Home / Community / Forum / Support Area / Poker News /

Sponsorship points.

Old
Default
Sponsorship points. - Sun Oct 13, 2002, 11:32 PM
(#1)
Deleted user
I have been thinking about the premise of playing at PSO with the purpose of winning "sponsorship" dollars and have a question that perhaps someone can help me answer.

I was looking at Minpin's stat's program and noticed that I had spent 985 hours playing in multi table tournaments at PSO. Then I stopped to think about the potential payoff of those hours and said if I had won $500 dollars in sponsorships for 6 consecutive months, that would be $3000 dollars or $3.04 per hour. So, I decided to look at the question a little further and picked 5 players at random. Who they are doesn't matter, but here are the numbers.

Player 1 454 hours @ $3000 = 6.60 per hour
Player 2 781 hours @ $3000 = 3.84 per hour
Player 3 432 hours @ $3000 = 6.94 per hour
Player 4 524 hours @ $3000 = 5.72 per hour
Player 5 606 hours @ $3000 = 4.95 per hour

Now, let's assume that I am "earning" $5 per hour at PSO and am going to use that money to enter poker tournaments. Am I incorrect in asking myself what other ways I could "earn" or "win" money to enter poker tournaments?

In fact, am I incorrect in asking myself if spending that same time playing in online tournaments would not "earn" or "win" more than the $3 per hour I am "winning" at PSO?

Am I also incorrect in not wondering what my chances of being successful in a world class event are if I can't earn more than $3 per hour playing at PSO or anywhere else for that matter?

As for the value of the experience at PSO, am I incorrect in wondering which would be more valuable, playing in real money tournaments online or playing for play money at PSO?

It has been my personal experience that the difference between the quality of play in a $30 real money tournament at one of the cash sites and a $200 buy in PSO tournament is immense.

Now, my observations are based only on my own experience and may not be accurate, but at PSO, the games in general seem to be weaker than the average real money tournaments, especially in the early rounds. Is this a misconception on my part? Does anyone else share a similar opinion?

To be quite honest, I enjoy playing at PSO and hope that someone can show me the error of my thinking.

Perhaps the primary purpose of playing at PSO is not to "win" or "earn" anything...perhaps it is just for fun. I certainly don't think there is anything wrong if that is in fact the true answer. Fun is fine. I just prefer to be honest with myself when I try to understand my motivations.

Later...

Steve
 
Old
Default
Sun Oct 13, 2002, 11:44 PM
(#2)
Deleted user
Stevetel wrote:

Quote:
It has been my personal experience that the difference between the quality of play in a $30 real money tournament at one of the cash sites and a $200 buy in PSO tournament is immense.

Now, my observations are based only on my own experience and may not be accurate, but at PSO, the games in general seem to be weaker than the average real money tournaments, especially in the early rounds. Is this a misconception on my part? Does anyone else share a similar opinion?

My experience at the real money $10/$20/$30 buy in events vs. PSO online is that the real money players are much looser at the beginning. Then they calm down when about 1/2 to 2/3rds of the field are gone. (This is vs. a $200 PSO tourney. Now the freeroll NLHE events here are a different story.) And until those first 2/3rds are gone, you can forget about semi-bluff stealing. Especially post flop. They catch bottom pair and they are hanging on for dear life. But once the first 2/3rds are gone, it becomes a thinking game again.

My experience live ($150 is my regular tourney) is that there are a lot of very bad players out there. I would take the top 200 at PSO and put them at my regular tourney and they would do well over the long run. Better than all but the top 2 or 3 players I encounter there.

[And I do not look at poker as primarily a money maker for me. I just try to keep ahead and enjoy myself.]

PSO has advanced my learning by several years in my one short year here.


Randy
 
Old
Default
Sun Oct 13, 2002, 11:56 PM
(#3)
Deleted user
Quote:
It has been my personal experience that the difference between the quality of play in a $30 real money tournament at one of the cash sites and a $200 buy in PSO tournament is immense.
You have been busy stevetel

Well, I haven't played in a pokerst**s tourney for a while. I would say that the play is different, but the players are still bad overall, just a bit tighter preflop. Though there are more good/knowledgable players there than here.

One thing you are missing is that there is less risk for the reward at the school, if motivated by the sponsorships. But then, knowing you, you probably are not missing that point. I probably missed it when I read your post, or you didint bother writing that bit.

It's a cheap risk free learning/practice tool.
 
Old
Default
Thanks for the comments... - Mon Oct 14, 2002, 12:19 AM
(#4)
Deleted user
Actually, I do agree that PSO is a good investment for most, especially up to a point. The fact is that I would agree with Randy on the top 200 players here being better than the average player in open play.

In fact, if there were a way to consistently play against those top 200, PSO would be an even better tool than it is. Sort of like sparring with an upper weight class makes boxing in your own division easier, at least in theory... :lol:.
My question, which I obviously did not state well, was is the purpose of winning sponsorship dollars a valid reason for spending 985 hours at PSO? Is it a good investment of time?

Am I looking at the question wrongly by asking myself that if I spent 400 of those hours playing in $30 dollar buy in tourneys could I expect to have a higher payback than the theoretical $3 per hour, at PSO? And if I don't, what is the value of winning the sponsorship dollars in the first place :? Am I stating the proposition correctly yet?

You see Noodles, the most valuable thing I invest in PSO is my time, not my money. I suppose, in the final analysis, that is the real question, is this, especially after a certain point, a good investment of one's time?

Thanks for the input.

Later...

Steve
 
Old
Default
Re: Thanks for the comments... - Mon Oct 14, 2002, 12:56 AM
(#5)
Deleted user
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetel
In fact, if there were a way to consistently play against those top 200, PSO would be an even better tool than it is. Sort of like sparring with an upper weight class makes boxing in your own division easier, at least in theory... :lol:.
I point out the idea of having the bankroll mean something by offering higher buyin tournies which cost more than a bankroll refill, some a lot more. If these were offered, only players who were good enough (or lucky enough) to build a bankroll could play, thereby elevating the level of competition in those events and offering an incentive to others that if they would like to compete at that level they need to treat bankroll, and thus the events here at PSO, more seriously.

But that's just my idea, I could be wrong!
 
Old
Default
Mon Oct 14, 2002, 02:18 AM
(#6)
Deleted user
Wiscer

I also like the Idea of having a nightly Tourney consisting of big one Q's from the previous month.


Tony D
 
Old
Default
Re: Thanks for the comments... - Mon Oct 14, 2002, 05:57 AM
(#7)
Deleted user
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetel
is the purpose of winning sponsorship dollars a valid reason for spending 985 hours at PSO? Is it a good investment of time?

Am I looking at the question wrongly by asking myself that if I spent 400 of those hours playing in $30 dollar buy in tourneys could I expect to have a higher payback than the theoretical $3 per hour, at PSO? And if I don't, what is the value of winning the sponsorship dollars in the first place :? Am I stating the proposition correctly yet?
Steve
Steve, good post. I enjoy tournaments here and that repays my time. I play more freerolls online than tournys here and my experience is that there are ten times as many good players per seat here then at the freerolls! More to your point though, I don't think that any tournaments will pay for our time. If any of the members win that consistently I would like to read about it. I've heard many, in particular Geezer, say that the money is in cash games. The skills we learn here translate into cash at the PL/NL ring games. I hope to emulate Geezer and Fillmore some day soon myself. Meanwhile, I plan to keep learning from the great players at the tourneys here.

Regards, Den
 
Old
Default
Mon Oct 14, 2002, 09:31 AM
(#8)
Deleted user
Steve:

If your PSO results mirrored your real world results, here is what you'd look like from a profit standpoint:

460 Multi table events
53.943 PPT rating in those events

Now, the existing PPT is based on $100 entry and your question was about entering $30 events (let's say average... some you enter might be $10, some $50). Let's also take out the 10% entry fee:

460*53.943*(.3) - 460*30*(.1) = 7444.134 - 1380 = $6064

So, in 985 Hours you'd have earned just over $6064 dollars at this point. About $6.16 per hour for your time.

Looks like you'd have to play at least $100 entry tournaments to reach $20 per hour earnings. I'd say you would be better off playing $10-$20 and cashing in for 1.5 BB per hour than playing 500 $100 entry tournaments. Especially given your strength in limit games.

One more bit of depressing news... the 985 hours is only for multis. Don't forget the 434 hours you've spent in sats, for a total of 1419 hours playing at PSO .

Does the phrase "For Entertainment Purposes Only" seem apropos for PSO (hey, that rhymes!)?
 
Old
Default
Mon Oct 14, 2002, 01:41 PM
(#9)
Deleted user
Quote:
Am I looking at the question wrongly by asking myself that if I spent 400 of those hours playing in $30 dollar buy in tourneys could I expect to have a higher payback than the theoretical $3 per hour, at PSO?
Yes, but you could also go broke from the short run variance. You would need a couple thousand bankroll for $30 tournaments at the site to be relatively free from this worry I would think, assuming you were a winning player. At the PSO, a player motivated by sponsorships is only risking $100 a year or so.

It's just a little point. I don't really have a view one way or the other on what you have wrote. You have looked into this far more than me, and are probably correct overall. Be interested in your future views on this.
 
Old
Default
Mon Oct 14, 2002, 02:13 PM
(#10)
Deleted user
Quote:
In fact, if there were a way to consistently play against those top 200
I like that idea, from a practice/learning point of view. A few tournaments a week where only the top 200 in the rank are eligible.
 
Old
Default
Mon Oct 14, 2002, 02:20 PM
(#11)
Deleted user
Quote:
I like that idea, from a practice/learning point of view. A few tournaments a week where only the top 200 in the rank are eligible.
Actually, way back during beta testing we were told that the model of the school would involve structuring leagues so that people of equal skill would get to play in tournaments together. One would have to achieve a certain level of education or accomplishment before being allowed to go into the next league. I think the intention of the BR was to limit events to only those who could afford it. Unfortunately that hasn't worked out.
 
Old
Default
Mon Oct 14, 2002, 09:08 PM
(#12)
Deleted user
Stevetel, I suspect there are many more PSO players who are like me than like yourself.

You have been playing poker for a long time.

I have been playing HE now for 14 months. While I will play some tournaments for what I consider a decent amount of money, I do not consider myself to be good. If you look at my PPT rating here (-2.17), you will see I am correct.

No way am I playing at even a $10/$20 game until I get a lot better.

But $200 to enter a tournament. I can spend that on one night in a nice hotel. Or a very nice dinner out for me and my wife. But a tourney gives me that lottery aspect. I could walk away with $3000 or more.

Anyway, rambling here. The point is:

Most players are here to learn, there are not at the point of looking at their $$$ per hour.


Anyway, great post, as always.


Randy
 
Old
Default
Randy... - Mon Oct 14, 2002, 11:10 PM
(#13)
Deleted user
Randy,

I am not sure you are correct about "most" of the players being here to learn. In fact, I suspect that in terms of simple majorities/minorities, most are here to have fun, not to seriously learn the game of poker. For most of these players, PSO is a “social” experience, not a learning experience.

I keep hearing about all of these games where the play is "worse" than what you see at PSO. I don't know. Since I haven't sat down at a live game in a public casino more than once or twice in the last 3 years, I am not qualified to comment.

I can say that the average online game is much more difficult than the average PSO game. This is an absolute fact which cannot be argued by anyone who wishes to spend a few hours observing PSO games and then move over to Paradise and observe the cash games at the 10/20 and above level where less than 3 players see the flop on average.

As to live B&M play, I am prepared to accept that the level of play is worse than what it was, oh say, ten years ago. This makes sense do to the expansion of poker.

Imagine for a moment that ten years ago there were only 20 places to play in 3 states, and there were 1000 good poker players. This would mean that on average there would be 50 "good" players per site. Now with hundreds of casinos in dozens of states, it makes sense that there would be fewer "good" players per site just based upon straight-line mathematics.

As to the top 200 you mentioned in your earlier post, I suspect you are correct about most of them being here to learn. I suspect we would also be correct if we thought most of these "better" players, are benefiting greatly from their PSO experience.

However, my question does not really concern the "better" PSO player, it concerns what I consider to be the "typical" experience of the "typical" PSO player on their visits to B&M casinos. I suspect that the disciplined strategy you describe and follow is not typical of most PSO members.

I suspect that a much more typical experience is to go to the casino, enter a tournament, finish that tournament by either winning or being eliminated and then sitting down in the nearest available ring game.

In fact, I suspect that for every hour spent playing in a tournament format, you would find that most PSO members spend 6 hours or more playing in live cash-money ring games.

This is, in MHO, the real question. How prepared is the typical PSO player to sit down in that ring game? Beyond that, is it not also possible that, based primarily on their PSO experience, some of these players are sitting down at higher limit ring games than they would without the "success" they have had at PSO?

In fact, it is my opinion, as most of you already know, that tournament play, especially NLHE tournament play, does more harm than good to players who will eventually spend most of their time playing cash games.

There are two reason it does more harm than good. The first is the difference between tournament play and cash play. The second is the false sense of confidence that these players have gained from their PSO success.

You see, the simple fact is that for every success story we hear about, how many failures are we not hearing about?

The simple truth is that poker is not a "zero" sum game as many describe it. It is in fact a "negative" sum game because of the rake.

There must, by definition, be more losers than there are winners.

That is a fact.

It cannot be disputed.

There cannot be a game unless more money is lost than is won because the house, via the rake, is the biggest winner.

Anyway, hope this make sense.

By the way, this is a situation that could be corrected fairly easily.

The focus would simply need to shift from NLHE to Limit and Pot Limit formats and eventually to ring games.

Until it does, believing that PSO facilitates the creation of more net winners than losers is something I will have a very difficult time accepting.

Steve
 
Old
Default
Mon Oct 14, 2002, 11:14 PM
(#14)
Deleted user
My 2 cents--

I was asked way back in the dark ages (a few months ago) why someone who plays black chip games live would play at pokerschool. It's a damn good question. I originally just wanted to try out some tournament theories and gain some experience at recognizing tournament betting patterns. Thus, I am a monthly member and shall remain so. Still, almost 200 tournaments later, I'm still here. I find myself wondering if I should stick around?

First, I would never play at PSO rather than go to a cardroom or a casino or do anything else that is truly important to me (with the exception of the big one or other special type events with a big prize). I play here in my leisure time. The nice thing about PSO, is I can play online paysites simultaneously. I often have 3 games going, 2 omaha hi lo's at the paysites, and a PSO tournament.

I wonder how some members play 100+ tournaments a month. I could not do it, and I would probably hate poker after that many tournaments in such a short period of time.

The old pokerpages software had ring game play. I used to play it all the time.

Although I agree with just about everything Steve says, I feel the best thing about PSO tournament play is the opportunity to play big bet poker. There is not a lot of it on the east coast (US), so I think that fact alone makes the $15 a month worthwhile. I can play limit anywhere.

Plus where else can you get beat by Q7 off on a regular basis?
 
Old
Default
Tue Oct 15, 2002, 12:46 AM
(#15)
Deleted user
Only one comment to make...Steve talks about "10 years ago and 3 places to play"....Don't forget there has forever and will forever be a tremendous number of "home/private" games, where a lot of big money poker games go on.




'Goddess
 
Old
Default
Pokergoddess... - Tue Oct 15, 2002, 12:53 AM
(#16)
Deleted user
You are very correct. In fact, as you know, I ran private games for quite a few years. The biggest difference that I see is the "universe" of players. For example, if you play 10/20 holdem in Dallas 3 nights a week, you are generally speaking, playing with no more than 200 players. In fact, you would see the same players, for the most part, night after night. This is the biggest difference between public and private games. In essence, there are very few, if any, "tourists" on most of the circuits I ever played.

My post was speaking of the public games. Then years ago, you could find a public holdem game in Las Vegas, California and Washington. Now you can find public holdem games almost everywhere. Do you not agree that proliferation of games has "diluted" the "talent" pool much like the expansion of the major league baseball diluted the number of blue chip pitchers?

Later...

Steve
 
Old
Default
Tue Oct 15, 2002, 03:13 AM
(#17)
Deleted user
Yes, I agree to an extent....but, if you spend a LOT of time in any one cardroom, as I do, you will see that, in particular the higher limit games have a solid base of regular daily or at least multi weekly players. We do of course see new players come in, that sometimes become regulars or semi-regulars, but the number who are "tourists" for one time or very irregular visits are much more prolific in the low limit games, as opposed the the higher limits.




'Goddess
 

Getting PokerStars is easy: download and install the PokerStars game software, create your free player account, and validate your email address. Clicking on the download poker button will lead to the installation of compatible poker software on your PC of 51.7 MB, which will enable you to register and play poker on the PokerStars platform. To uninstall PokerStars use the Windows uninstaller: click Start > Control Panel and then select Add or Remove programs > Select PokerStars and click Uninstall or Remove.

Copyright (c) PokerSchoolOnline.com. All rights reserved, Rational Group, Douglas Bay Complex, King Edward Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 1DZ. You can email us on support@pokerschoolonline.com