Perhaps, but that is why I was looking at medians rather than averages. If a Bill Gates came to the table he would throw the averages way off. I would think that the middle player in the kiddie game is making at least $25,000 and I don't think the middle person in the 1/2 game is making anywhere near $250,000. I would put them well under a $100,000.

Then again - income versus discretionary income are totally different. A person making just a few thousand more than the next person could easily have 10 times more discretionary income while someone who makes a lot more money could have less.

Then again , who cares - aren't we there to have fun and for some, make money?

DeadMoney has expounded on the point I was trying to make to Frank. Across the board, on average or on median, either and or both, a 1/2 player does NOT have 4x more money available in use for poker than a .25/.50 player. not even close. this makes the 1/2, IN GENERAL, a higher stakes game. If your average player makes 25k, you are trying to tell me that a 1/2 average playe makes 100k. No sir.


And donkee, dont even get me started on that .25/.50 game Monday night. I was avoiding mentioning it on this forum!!


PS - I change the ratio to 4x, since that is the ratio between game blind. 10x is a ratio Frank brought up in his post.

Quite the evolution this thread has taken...it's widely known that high stakes cash games are built around Phil Helmuth as cash games are definitely the weak point of his game and all the high stakes cash game players can't wait for Phil to sit down and blow up.

In terms of the behavior at BP that Peter mentioned, I have been around since the first week of BP and can safely say that BP used to be a much more enjoyable place to play. It started as strictly a freeroll with $5-20 SNG side games, with people who for the most part were intelligent and generally good people. Now you show up and take a look around BP and you're going to find a lot of people with questionable character. Add in cash games and people will behave in some unbelievable ways over money, especially when some of the people are gambling with money they can't afford to lose.

Now I really don't think cash games are to blame for the metamorphisis of BP, but mainly just a changing of people who now play poker. When BP first started poker was just beginning to boom, but then I think it drew in more people who were interested in it in terms of an intellectual game, and now BP is filled with people who are there strictly to gamble.

Back in the early days of BP there was more of a commroderie among the core group of players, a lot of us were there not only to have fun, but to try and get better, and thus we had much more intelligent discussions and took the freeroll more seriously as a learning tool and a competitive forum to show our skills. Now the freeroll is kind of a joke, mainly for those who are too afraid or unable to play side games, or for those who have entirely too much time on their hands. I understand the need for drink chips, but really that killed any part of that tournament that could be seen as a guage for poker skill. Now its doesn't matter your skill level, if you can't show up 3 days a week you have no chance to win a series, and you add in all the drink chips and there goes a ton of the skill.

BP has definitely changed since its beginnings, and it is what it is. Sure maybe some things could have been done shift the change in a different direction, but overall Scotty has done a good job, as I really don't think anybody believed it would last this long. The evolution of BP really should be attributed more to the affect that money has on people, as well as the overall deterioration of poker players, and quite frankly the human race.

Mostly F the part of the human race that shows up to BP for the most part...that can't be a good sample of the whole human race can it, because if so I don't want to be alive in 30 years.

Posted By: JohnnyX The 10-9 vs Baxter's KK was super spewy. He went with his read that the guy had nothing and then never changed it. It was good to see Baxter admit the slow roll which just goes to show that not all of Helmuth's blowups are entirely unfounded.

FYI - this was Tuesdays segment 5 about 3 minutes in. I found this definition:

Slow Roll - To turn over a winning hand in a non-timely fashion, usually done by sleazy players to annoy opponents

Baxter in my opinion did not slow roll Phil but only said he did to placate Phil and get him to sit down and donk off some more money. I think he turned over his cards fast enough and he said what he had - two pair. WTF, didn't Phil realize that maybe, just maybe a guy who bets all the streets might have an overpair? Maybe my judgement is way off, but I do not think Baxter did anything wrong and Phil was reacting to his own stupidity. I think the other player defending Baxter had it right.