[yisman]

please anybody with a clue will tell you that the 10 am were the tightest players out of all the time slots. i played in one or two late ones. cant gauge from that but 3-4 players out in first 5 minutes.

tightest!=best

If you ask me, I'd rather play with tight players (and many other poker players would agree with me)

So I will concede that they are tight but the goal is to accumulate as many points as possible over qualifying, not simply rack up min cashes. If I wanted to rack up min cashes then playing with tight guys would be a drawback. But that wasn't the goal.

[Wulfman14]

depends on how you play. i find it harder to play against tight players and boring. aggressive players its either hit or miss. the top of the US team seemed bent on racking up minimum cashes as i have more pts/cash then 4/top 6 of them. so obviously it was a goal towards the end for the americans. and an obvious one at that. i would do the same.

as for you calling the 10 am the easiest or 2nd easiest is BS. you hardly or never played the 10 am so you can't have an opinion on the skill level . same goes for me, i have played only a few night tourneys so i can't accurately compare the skill level to the 10 am. but a lot of night guys that played the 10 am now and then used to make comments in chat that "shit this one is filled with sharks" and "this is def. the hardest time slot", it is of no concern. your stats may back you in determining that the US and Canadians have the strongest players but those stats are not flawless. and i just gave you an example , the aussies, the indian, the mongolian , the philippeans, and the singapore guys are all restricted to playing only certain time slots while western hemisphere guys have ample opportunity to play any time of day they want. if i want to play in an sbr tourney i have to basically schedule my day around it.

none of the americans or canadians are stronger based on skill. statistically maybe but there are many factors not being taken into account at least when i compare myself to the US team. and not just for the ryder cup , for all the poker promos SBR holds. and again i repeat jus tthe sheer volume of americans in the field prevent world and europeans from cashing because the "mediocre" americans knock us out more often, and prevent us from cashing. now granted you can say that the top US team also had to face their american counterparts and face the same "knock out" scenario. there is no doubt they have skill and earned their way. but there are things you need to consider beyond statistics before you deem the european or world team as weak. i assure you at least half the euro team and world team would make a top 50 qualifiers regardless of geographical location if the format were changed because the mentality and the commitment would have been completely different.

anyway i got shit to take care of (router half dead and computer 6 years old, may not be able to play final 2 days, or at least fully) and this is end of discussion for me on this topic.

[Triple_D_Bet]

tightest!=best

If you ask me, I'd rather play with tight players (and many other poker players would agree with me)

So I will concede that they are tight but the goal is to accumulate as many points as possible over qualifying, not simply rack up min cashes. If I wanted to rack up min cashes then playing with tight guys would be a drawback. But that wasn't the goal.

when both yisman and TMS agree on something, consider it the undeniable truth

[yisman]

and again i repeat jus tthe sheer volume of americans in the field prevent world and europeans from cashing because the "mediocre" americans knock us out more often, and prevent us from cashing.

That doesn't hold any water. The sheer volume prevents everyone from cashing, not just World and Europeans. I don't see what the argument is. That if World and European players played in tournaments with 20 players instead of 30, they'd cash more? That would be true for anyone.

Again, all the stats show the US and Canada teams are the strongest. Ask Triple D Bets, he's looked at some of the older standings as well.

I have to see one bit of evidence that supports the US/Canadian teams not being the two strongest.

when both yisman and TMS agree on something, consider it the undeniable truth

Did TMS say this somewhere?

[Wulfman14]

That doesn't hold any water. The sheer volume prevents everyone from cashing, not just World and Europeans. I don't see what the argument is. That if World and European players played in tournaments with 20 players instead of 30, they'd cash more? That would be true for anyone.

Again, all the stats show the US and Canada teams are the strongest. Ask Triple D Bets, he's looked at some of the older standings as well.

I have to see one bit of evidence that supports the US/Canadian teams not being the two strongest.



Did TMS say this somewhere?

I already conceded that it doesnt hold water . read the post carefully . i gave props to the top american 10.
i dont need to ask triple D anything. i know where i stand statistically and in terms of skill level based on my daily routine and my ability to play the tourneys during the one or two time slots available to me.

[yisman]

I was just telling you that you can get a second opinion if you don't believe me regarding the historical stats (nothing to do with 2013 qualifiers).