Where did $2M come from?

[betgo]

Did ESPN supply all the prize money or was there an entry fee?

[ohgeetee]

Was a freeroll, not sure if it was supplied by ESPN or Harrah's, though I assume Harrah's.

I think I read that htey even got an appearance fee, meaning they were paid to play, but I am not sure.

[CrisBrown]

Hi betgo,

Harrah's probably put up the prize money, along with ESPN. The players also received an appearance fee, probably from ESPN. The reason for the appearance fee, simply, is that this tourney had fairly deep starting stacks (100xBB), so it was not likely to be wrapped up quickly. Poker is a job for these people, and this was X hours they COULDN'T be at a juicy cash game, but were instead playing "the toughest table in the room" with a 10% shot at $2M in a winner-take-all. It just makes sense to pay them for lost opportunity time.

Cris

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrah's probably put up the prize money, along with ESPN. The players also received an appearance fee, probably from ESPN. The reason for the appearance fee, simply, is that this tourney had fairly deep starting stacks (100xBB), so it was not likely to be wrapped up quickly. Poker is a job for these people, and this was X hours they COULDN'T be at a juicy cash game, but were instead playing "the toughest table in the room" with a 10% shot at $2M in a winner-take-all. It just makes sense to pay them for lost opportunity time.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words 2nd - 10th paid the same, but not nothing.

Hey I've got an idea, that compensates players adequately for their time, and also maintains the dramatic winner-take-all format. How about they pay an `appearance fee' that depends on the number of players you `appear' longer than.

[billb]

Same as any reality tv show. Did you see the commercails?
I'm sure neither ESPN or Harrahs lost a cent.

[Boris]

You really think those players' expectation is $100k/day? I don't think you would have to pay any one of them extra money for a free at $2m against 9 other people. It couldn't have taken longer than two days to play the tournament and probably was done in one day.

[1p0kerb0y]

[ QUOTE ]
a 10% shot at $2M in a winner-take-all. It just makes sense to pay them for lost opportunity time.


[/ QUOTE ]

A freeroll for 2 million is not worth their time? Jeesh...

[JasonDB]

It seems to me that the Screen Actors Guild or some other union would prohibit anything other than a paid appearance by the players.

[Ulysses]

These players were given 200k in equity (well, about 60k for Annie Duke if you believe Phil /images/graemlins/grin.gif) and national TV coverage. You think any of this roster would not take that without an appearance fee? I have no idea whether one was given or not, but I'm confident that just about all of these players would have jumped at the chance to play in this freeroll.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi betgo,

Harrah's probably put up the prize money, along with ESPN. The players also received an appearance fee, probably from ESPN. The reason for the appearance fee, simply, is that this tourney had fairly deep starting stacks (100xBB), so it was not likely to be wrapped up quickly. Poker is a job for these people, and this was X hours they COULDN'T be at a juicy cash game, but were instead playing "the toughest table in the room" with a 10% shot at $2M in a winner-take-all. It just makes sense to pay them for lost opportunity time.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous, Cris. They each had about 200k in expectation. You think these guys have expectation of > 200k a day?

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Where did $2M come from?

[/ QUOTE ]


It came from you and I drinking Miller and driving Toyota's.

[KillerWombat]

Chip Reese's expectation might very well be that in his regular cash game. His normal cash game has 10k-20k blinds and by all accounts he wins at that game with regularity. Even assuming a paltry 3BB per hour and a normal 8 hour day, 200k isn't close. Phil Helmuth on the other hand....

[KanigawaCards7]

The money came from one of the pots in a chip reece side game. He decided to give phil and the lederer kids a chance to win some pocket change.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Chip Reese's expectation might very well be that in his regular cash game. His normal cash game has 10k-20k blinds and by all accounts he wins at that game with regularity. Even assuming a paltry 3BB per hour and a normal 8 hour day, 200k isn't close. Phil Helmuth on the other hand....

[/ QUOTE ]

a paltry 3bb per hour?? Is he multi-tabling this game online?

[fnurt]

haha yes, very conservative estimates. my reaction was more like, anyone who actually has a game that makes them 200k a day can probably afford to miss a day here and there!

[J_V]

You are living in Candyland.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Chip Reese's expectation might very well be that in his regular cash game. His normal cash game has 10k-20k blinds and by all accounts he wins at that game with regularity. Even assuming a paltry 3BB per hour and a normal 8 hour day, 200k isn't close. Phil Helmuth on the other hand....

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me, where is this regular 10k/20k blinds game you speak of?

[ohgeetee]

Whoa whoa whoa El Diablo, facts have no place in this discussion sir. please carry on.

[daryn]

actually 10k/20k are the blinds. the game is actually 20k/40k.

3bb/hr, hahahahahahhahaa

[TheGrifter]

[ QUOTE ]
actually 10k/20k are the blinds. the game is actually 20k/40k.

3bb/hr, hahahahahahhahaa

[/ QUOTE ]

What...you DOUBT that Chip Reese is making 250 million dollars a year.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
His normal cash game has 10k-20k blinds and by all accounts he wins at that game with regularity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiousity, whose acccounts do you speak of?
-James

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
These players were given 200k in equity

[/ QUOTE ]
Just curious. Who decides the equity? Is it always 10% of top prize for a single tournament backer? Or is it something arbitrary?

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi betgo,

Harrah's probably put up the prize money, along with ESPN. The players also received an appearance fee, probably from ESPN. The reason for the appearance fee, simply, is that this tourney had fairly deep starting stacks (100xBB), so it was not likely to be wrapped up quickly. Poker is a job for these people, and this was X hours they COULDN'T be at a juicy cash game, but were instead playing "the toughest table in the room" with a 10% shot at $2M in a winner-take-all. It just makes sense to pay them for lost opportunity time.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you will find that for these players there are no more lucrative way they could spend their time (ie, good shot at $2M + personal exposure) that needs to be compensated for.

I suspect that whatever appearance fee there was, it was very modest. And when the overall deal is as great as this one, every single one would have participated with zero appearance fee.

[PokerSlut]

I dunno about that game, but there's definitely a regular $4k/$8k stud game as I see it being played every week. I saw Johnny Chan cash out ~$800k from that game a few weeks ago, although I don't know what he bought in for or if he reloaded.

[Thythe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These players were given 200k in equity

[/ QUOTE ]
Just curious. Who decides the equity? Is it always 10% of top prize for a single tournament backer? Or is it something arbitrary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming they are all equal players they have a 1/10 chance of winning 2M. 2M*(1/10)=$200K in equity.

[DimensionPresident]

Is that really the standard formula?

So it'd be something like $10M * (1/6000) = $1,666 for next years WSOP?

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that really the standard formula?

So it'd be something like $10M * (1/6000) = $1,666 for next years WSOP?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's standard probability. Expectation (Equity) = Chance of winning * What you win.

And for next year's WSOP, the expectation would be a bit different for the average player because they can win something coming in 2nd. I don't know if many people would spend $10,000 on just winning a $10 million first prize when you have to beat 6000 people to do it.

So, really, the formula is chance of cashing * total prize pool, assuming that you are equally likely to finish 200th as you are 1st.

[KillerWombat]

3BB per hour isn't unusual at all for the best player at the table to average in a rotating game lineup where skill levels at the various games are widely divergent.

[KillerWombat]

Obviously I'm not claiming to sit in it but various televised comments by Doyle, Daniel N's postings in his FullContactPoker.com website and Barry's comments have all listed 10k-20k as blinds for the highest level cash game they play and they all mention Chip Reese as being in it.

[KillerWombat]

Doyle in the actual program for a start and Doyle seems willing to give credit where credit is due, even in Phil H's case when Phil was milking TV time.

[KillerWombat]

After considering this you are probably correct, I was weighting the fact that in the short video they showed, I only recognized 3 of the 7 other people at the table with Chip and assumed that he would very likely have a high BB/hr rate in a multi game rotating format that would require a high degreee of expertise in multiple games but the odds of it being 6 donkeys and 4 sharks (Reese, Chan, Greenstien & Brunson) seems unusual. Assuming the other 6 are that weak across the board is likely a mistake. If you drop it to 1 BB/hour that's still a hell of a lot of money.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that really the standard formula?

So it'd be something like $10M * (1/6000) = $1,666 for next years WSOP?

[/ QUOTE ]

well, for the WSOP, presumably the pros have more equity than that, and a schlub like me has less. for this event, it's a pretty straightforward calculation because all these players had roughly the same chance to win.

[KillerWombat]

Regardless of what anyone's side game earnings potential is, anyone invited is likely to show up to this for the combination of equity and possible prestige from winning a televised tournament at such a table, even if the distribution was somehow equal which I'm sure none of them think it is. An appearance fee seems unlikely for such a lucrative and high profile freeroll.

[CrackerZack]

Its on party, but its in turkish lira. I play 1M/2M and win at an astounding rate.

[KillerWombat]

I correct myself, Daniel only mentions 2k-4k on fullcontactpoker.com

[bones]

From fullcontactpoker.com

[ QUOTE ]
The lineup was as follows:


Seat 1: Doyle Brunson
Seat 2: Lyle Berman
Seat 3: Johnny Chan
Seat 4: Chip Reese
Seat 5: Me
Seat 6: Phil Ivey
Seat 7: Chao Xiang

As you can see, my game selection is impeccable these days. Let’s not dwell on that, though, and get straight to the details.

It was a mixed game, $2,000-$4,000 limit. It was a mixture of stud, Omaha eight-or-better, hold’em, deuce-to-seven triple draw, stud eight-or-better, and pot-limit Omaha, with a $75,000 cap. The cap simply meant that no player could lose more than $75,000 on any given hand. It actually creates more action than it kills, because players are more willing to enter a pot when they know they can lose “only” $75,000.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure Chip could win 3bbs an hour with the cards face up against that line-up.

[lastchance]

The person who wins 3BB a hour against that lineup is the best poker player in the world, by far. To win 3BB an hour against that lineup probably takes someone as good as PH thinks he is.

[CrisBrown]

Hi SossMan,

Given the winner-take-all format, though, and this being a one-time event, it doesn't surprise me that perhaps they didn't think of this in terms of $200,000 equity. Instead, it was a great opportunity to either make a nice payday -- not a huge one, by their standards -- or make nothing at all. Also, by their appearance, win or lose, they were making money for Harrah's, and for ESPN. As I said, I'm not surprised that there was an appearance fee. I doubt that it was all that much -- I've no idea -- but that there was one doesn't surprise me.

Cris

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
I correct myself, Daniel only mentions 2k-4k on fullcontactpoker.com

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet it's open seating right now.

[SossMan]

Hi Cris,

It doesn't surprise me that there was an appearance fee, but I doubt it had anything to do with making up for them missing what they would make in their regular cash game. I understand that since it's a one time deal, an EV calculation isn't completely appropriate since there will never be a "long run", however, it's still a 10% chance to win two million slammers which is worth roughly a decent winter home in Scottsdale. I'm quite sure that they weren't about to pass that up appearance fee or not.

-SossMan

[DimensionPresident]

Wondering... if all these players in the "big game" obviously know eachother, then why don't they just play at someone's house?

No rake or IRS there.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Wondering... if all these players in the "big game" obviously know eachother, then why don't they just play at someone's house?

No rake or IRS there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no clue. ask diablo, he plays from a 7 figure bankroll.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Wondering... if all these players in the "big game" obviously know eachother, then why don't they just play at someone's house?

No rake or IRS there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Random millionaires who decide to take a shot at some high-stakes poker are more likely to drop by at someplace like The Commerce or The Bellagio than some dude's house.

[esknights]

[ QUOTE ]
it was a great opportunity to either make a nice payday -- not a huge one, by their standards

[/ QUOTE ]

So 2 million isn't a good day for them? Why play the WSOP then for 7 days when all they get is 5 million?

[DimensionPresident]

That's what I thought of as soon as I hit "continue".

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it was a great opportunity to either make a nice payday -- not a huge one, by their standards

[/ QUOTE ]

So 2 million isn't a good day for them? Why play the WSOP then for 7 days when all they get is 5 million?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe i didn't think of that....hellllloooooo

thread over

[Arsene Lupin III]

[ QUOTE ]
Wondering... if all these players in the "big game" obviously know eachother, then why don't they just play at someone's house?

No rake or IRS there.

[/ QUOTE ]

The time charge at this game isn't particularly high relative to the limit. It's essentially rakeless.

Also, from what I've seen on the bellagio dealer diary, the big game is pretty dynamic in terms of what games are played and at what limits. There are stories of games at and above 400/800 involve entire down-length conversations over what games to include in a mixed lineup.

Casinos also have rotating staffs of professional dealers, large selections of alcohol, security, etc. I'd feel a little safer knowing all that /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[CrisBrown]

Hi esknights,

I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
[The TOC] was a great opportunity to either make a nice payday -- not a huge one, by their standards -- or nothing at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

esknights replies:

[ QUOTE ]
So 2 million isn't a good day for them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said $2M wasn't a good day. I said $2M is "not a huge [payday], by their standards." And it's not.

These are all, perhaps except for Greg Raymer, people who have had four- or five-million dollar days before in cash games. At 'The Big Game,' the daily winner will routinely be up a million dollars at the day's end, according to an interview during the TOC, and also during the History Channel's History of Poker broadcast. If a million-dollar daily winner is "routine" for that game, then random distribution suggests that multi-million-dollar daily winners are not too uncommon.

Of course, both broadcasts also said that the daily loser will typically be down a million or more. Walking away from 'The Big Game' with a million-dollar gain is not the same as getting a million-dollar profit, anymore than walking away with a million-dollar loss is the same as a million-dollar debt. That money is operating capital for these players ... as was the $2M first prize from the TOC, unless Annie decides to withdraw it from her bankroll and spend or invest it elsewhere.

I'm not saying $2M is chump change, to them or to anyone who has half a brain. I'm just saying a $2M winning day is probably not the best 12-hour gain they've ever seen.

Cris

[J.R.]

At 'The Big Game,' the daily winner will routinely be up a million dollars at the day's end, according to an interview during the TOC, and also during the History Channel's History of Poker broadcast. If a million-dollar daily winner is "routine" for that game, then random distribution suggests that multi-million-dollar daily winners are not too uncommon.

This would be great if the "pro" players had a 100% interest in their performance (ignoring the fact most of the TOC players didn't play in the "Big Game"), but since the "Big Game" was played out of a bankrool pooled by a number of players ("the corporation") this isn't the case and your attempt to defend your earlier "silly" statement with more torured logic instead of admitting your error fails. This is getting absurd.

[CrisBrown]

Hi J.R.,

'The Big Game' to which I was referring is an ongoing game, not any particular showdown situation. It's the one that Doyle, Chip, Barry, Phil Ivey, Gus Hansen, etc. play in on a regular basis.

Cris

[J.R.]

That's not the same "big game" referred to in the TV shows you reference.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
These are all, perhaps except for Greg Raymer, people who have had four- or five-million dollar days before in cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes the volume of baloney people come up with is too much to take. This is absurd.

I can say with confidence that two million dollars represents a LOT of money to at least half the people at that table. The idea that all those people have endless money just because they've played in (widely varying degrees of) large games is completely absurd.

Too much of my direct knowledge about the finances of famous poker players comes in ways that make me unable to share it, and I wouldn't be particularly willing to share it anyway since I don't think the public has any right or need to know. Suffice to say that the online speculation is almost always wildly inaccurate, invariably in the direction of people thinking that just because someone has seemingly won a lot of money in their life, that they still have a lot of money.

Don't miss the intentional use of "seemingly", either.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying $2M is chump change, to them or to anyone who has half a brain. I'm just saying a $2M winning day is probably not the best 12-hour gain they've ever seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

If each of them had had 100% of their own action (which they didn't) winning would represent the best day ever for at least half the table.

[fnurt]

Let's say you have an ongoing backing arrangement, someone is paying 50% of your entry fees in every event, and getting a cut of your winnings. Some people have asked "if Greg Raymer won his WSOP entry in a cheap online satellite, why did he need backing?" and the answer is that it's an ongoing arrangement, he doesn't have the option to say "I'm paying my own way for the WSOP and keeping everything," it automatically applies to every tournament.

So my question is, if you're in such an arrangement and something like this $2M freeroll comes along, is it still part of the backing arrangement, even though there is no entry fee for the backers to pay? I mean, I assume that if someone comes along and offers to pay you $10000 for a poker lesson that's your money to keep, you don't share it with your backers. So if ESPN comes along and offers to give you $200000 worth of EV for free... is it obvious that the prize money still gets split?

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you have an ongoing backing arrangement, someone is paying 50% of your entry fees in every event, and getting a cut of your winnings. Some people have asked "if Greg Raymer won his WSOP entry in a cheap online satellite, why did he need backing?" and the answer is that it's an ongoing arrangement, he doesn't have the option to say "I'm paying my own way for the WSOP and keeping everything," it automatically applies to every tournament.

So my question is, if you're in such an arrangement and something like this $2M freeroll comes along, is it still part of the backing arrangement, even though there is no entry fee for the backers to pay? I mean, I assume that if someone comes along and offers to pay you $10000 for a poker lesson that's your money to keep, you don't share it with your backers. So if ESPN comes along and offers to give you $200000 worth of EV for free... is it obvious that the prize money still gets split?

[/ QUOTE ]

Intuitively, I say yes. Or the pro would have a conflict of interest with his backers. It would suit him to look for opportunities for split-free earnings, thereby taking away from time spent earning money for his backers.

It has to be all earnings from poker, or I don't see how it'll work.

[Ulysses]

Where are you getting this stuff, Cris?

Your ideas re: the stakes that high-limit players regularly play and the types of bankrolls they have are wildly inflated.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]

Sometimes the volume of baloney people come up with is too much to take. This is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the same people that automatically peg your and Phil Gordon's net worths at the IPO or acquisition price of your respective employers (and state it as fact), regardless of your equity stake in your companies or any knowledge of what you personally did with the proceeds post-IPO/acquisition.

[theBruiser500]

I was reading some of crisBrown's old posts from the NL forum a few weeks ago. If you have AA in the BB with a lot of limpers he recommended checking.

[Spook]

I say the backers are owed money. If Annie was backed in the Omaha High/Low game that she won, and it and other backed events propelled her to the Seat in TOC, she owes her backers for that.

[J.R.]

I think you mean she, IIRC.

[theBruiser500]

Well that sure would explain a few things... How do you know it's a she?

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
Well that sure would explain a few things... How do you know it's a she?

[/ QUOTE ]

We are all waiting with bated breath to hear what it explains.

[CrisBrown]

Hi El Diablo,

The amounts I mentioned were figures mentioned in the voice-overs on the History Channel's History of Poker and in the interview segment having to do with Chip Reese (as I recall) in the TOC. This was not the Corporation game, where these players pooled resources to play against Andy Bean (if I recall the name correctly), but instead Doyle's regular game at the Golden Nugget that was featured on the History Channel broadcast. The voice-over for the History Channel, as well as Doyle's interview for the TOC, said the nightly winner in that game would often come away up $1M or more, and the nightly loser come away down $1M or more. If I recall correctly, the History Channel said the players -- Doyle, Chip, Barry, Phil Ivey, Gus Hansen, Chau Giang, etc. -- usually buy into that game for $250K or more.

Now, it may be that those interviews and that voice-over were conflating two different games. But the impression they gave was that these are players who see million-dollar days (up or down) fairly often.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Bruiser,

I am a she, and what, pray tell, does that explain?

Cris

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
3BB per hour isn't unusual at all for the best player at the table to average in a rotating game lineup where skill levels at the various games are widely divergent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt theres many bad players at a game of that high limits, so how 'divergent' can the skill levels be?

[Ulysses]

See my previous comment.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Paul,

[ QUOTE ]
If each of them had had 100% of their own action (which they didn't) winning would represent the best day ever for at least half the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if that's true or not. I'll have to take your and others' word for it.

As for the idea that the poker professionals we see on TV are rolling in money ... that's simply not true. Several of them have commented about how most of those pros spend most of their lives struggling to keep an adequate bankroll and make a good living.

I'm an author, with 40+ books in print, including 20+ bestsellers. (Look up Rachel Lee on amazon.com) The common assumption would be that I must be fabulously wealthy, living in the lap of luxury, writing as the whim strikes me, and spending most of my time lying in a bubble bath waiting for the Muse to arrive.

The reality is that it's a grinding, 10-page-a-day schedule to make the deadlines, plus rewrites, copy edits, galley reviews, cover copy reviews, contract negotiations and reviews (although my agent handles most of that), etc., etc. ... all while trying to stretch irregular advances and royalties over the many months when I get no income at all. I'm fortunate to have been successful, but I still sweat the bills.

So yes, Paul, I agree that the general perception of any "glamor" job -- including TV poker pros -- is that they live like royalty ... when the reality is that they sweat month to month like anyone else. I didn't mean to imply that $200K equity (a freeroll 1/10th chance at a $2M prize) was "pin money" to the people at that table. It wasn't. And as Annie said, most of the players at the table had sold shares of themselves to backers. (Annie said she had sold 35% of her equity.)

Still, I don't have a problem with ESPN giving them an appearance fee. ESPN and Harrah's certainly profited by their appearance -- without those players, ESPN and Harrah's had nothing to market -- so it makes sense (to me) to pay an appearance fee to get the players they wanted.

Cris

[REL18]

From a close friend of Berry Greenstein (this person a couple years ago used to have regular games with him and sailor roberts) I believe his name is Barry Carpenter, hes a friend of mines unlce, once explained to me that all these big name players have backers not all but a good percentage. TJ Clout has backers has a craps addiction. Phil Hellmouth is a consitent loser at cash games. Ferguson, Men da Master and others that I can no longer think of are busted players. Now I could be wrong and i dont want to smear anyones name but I would like to open the light to you guys who think these guys are making huge money. By the way tournies mean nothing if you look on the site you will see Barry Greenstein explain why TJ Clout has so many tourny wins he plays in 300 major ones a year ya your gonna win about 55 in your career if you play so many. Well there my two cents i could be wrong and again i dont want to smear anyones game.

[REL18]

Very Few people know what you just said its a shame. People dont read it i jsut wrote somethign similar about what you wrote sorry for repeting it.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the idea that the poker professionals we see on TV are rolling in money ... that's simply not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You're the one who has been saying that $2M wins/losses are routine for these players.

It's weird to see this post from you after your previous posts.

I mean, you first proclaim in an authoritative manner that these players have to be paid an appearance fee to make up for their lost opportunity cost so they'll deign to play in a 2M freeroll. Now all of a sudden, it's "OK" for ESPN to pay these struggling players an appearance fee. It's like you're just making up random positions that you think sound good based on what you've read/heard.

It's OK to not be an expert and to acknowledge that you really don't know much about the reality of the financial situation of a lot of these individuals. It's just a little off-putting to some people (including me) when you start proclaiming things (such as 2M not being a huge payday for most of these players, that they routinely have +/- million dollar sessions, the "nightly" loser in the regular big game is losing a million+, etc.) as fact that you simply don't know to be true or not.

[CrisBrown]

Hi El Diablo,

Either I'm not communicating well (entirely possible), or you're almost deliberately misreading me (also possible). Regardless ... I'll try again....

First, I don't consider the daily wins/losses of a poker professional to be "real money," in the sense that most of it is simply adjustments to operating capital. Many of the players in the TOC are very high-stakes cash game players, which means they have to maintain a sizeable bankroll (that operating capital). That's not "their" money, in the sense that, if they suddenly take it all out to buy a beach house in Aruba ... then they can't work anymore.

So yes, it can be simultaneously true that: (a) they play in very high-stakes cash games where a million dollars can change hands in a night; and, (b) they're having to sweat the monthly bills just like everyone else. The first part has to do with operating capital. The second part has to do with take-home pay (draws from the operating capital).

To give an example, if I were playing at a $2K/$4K limit (and I'm NOT!), and if I wanted an adequate bankroll for the inevitable swings (say, 300xBB), that's a bankroll of $1.2M. If I have $1,206,500 in my bankroll at the end of the month (or whenever I make my draw to pay myself) ... I can only pay myself $6500 for the month. That's not chump change, but it's hardly a life of royalty (about $80K/yr). If I have to draw much more than that, I'm diminishing my operating capital ... I wouldn't be adequately bankrolled for the level at which I was playing.

The sources I saw said that Doyle's regular game (where many of the TOC players compete) is that kind of stakes, or perhaps even higher. To play in that game, the regulars need a huge bankroll (operating capital), and may see huge swings on a given day (up or down), and still be living a very middle-class, sweating-the-bills lifestyle.

I hope this makes more sense. It's 3:30am so I'm not sure I'm even cogent at this point. But I don't think what I said was as inconsistent as it might have seemed, and if it was, I apologize for not saying it more clearly.

Cris

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi El Diablo,

Either I'm not communicating well (entirely possible), or you're almost deliberately misreading me (also possible).

[/ QUOTE ]

Since my thoughts echoed el diablo's with no distortion, I vote for the former.

[ QUOTE ]
To give an example, if I were playing at a $2K/$4K limit (and I'm NOT!), and if I wanted an adequate bankroll for the inevitable swings (say, 300xBB), that's a bankroll of $1.2M. If I have $1,206,500 in my bankroll at the end of the month (or whenever I make my draw to pay myself) ... I can only pay myself $6500 for the month. That's not chump change, but it's hardly a life of royalty (about $80K/yr).

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the idea that there are guys out there consistently beating their regular game for 1.5 BB per month. I guess someone has to take "small edges with minimal variance" to the theoretical limit!

[DanS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where did $2M come from?

[/ QUOTE ]


It came from you and I drinking Miller and driving Toyota's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't drink Miller and I don't...awww, gawdammit, I just gave Phil Hellmuth a freeroll.

Dan

[DanS]

[ QUOTE ]
Chip Reese's expectation might very well be that in his regular cash game. His normal cash game has 10k-20k blinds and by all accounts he wins at that game with regularity. Even assuming a paltry 3BB per hour and a normal 8 hour day, 200k isn't close. Phil Helmuth on the other hand....

[/ QUOTE ]

How warped is your sense of reality that you consider 3 bb/hr 'paltry' in any game, let alone $10k/20k? Perhaps my sarcasm detector needs fixin'.

Dan

[CrisBrown]

Hi Paul,

[ QUOTE ]
Since my thoughts echoed el diablo's with no distortion, I vote for the former.


[ QUOTE ]
To give an example, if I were playing at a $2K/$4K limit (and I'm NOT!), and if I wanted an adequate bankroll for the inevitable swings (say, 300xBB), that's a bankroll of $1.2M. If I have $1,206,500 in my bankroll at the end of the month (or whenever I make my draw to pay myself) ... I can only pay myself $6500 for the month. That's not chump change, but it's hardly a life of royalty (about $80K/yr).

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the idea that there are guys out there consistently beating their regular game for 1.5 BB per month. I guess someone has to take "small edges with minimal variance" to the theoretical limit!

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, it was definitely the latter: deliberate misreading. At no time did I say or imply that this was an every month example. If you read that into what I said, that was your reading and not my saying. What that example showed was that it was very possible to have a $1M+ bankroll and, at the end of a given month, have made no more than one would on an $80K annual salary.

That would be a bad month for someone who plays those stakes, yes. It might well be a catastrophic month, if travel and other expenses, plus one's customary lifestyle, were such that one couldn't pay the bills. In that regard, J.P. Getty was dead-on when he said, "I have the same problems as anyone else; my problems just have more zeroes."

Now, if pros commonly aren't bankrolled at 300xBB, or if pros don't keep their bankrolls separate from their personal money ... come right out and say that. But the sneering, you-paeons-just-have-no-clue attitude isn't going to impress anyone.

Cris

[Ulysses]

You missed the point of the responses.

[Smasharoo]

How warped is your sense of reality that you consider 3 bb/hr 'paltry' in any game, let alone $10k/20k? Perhaps my sarcasm detector needs fixin'.

Hey, I crush .01/.02 for well over 10BB and hour!

[DimensionPresident]

Most people could live off of 3BB per year.

[TomCollins]

What opportunity has a better than $200,000/3 hour EV? Even assume you are the worst in the field, you are maybe 15-1 to win. You surely cannot beat that EV unless there was some extremely juicy game out there.

[CrisBrown]

Tom,

The tournament wasn't played in three hours. Annie said it was closer to 14 hours, played over two days. And no one has yet denied what I've read, that (at least some of) the players were paid an appearance fee.

Now, you might choose to believe that ESPN-Harrah's paid that fee out of the bottomless kindness of their hearts, because these players' appearances were going to make ESPN-Harrah's some money and gosh-golly-we-ought-to-share-the-wealth. Personally, I think ESPN-Harrah's paid the fee because either: (a) some of the players that ESPN-Harrah's wanted had refused to appear otherwise; or, (b) the producers believed some of thos players would refuse to appear otherwise.

No one has denied that an appearance fee was paid, and no one has come up with a better explanation for why, so I'll stick with my own conclusion.

Cris

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]

No one has denied that an appearance fee was paid, and no one has come up with a better explanation for why, so I'll stick with my own conclusion.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

... this has been said over and over again, here's the simple way: none of these players are earning $1500/hour.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Jay,

I agree, none of them is earning $1500/hr. Still, the best info I have is that there was an appearance fee. If someone has solid info that there wasn't an appearance fee, why not just present it? If there was an appearance fee, and someone has a better explanation for why it was paid, why not present that?

Cris