Stuart "easypickings" Rutter : In the well

[easypickings]

.....will hopefully feel a pressure to improve after DTD's wonderful effort in December. (Interestingly, if you measure the structure of a tournament relative to its buy in, it is at the moment the EPT which comes out by far the worst). I think good structures are just so important for 'live' players, and the change that could allow the biggest improvement for a structure in the same time frame is for a tour to committ to eight-handed tables. Even if space does not allow this at the start, an organiser could still seek to play eight-handed as soon as is possible.

OMG. I love you.

Every good golf player seeks out only the best courses that will express his game best, the best cricket batsmen demand perfect wickets, but it has always surprised me that regular poker players settle for mediocre structures. Recently, more players do seem to take a keen interest in a tournament's structures, and this has been best helped my Mr Raab's equal dedication to this cause.

Up to now, the problem with putting together a good structure  is the simple equation that more structure means more time; of course, time has to have some limit in a poker tournament. There is, however, one possible solution to breaking this equation, and it seems remarkably simple. If you play eight-handed (or I would argue even seven), this means each player plays more hands per hour, and so you can fit more structure into the same time. An event like the GUKPT could then fit into the same time frame, but have 90 minute levels instead of 60 minutes, or a 15,000 starting stack rather than 10,000.

Obivously, one extra pressure develops in that a tournament needs more dealers, but this is an expense worth considering for a change that makes also for a more enjoyable, action-packed type of play.

[AlexMartin]

.....will hopefully feel a pressure to improve after DTD's wonderful effort in December. (Interestingly, if you measure the structure of a tournament relative to its buy in, it is at the moment the EPT which comes out by far the worst). I think good structures are just so important for 'live' players, and the change that could allow the biggest improvement for a structure in the same time frame is for a tour to committ to eight-handed tables. Even if space does not allow this at the start, an organiser could still seek to play eight-handed as soon as is possible.

OMG. I love you.

Every good golf player seeks out only the best courses that will express his game best, the best cricket batsmen demand perfect wickets, but it has always surprised me that regular poker players settle for mediocre structures. Recently, more players do seem to take a keen interest in a tournament's structures, and this has been best helped my Mr Raab's equal dedication to this cause.

Up to now, the problem with putting together a good structure  is the simple equation that more structure means more time; of course, time has to have some limit in a poker tournament. There is, however, one possible solution to breaking this equation, and it seems remarkably simple. If you play eight-handed (or I would argue even seven), this means each player plays more hands per hour, and so you can fit more structure into the same time. An event like the GUKPT could then fit into the same time frame, but have 90 minute levels instead of 60 minutes, or a 15,000 starting stack rather than 10,000.

Obivously, one extra pressure develops in that a tournament needs more dealers, but this is an expense worth considering for a change that makes also for a more enjoyable, action-packed type of play.

do you think poker players would swallow higher vig for better structures to compensate for more dealers?

[easypickings]

wp for doing this stu.

one question. who is the nicer guy, you or thewy? have you ever been mean to anyone?



p.s vbol in galway and cu soon m8.

Silly question. It would be impossible for any man to be nicer than Julian. When I scraped into the cash in Barcelona, he took my girlfriend aback by even congratulating her!

Seriously though, Julian is a great guy, and to have someone like him in the game makes a real difference in my decision of whether I want to decidate lots of time and emotional energy into playing it. It is a great thing that the most successful player of late is also the friendliest and most likeable character, and I would say this is no coincidence. Julian would be a credit to any walk of life, but the fact that it is our game that he is a figurehead of is an important thing. It is because people who don't know the game might expect a poker player to be egotistical and unpleasant that it is wonderful that Julian is the polar opposite of this.

Have I been mean? Tons of times. I once stole the same guy's blind 3 out of 4 orbits. I tried to be less mean, though, and showed him ace-king each time.

[TheChipPrince]

Good answers.

1. Which football team do you support?

2. Fave pizza?

3. What the fk is eggnog?

[celtic]

Hi Stuart.

Enjoying this so far.

I recently played with you at luton recently and was impressed. I noticed tho that you spent the first two hours playing very little, not even at the table then after the break decided you were going to open raise most hands and call most raises that got there before you.

Was this a pre-planned strategy or just your observations on the rest of the table, that they would pretty much sit back & let you do this til they found something to play back at you with.

cheers

vinny.

[easypickings]

.....will hopefully feel a pressure to improve after DTD's wonderful effort in December. (Interestingly, if you measure the structure of a tournament relative to its buy in, it is at the moment the EPT which comes out by far the worst). I think good structures are just so important for 'live' players, and the change that could allow the biggest improvement for a structure in the same time frame is for a tour to committ to eight-handed tables. Even if space does not allow this at the start, an organiser could still seek to play eight-handed as soon as is possible.

OMG. I love you.

Every good golf player seeks out only the best courses that will express his game best, the best cricket batsmen demand perfect wickets, but it has always surprised me that regular poker players settle for mediocre structures. Recently, more players do seem to take a keen interest in a tournament's structures, and this has been best helped my Mr Raab's equal dedication to this cause.

Up to now, the problem with putting together a good structure  is the simple equation that more structure means more time; of course, time has to have some limit in a poker tournament. There is, however, one possible solution to breaking this equation, and it seems remarkably simple. If you play eight-handed (or I would argue even seven), this means each player plays more hands per hour, and so you can fit more structure into the same time. An event like the GUKPT could then fit into the same time frame, but have 90 minute levels instead of 60 minutes, or a 15,000 starting stack rather than 10,000.

Obivously, one extra pressure develops in that a tournament needs more dealers, but this is an expense worth considering for a change that makes also for a more enjoyable, action-packed type of play.

do you think poker players would swallow higher vig for better structures to compensate for more dealers?

Good question. They definitely should do, and a good player can expect to win more in a better structured tournament. However, there is no group of people more committed to grumbling than poker players, and a tournament organiser would need some resilience to this. I'm sure one or two would complain that someone had the cheek to make them stay even longer than they had to in the first place.

If you put it to a popular vote, though, I think the 'yes' would win.

(I've answered the question assuming that vig means the same as "juice." You cockneys are so confusing though; if it is some kind of deadly medicine that people would have to swallow, then I'm not so sure, but the answer for Tikay and I is probably still yes.)

[easypickings]

How many scarfs do you have?  do you have a favourite?

Good question, now we're getting to the point. Just one at the moment actually, the green one was unashamadly stolen by HornswaggleU, who has since not been seen.

It's quite funny, I was walking around in Prague with Rob Sherwood in temperatures of about -5 degrees, moaning about how freezing it was. He exposed a flaw in my thinking by asking "well, why haven't you got the stupid scarf on then?", and I realised that I had actually never thought of using it for the purpose of keeping warm!

I just like wearing silly clothes at the table basically; Pete Singleton tried to tilt me by breaking the news to me that my hat looks like a wooly condom, but he never recovered after I just laughed, and told him that I knew. I bought my first suit in fact recently, and I think I might wear it for a laugh soon. It will have to be in the most unlikely of locations; Luton  seems like the best contender for that, though turning up to one of the events in Vegas in suit and tie could be quite funny too.
My Dad was buzzing when I bought a suit; I think he thought that people with good suits normally have good proper jobs, and so I'd at least got myself half way there.

[easypickings]

I feel that the standard of play on the internet has increased sharply over the last year, and even will continue to do so. That should be of real concern to an internet grinder, and I genuinely think it could reach a saturation point one day where it is difficult to beat the games by much more than the rake. I would advise any friend pretty heavily against internet play as a way of reliable way of making money.

Poker for me is all about the challenge of the game; 'live' poker is the real deal for me, and I see internet as no more than a practice ground for the true challenge.

So the practice is harder than the real thing?

Does this mean what you actually seek is an ego massage and adulation from your peers rather than playing with and beating the best?

It's always surprised that there is any debate as to whether live or online players are the better players. As I see it, in terms of understanding and reading the game, there is no longer any argument that online players are anything but vastly superior. There are of course other skills involved in 'live' poker, but I feel that anyone who has mastered the skills needed to beat the online game must have the potential to master the additional skills like reading tellls. (Incidentally, I go against the majority by thinking that the whole area of tells is actually much underrated. The scary thing is that it's importance will always be very well disguised, as anyone that is using tells to their big advantage is very unlikely to be sharing their secret.)

An ego massage? That's difficult to go with in a game where there are far more opportunties to look stupid than there are to look clever, and more often than not you will be left nursing your bruises and blaming yourself. However, if a player was good enough to be able to beat both the online and live game and was only interested in financial measures, they would be foolish to ever put down their mouse, and to start looking for Thanet on the map.

So, why is it that we bother to travel around everywhere, and even you sometimes briefly show your pretty face? It's simply that the game was not invented to be played trying to click a mouse better than someone the other side of the world; it was invented to have someone able to look into your eyes every time you make a bet. The feeling of a raking in a big pot is unbeatable, and nowhere near matched by a number on a screen just getting bigger whilst you say to yourself "loldonkament" or some nonsense. The crushing disappointment of doing everything right and having your adventure ended by the turn of one card is something that epitomises 'live' poker; if you lose a buy-in online, there is barely time to mutter the word "variance" before you turn to click on the next screen.

Basically, 'live' poker will always be the real deal; it's the challenge of the game, the excitement and the emotions that make it different to anything else. A basketball player likes to practice by shooting hoops one after another, but really he can't wait for get to the court for the next game. Some of the hoop shooters like you can shoot into 12 different baskets at the same time, and would undeniably make great basketball players. But now it's time to have some fun, and show up to the court.

[easypickings]

Good answers.

1. Which football team do you support?

2. Fave pizza?

3. What the fk is eggnog?

1) Wednesday (strangely, for someone who lives in Birmingham). I used to go all the time, but poker has put a stop to that. I went to see us get beaten at Coventry on Sunday, however, and am now regretting that fact a lot less.

2) Did somebody order me a regular cheese?

3) No idea? It's probably the way of saying £200 in London.

[DaveShoelace]

Good answers.

1. Which football team do you support?

2. Fave pizza?

3. What the fk is eggnog?

1) Wednesday (strangely, for someone who lives in Birmingham). I used to go all the time, but poker has put a stop to that. I went to see us get beaten at Coventry on Sunday, however, and am now regretting that fact a lot less.

2) Did somebody order me a regular cheese?

3) No idea? It's probably the way of saying £200 in London.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Me, Barry Neville, Trigg, Red Dog and now even Mr Rutter, the Owls really are the poker players football team.


Just not the football players football team.

[Graham C]

Can't be many more of you about

[Dewi_cool]

Hi Stu,

Is it dark down there?

[lucky_scrote]

Is it true you fist pumped mickey wernick at Manchester GUKPT 07 after knocking him out?

[Royal Flush]

I feel that the standard of play on the internet has increased sharply over the last year, and even will continue to do so. That should be of real concern to an internet grinder, and I genuinely think it could reach a saturation point one day where it is difficult to beat the games by much more than the rake. I would advise any friend pretty heavily against internet play as a way of reliable way of making money.

Poker for me is all about the challenge of the game; 'live' poker is the real deal for me, and I see internet as no more than a practice ground for the true challenge.

So the practice is harder than the real thing?

Does this mean what you actually seek is an ego massage and adulation from your peers rather than playing with and beating the best?

It's always surprised that there is any debate as to whether live or online players are the better players. As I see it, in terms of understanding and reading the game, there is no longer any argument that online players are anything but vastly superior. There are of course other skills involved in 'live' poker, but I feel that anyone who has mastered the skills needed to beat the online game must have the potential to master the additional skills like reading tellls. (Incidentally, I go against the majority by thinking that the whole area of tells is actually much underrated. The scary thing is that it's importance will always be very well disguised, as anyone that is using tells to their big advantage is very unlikely to be sharing their secret.)

An ego massage? That's difficult to go with in a game where there are far more opportunties to look stupid than there are to look clever, and more often than not you will be left nursing your bruises and blaming yourself. However, if a player was good enough to be able to beat both the online and live game and was only interested in financial measures, they would be foolish to ever put down their mouse, and to start looking for Thanet on the map.

So, why is it that we bother to travel around everywhere, and even you sometimes briefly show your pretty face? It's simply that the game was not invented to be played trying to click a mouse better than someone the other side of the world; it was invented to have someone able to look into your eyes every time you make a bet. The feeling of a raking in a big pot is unbeatable, and nowhere near matched by a number on a screen just getting bigger whilst you say to yourself "loldonkament" or some nonsense. The crushing disappointment of doing everything right and having your adventure ended by the turn of one card is something that epitomises 'live' poker; if you lose a buy-in online, there is barely time to mutter the word "variance" before you turn to click on the next screen.

Basically, 'live' poker will always be the real deal; it's the challenge of the game, the excitement and the emotions that make it different to anything else. A basketball player likes to practice by shooting hoops one after another, but really he can't wait for get to the court for the next game. Some of the hoop shooters like you can shoot into 12 different baskets at the same time, and would undeniably make great basketball players. But now it's time to have some fun, and show up to the court.

Random analogy's that make no sense ftw!!!



So basically you play live for a buzz rather than a challenge, may i suggest cocaine, its less time consuming.

Having said all that i will be playing Brighton so hope to see you down there where we can sit around playing 25hands/hr against players so bad that after 1 level we will want to kill ourselves because reading 'heat' would be more of a challenge.

P.S. Might have a SNG in my flat to decide who the best player is, only the cream can play super deep structure, far more relevant than the winner of the GPT!

[easypickings]

I knew in that, my second ever live tournamnet, how ridiculously lucky I was to be able to go somewhere like Helsinki

And, if I'm not mistaken, your first Live Tourney was in Walsall, yes? I may even have interviewed you, for Poker425?

PS - If your bro will give me one of those Yassar Arafat type neckerchief/tablecloths he wears so frequently, I'll love him more than I love you. How cool does he look in that? How cool would I look in that? ('Photo courtesy of blondepedia).

-Walsall must have been number three I think, as the first 'live' tournament was an altogether different experience. I can't remember whether you were present Tikay; there were only a handful of English players including Rowenna and crew?

The first 'live' tournament I ever went to was October 2005, at somewhere called Maori, a random little town on the Amalfi Coast in Italy. I was quite nervous and unsure what to expect, but just so eager to see what 'live' poker was all about. It was a nightmare journey getting there (I had flown from Germany, where I was living at the time), and in this dark, rainy town in the mountains I eventually found the hotel where the festival was being held. As I got to the top floor of this hotel, I was relieved to see that it did all seem an exciting, official set up. There were already tables hosting cash games and satellies, before the next day's 750 Euro Main Event. I paid my money for the buy-in, and felt much better having met a couple of the players (some names escape me, but I remember Tony Chessa being there too)

I decided to stay and join the smallest cash game, when suddenly three policemen marched into the room. It was all a little bizzare, but I remember them shouting "documenti, documenti," and being pretty scared as I didn't have my passport on me. The police realised soon that checking every single player's documenti would be too exhausting, but what they did instead do was to collect up all the cards, all the chips and ultimately the money box of buy-ins for the Main Event, to the organiser's horror. It turned out that this tournament should never have been held (I can't remember the ruling and how it fits in with the fact that San Remo does now host the EPT), and that this first big tournament ever held in Italy was simply illegal. The organiser had hoped that the top floor of a hotel in a little seaside town would offer him enough disguise to get away with his gamble.

It was my first experience of 'live' poker, and before I decided to brave it again, I thought it might be my last. It's funny to think back just three years and think how I perceived poker after that experience, compared to the friendly, exciting game I'm now used to playing every week.

- I think he has a spare one, and I'm just sure he'll give it to you if you promised to wear it. That would just about be the coolest thing I've ever seen.