenville News article with quotes from our G-Vegas experts--and it can't be about getting arrested!

Sorry, I've been out of the country with limited Internet access or I would have replied before this.

The quote is not from my book, I spoke with the author, Tim O'Brien, for about an hour. Newspaper quotes are virtually always out of context, after all the article was about poker, not about me. That doesn't mean it's misleading, one of the skills of a good journalist is to take things out of context without being misleading. By the way, Tim O'Brien wrote a great book, Bad Bet, a few years ago.

I am not anti-tournament poker, nor do I think tournament winners are bad players. I do think that an essential part of poker is the goal of making money. Played without meaningful stakes, poker isn't poker. I think most people will stay with me that far.

A tournament is an in-between case. The stakes can be meaningful, but the goal is to be the last survivor, that is to bankrupt everyone else; rather than to make money hand-by-hand. True, you get paid to bankrupt everyone else, so you could say it's about the money, but in my opinion it's a fundamental change to the game to get paid for other people going broke as opposed to earning your money pot by pot. This is not a minor thing, I consider bet accounting to be a defining part of poker (and historically it's one of the key innovations that distinguishes poker).

Anything can be forced into a competitive sport. I used the singing/American Idol example with Tim, but you could substitute hunting versus target shooting or writing novels versus spelling bees or lots of other things. It takes similar skills to do the real activity and to win the simulated competition, but one is real and one is organized for entertainment of spectators. Some people are good at both, some at one, some at neither.

I don't disguise the fact that I think the real activity, at least with poker and music and other things I love, is better than the simulated one; but I don't argue the point. If you like tournaments better, enjoy them. Tournaments give a clear winner, we can know who is the best tournament poker player (at least for one game and limit structure on one day). I like that transparency, anyone can claim to be a great cash game player, tournament players have to prove it. But what I consider to be real poker requires additional skills: finding good games, collecting winnings, managing your play and your life.

A tournament winner can sneer that a successful cash game player is just good at finding rich bad players and keeping them happy, a successful cash game player can sneer at tournaments. I don't support either one. Both activities take similar skills, with some differences. There are enough people who do both well to make it clear that there's more overlap than divergence. Anyone who claims to be a good poker player should demonstrate that talent with top cash game players and with top tournament pros. Doing only one and sneering at the other is not attractive.

There's a separate question about whether tournaments reward good poker. At high enough blinds and antes in the late stages, it's more about the luck of the cards than poker ability. In the early going, it's more about maximizing winnings with weak other players than holding your own with good players, personally I think winners should be chosen by testing them against other good players. In between, it's about careful attention to tournament considerations, stack sizes and remaining players, as much as poker. I think it's possible to design a good poker tournament, but most tournaments are not well-designed in the sense of having a good chance of ranking the players according to poker ability.

Therefore I would not have chosen to be quoted exactly the way I was, it makes me seem anti-tournament. Also, the juxtoposition of the Steve Lipscomb quote makes it seems as if I am mad about my low World Poker Tour ranking. For the record, I have no beef with the World Poker Tour.