Ben Heath, Cary Katz, Jason Koon, Michael Addamo and Sergi Reixach all busted and did not make it in the money. Brothers Luc and Sam Greenwood, Stephen Chidwick, Seth Davies and Mikita Badziakouski also got sent to the rail.
The final table was a star-studded bunch, as expected from such a luxurious event. Sam remained unfazed throughout.
Well-known names in the poker world like Adrian Mateos, Timothy Adams, Mathias Eibinger and Phil Ivey also vied for the top spot but came up short. In the end it was Malaysian Ivan Leow versus Sam Trickett in a heads-up battle. Lady Luck was on Sam's side this time as his A-4 came from behind to beat Leow's A-Q, thereby securing the title and cash prize.
Before this win, 33-year-old Trickett has a total live earnings of $21.3 million to his name. He currently ranks 2nd in the England All-Time Money List, trailing behind Stephen Chidwick who has $34 million under his belt.
with so big buy in,you cant expect that there will be so many players,but 58 is maybe enough for such a touranemnt and not to play for days!first prize is very good,when you calculate number of players and buy in!435 K dollars in pocket and who know what news we will read from this event in sochi!
A great game for the winner of this $ 25k buy in game. I believe that Sam Tricket is a professional player who should not surprise anyone. His talent is special and deserves respect for it. Phil Ivey also has a profit of $ 45k and Borgata Cazino they hope to confiscate them. I'm kidding here.
Congratulations to Sam Tricket for winning this event , with the expensive buy in , securing a big payout only in a very small field of players . Phil Ivey didn't manage to win this event , only ITM , mayber he does it next time .
with big buy in you have some rich people who dont care much about that money and for this pros is better when they play with them!its not like you play on lower buy in tournament!its just question what is low buy in for this players!but this man know how to take money from other players!
This was a better investment than the other tournament with $50.000 buy-in! Here the winner took +$400K and there the winner "only" took +$ 700K! Something occur with those tourneys, because only here were knowed players, like Mateos and Ivey. Perhaps they played the $ 50.000 buy-in and all of them were lost? Incredible!
didnt cumulated all prizes in both tournament,but maybe other places got more % and thats why is difference between this first places!on both tournaments we had 58 players,but doesnt mean that prize have to be double!maybe its just difference how much other players get!
You read the news but you didn't understand, my friend. In this mini tournament was 58 players with $25,000 buy in. When the amounts of money are large it all depends on how the awards are divided. They considered it to be good and the winner had a very nice profit.
May be CALICUL...understand english is still difficult to me! But I know about mathematics, only a little. And if I multiply 57 players for $25.000, it give me $ 1,425M, and if I multipply 45 players for $50.000, it give me $ 2,250. The first is the 63 % of the second amount. However, the winner of the $ 25.000 buy-in tourney got a prize that was almost 60% with more players in the money!
I met Sam once, and he is a real nice bloke, and apart from the fact he is a Man U fan, I wish him all the luck. We all need to set poker goals and one of mine, (which is not too far off I hope), is to sit at a live table with Sam, and show him "how its done!!" #gottodream
Posted by antonis321: Congratulations to Sam Tricket for winning this event , with the expensive buy in , securing a big payout only in a very small field of players . Phil Ivey didn't manage to win this event , only ITM , mayber he does it next time .
Yes - for someone of Phil's calibre, getting almost 3 to 1 is probably a disappointment.
Posted by maragatero: May be CALICUL...understand english is still difficult to me! But I know about mathematics, only a little. And if I multiply 57 players for $25.000, it give me $ 1,425M, and if I multipply 45 players for $50.000, it give me $ 2,250. The first is the 63 % of the second amount. However, the winner of the $ 25.000 buy-in tourney got a prize that was almost 60% with more players in the money!
like it other thread,you have some wrong informations,where do you find this number of players,when you have on top of every news that there were 58 players on both of them,so how can you count 45 players on 50 K tournament? they just have different % for other places,then on this 25 K,so doesnt mean that first place need to be double more of first place on 50 K tournament!
It is true that the 1st place won a lot of money but is not my system that calculates how to award the prizes. I do not like this tactic in the online environment because i think the 1st place earns too much money. Live is their decisions and you cannot change the situation.
Yes CALICUL, I think too that the matter may be different between online or live tournament. And, despite to see a big number in your e-wallet would be a wonderful emotion, being surrounded by huge piles of banknotes should be immensely better! And we have to think that not all of those players are laying with their money. Thay would be playing with the money of investors!
Write a comment:
You must be logged in, to comment on news...
Disclosure: BankrollMob may earn a commission based on the advertisement material on this site. #AD