Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="nc_royals, post: 1669706, member: 26702"] Pokernews is debating wether $250K buy-ins are good for the game of poker. One argument says that any buy-in should be allowed. It only adds excitement to the game and gives us poker fans just another super buy-in to gawk at. Another arguement says that a tourney that only has 20 players (such as the Aussie $250k Super Highroller) shouldnt be allowed to count on the All-time money list. It also mentions that if these buy ins become more common that you will see less and less of the superstars playing in the $10k events. In my opinion... I dont really look at the "All time money" list as a measurement of a poker player. If it was then Stu Unger and Doyle would never be considered among the top. I say if they can afford it, or get the backing, then play in it. What do you think? [/QUOTE]