Poker Forum

"High-roller tournaments are $25k,[...] , that's what people can afford to play" typical line that shows vanessa simply doesnt like the super-high-roller events cause she cant afford to play the. "$25k, thats what people can afford" LOL, im pretty sure most people CANT afford a $25k buy-in tournament, its what SHE can afford and thats why she thinks that it should be the highest. and about it ruining the sanctity of a bracelet: the old guys like brunson, they won most of there bracelets in tournaments with <50 players! its just one big event, its not like they are increasing all the buyins or putting tons of 1mil$ buyin tournaments in the scheduled, its a UNIQUE tournament. and why is it ruining "all the different stats and tracking and all that stuff" ? the only thing it messes up is the all-time-money list, which isnt very meaningful because of inflation, main event winners etc. anyway. liv boeree's complains are equally stupid. "The higher buy-in tournaments are just a bad idea because they are smaller tournaments and you don’t have to be that good to win." so she basically says you have to be good to win big-field tournaments? i think there are enough horrible players that won EPTs or the wsop ME to prove her wrong. big-field tournaments get won by bad players so much often because the percentage of pros playing is way lower. obviously big buyin tournaments get won by pros alot because there are mostly pros playing. so she says she is concerned about a bad player winning when its obviously a tournament that is most likely to get won by a top professional. these people are just mad...