"I used to play 80/160 with $3,200 bankroll" -- Negreanu [Archive]

Rushmore

06-14-2005, 12:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, he said: "I used to play 80/160 with like 3200". I am refering to the quote in the topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a goofy distinction to make.

I mean, you're not saying that you think that he just bought in for 20 big bets, and had access to limitlessly more, I hope.

Because that is clearly not what he was saying, and your post would then seem to be unneccessarily contrary and contentious.

I would defy anyone to watch this video and deduce that Negreanu was NOT saying that he had a $3200 BANKROLL playing $80/$160.

That said, I am an advocate of playing over your head from time to time, but this is just plain wacky.

That guy

06-14-2005, 12:09 PM

Negeranu's point was that he played way over his head relative to prevailing wisdom.

Bankroll is a fluid concept because if memory serves me right, I remember how DN blew his Toronto built bankroll a few times when he first went to Vegas. He would then put together a new bankroll by starting over back in Toronto.

The point is that he was taking shots at big games without the bankroll. He was not buying in for $3200 out of some bigger bankroll.

Personally, my poker bankroll isn't all that big but I have much money in reserve to reload it if needed. So what is my bankroll???

I think Negreanu was pretty clearly saying that all he could afford to lose is $3,200 and that if he lost that, he couldn't play 80-160 anymore because he wouldn't be able to buy into it...

Beavis68

06-14-2005, 12:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My question is why did he only have a $3,200 bankroll? Maybe because he kept blowing fortunes he won in tournaments?

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't say he did it last year did he?

The poker world did exist before the WPT. Daniel has only been successful as a tournament player recently.

MyMindIsGoing

06-14-2005, 12:37 PM

No matter what he ment a quote should be a quote and not a "quote" what the person that heard it think he ment. He never said the world "bankroll".

MyMindIsGoing

06-14-2005, 12:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think Negreanu was pretty clearly saying that all he could afford to lose is $3,200 and that if he lost that, he couldn't play 80-160 anymore because he wouldn't be able to buy into it...

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I think too. I wonder if he reads this and comments is, he did comment other people writing about him /images/graemlins/wink.gif

otnemem

06-14-2005, 01:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Negreanu was pretty clearly saying that all he could afford to lose is $3,200 and that if he lost that, he couldn't play 80-160 anymore because he wouldn't be able to buy into it...

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I think too. I wonder if he reads this and comments is, he did comment other people writing about him /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Wha-wha-wha-what?

RiverTheNuts

06-14-2005, 01:27 PM

That isnt a big deal, I sit at NL 1000 with my whole roll every weekend after I run 50 bones up to ~500

Smoothcall

06-14-2005, 01:38 PM

Not true. Dabniel has been playing tournament poker since at least 98 i believe. And he won a bracelt that year in pot limit holdem. That is worth at least a hundred thousand right there. Probably more like 200 or 300k but i'm being conservative. He has won many other tournaments or high finishes and has probably won close to a million dollars playing tournament poker before the last 2 years where he made the real big money. So where did all that money go that he won through the years? A good poker player is supposed increase a bankroll. Not lose a big bankroll.

Kevin K.

06-14-2005, 01:42 PM

He didn't say WHEN. Maybe it was before '98 then. Maybe it was when he was 12 years old. Maybe it was in a previous life.

MyMindIsGoing

06-14-2005, 01:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Negreanu was pretty clearly saying that all he could afford to lose is $3,200 and that if he lost that, he couldn't play 80-160 anymore because he wouldn't be able to buy into it...

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I think too. I wonder if he reads this and comments is, he did comment other people writing about him /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Wha-wha-wha-what?

[/ QUOTE ]

In http://video.cardplayer.com:8080/video/video/061205_10.wmv he talks about people on-line posting about his bankroll.

MyMindIsGoing

06-14-2005, 01:47 PM

According to http://www.pokerpages.com/2005wsopstats.htm he made $6.5 mil playing tournament poker. Not too bad /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Smoothcall

06-14-2005, 01:56 PM

Which means he made 2mil before winning the 4.5 mil yet he was broke. I wonder why?

illab

06-14-2005, 02:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The poker world did exist before the WPT. Daniel has only been successful as a tournament player recently.

[/ QUOTE ]
He said in the same interview, that he has made $1 million in the "big game", and Im pretty sure he made decent money in the lower cash game before that.

Smoothcall

06-14-2005, 02:02 PM

Oh please. Now your just reachin to win an argument and not admit Daniel has had his struggles in live play through the years.

Just to prove you wrong he wrote about what he did when he came to vegas and what he did in toronto before vegas. He went back and forth between 10-20 and 20-40. I mean this is a ridulous argument to say he didn't lose the money he won in tournaments. It has been stated many places that he went broke. Even he stated it. He said ity was his old girlfriends fault and because he drank when he played. Bottom line is he lost playing live poker. All pros sometimes have issues outside of poker that may affect there game. But they didn't go broke. In fact they still increased there bankrol. Maybe not as much as they would have if not for outside interference. But increased it nonetheless. So why didn't daniel?

Smoothcall

06-14-2005, 02:06 PM

Yeah million and he said he hasn't done in for hundreds of hours. Which means nothing. He has not logged even close to enough hours to have any idea what his hourly rate would be.

Smoothcall

06-14-2005, 02:11 PM

Noway!. He was saying all he had to his name was $3200 and playing 80-160. This is one of the reasons he has always been broke. Because he consistently plays over his head. Like most tourney players. They win a big tourney and give it to the big players like Barry G. and Chip.

otnemem

06-14-2005, 02:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Negreanu was pretty clearly saying that all he could afford to lose is $3,200 and that if he lost that, he couldn't play 80-160 anymore because he wouldn't be able to buy into it...

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I think too. I wonder if he reads this and comments is, he did comment other people writing about him /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Wha-wha-wha-what?

[/ QUOTE ]

In http://video.cardplayer.com:8080/video/video/061205_10.wmv he talks about people on-line posting about his bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make your statement intelligible.

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly what I think too. I wonder if he reads this and comments is, he did comment other people writing about him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not English.

MyMindIsGoing

06-14-2005, 02:58 PM

"Not English."

Did I ever say it was?

otnemem

06-14-2005, 03:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Not English."

Did I ever say it was?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just figured since you're posting on a message board, where the idea is for people to read and respond to what you write... Apparently, I have the wrong idea.

koa

06-14-2005, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh please. Now your just reachin to win an argument and not admit Daniel has had his struggles in live play through the years.

Just to prove you wrong he wrote about what he did when he came to vegas and what he did in toronto before vegas. He went back and forth between 10-20 and 20-40. I mean this is a ridulous argument to say he didn't lose the money he won in tournaments. It has been stated many places that he went broke. Even he stated it. He said ity was his old girlfriends fault and because he drank when he played. Bottom line is he lost playing live poker. All pros sometimes have issues outside of poker that may affect there game. But they didn't go broke. In fact they still increased there bankrol. Maybe not as much as they would have if not for outside interference. But increased it nonetheless. So why didn't daniel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the point is his bankroll is now ridiculous. Thats the bottom. Whether he was broke or not. He's rich as hell now

MyMindIsGoing

06-14-2005, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Not English."

Did I ever say it was?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just figured since you're posting on a message board, where the idea is for people to read and respond to what you write... Apparently, I have the wrong idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me what was wrong with the grammar or spelling then. My english is not perfect, but seems good enough for most persons.

Ulysses

06-14-2005, 03:26 PM

Daniel and many other high-limit players, especially tourney players, have discussed numerous times the idea of taking a shot w/ your whole bankroll in some good really big-game. The attitude is something like this:

OK, I have $3200. I can play $5/10 and grind out $10-20/hr. Tomorrow I'll prob have somewhere around $3200. Or, I can sit in $80/160. I can run hot and make $5000, or I can lose it all. If I lose it all, I go work or scrounge up some money somehow so I can play $5/10 again. But if I hit a rush, I'll have $5000 or $8000 or $10000 or whatever and can play bigger games.

Of course most people go bust doing this. But some get lucky a couple of times and get to rocket up limits.

1p0kerb0y

06-14-2005, 05:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Please tell me what was wrong with the grammar or spelling then. My english is not perfect, but seems good enough for most persons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nevermind.

Daniel Negreanu has been broke several times, BTW. (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=12727&m_id=38)

OldLearner

06-14-2005, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All pros sometimes have issues outside of poker that may affect there game. But they didn't go broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you mean to say MOST pros have had issues...and that they HAVE gone broke at some point?.
That would be so much closer to the truth.

You make a lot of statements that have absolutely no merit as though they were fact, like you were some expert. You do this ALL the time.

Thank god most people are already aware of this. You really don't know shiit about shiit do you?

Kevin K.

06-14-2005, 07:06 PM

ptmusic

06-14-2005, 07:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh please. Now your just reachin to win an argument and not admit Daniel has had his struggles in live play through the years.

Just to prove you wrong he wrote about what he did when he came to vegas and what he did in toronto before vegas. He went back and forth between 10-20 and 20-40. I mean this is a ridulous argument to say he didn't lose the money he won in tournaments. It has been stated many places that he went broke. Even he stated it. He said ity was his old girlfriends fault and because he drank when he played. Bottom line is he lost playing live poker. All pros sometimes have issues outside of poker that may affect there game. But they didn't go broke. In fact they still increased there bankrol. Maybe not as much as they would have if not for outside interference. But increased it nonetheless. So why didn't daniel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jane Harman was quoted in a recent Card Player issue that at one time she lost her entire bankroll, and every major player she knows has lost his/her bankroll. In Super System, Brunson wrote that he lost it all once.

-ptmusic

Mike Cuneo

06-14-2005, 07:53 PM

Who the hell is Jane Harmon? Do you mean Jennifer?

Sponger15SB

06-14-2005, 07:54 PM

Did anyone stop and think that he may also be kidding when he says this?

That guy

06-14-2005, 08:20 PM

I remember quote from Gus Hansen on a WPT episode... something like ~"in every gamblers life, he will go broke at some point"...

note: sorry to the quotation police... it isn't exact -- but you get the point...

Smoothcall

06-14-2005, 10:35 PM

Excellent argument. He's is rich now so it doesn't matter whether he can play live poker or not.

Smoothcall

06-14-2005, 10:54 PM

Whose talking bs? You say most pros have gone broke. I say most haven't gone broke. So who is right? I am as usual. What makes you think you know anything? I do. I live this life while your a wannabee criticizing me for stating facts that you don't like. Most pros do not go broke. ESPECIALLY if they have aquired hundreds of thousands through tournaments. I'm talking baout real pros. People that are good poker players. Not talking about tournament players that get lucky in tourneys(or have a knack for playing correct strategy for a tournament). I'm talking about poker playing that play live for a living. Do you really think the likes of Mason mallmuth, david sklansky, lenny martin, barry tannenbaum, roy cooke would ever blow hundredss of thousands playing live poker? And they don't even have to be that great to not blow that kind of money. The answer is no! In fact they would almost all add to that bankroll. And they wouldn't eve have to be that good. There are many players in the 2+2 mid high limit section that would add to the bankroll and an extrememly small percentage would ever go broke. But i guess you know what you're talking about becasue you say so.

Granted part of the reason is because all the people i mentioned are smart enough to not play ridiculously high and risk going broke. But that is because they are smart poker players too. They know what kind of bankroll they need for what limits. But i bet if daniel came down and played the limits that these guys play he would not do as well as the players i have mentioned. The reason. I have 2. One i do not think he knows how to play correctly. His technical game would be off. And even if he knew proper strategy he would not execute because that is a grind. And daniel has too much gamble and impatiemnce to sit around and grind waiting for good situations. And his ego would tell him he can play any 2 and beat the grinders. QWe have seen this beofre and what always happens to those guys? THEY GO BROKE!

Smoothcall

06-14-2005, 10:56 PM

How do you know they don't have merit? Is it because you don't want to believe it? Prove i'm wrong! I didn't call you a liar yet you call me one. SO PROVE IT!

Smoothcall

06-14-2005, 11:00 PM

So i guess you need to go broke to be considered a good poker player. I guess i suck because i haven't. Knock on wood.

Klepton

06-15-2005, 02:00 AM

he's going bald

Glenn

06-15-2005, 02:05 AM

El,

You have no idea what you are talking about. Every great poker player always has a 300BB bankroll. Usually 500 to be safe. They start at .50/1 and bonuswhore until they get 500 bb's at the next level. They never cash out any of their bankroll. Once they are 8 tabling 15/30 for 3.62342 BB/hr, they have reached the pinnacle of poker existance and have sex with many attractive women. Obviously, Daniel was just trying to throw us off with his statements.

Ulysses

06-15-2005, 02:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Once they are 8 tabling 15/30 for 3.62342 BB/hr, they have reached the pinnacle of poker existance and have sex with many attractive women.

[/ QUOTE ]

That much is definitely true, of course.

Smoothcall

06-15-2005, 02:25 AM

LOL. You just want him to be kidding so bad.

Ulysses

06-15-2005, 02:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Whose talking bs? You say most pros have gone broke. I say most haven't gone broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

For obvious reasons, I bet that the majority of players who play at very high limits have gone broke at some point on their way up to those levels.

Edited to clarify: that should probably more accurately say something like "the majority of pros who play or aspire to play at very high limits"

Smoothcall

06-15-2005, 02:28 AM

Thank you! Now everybody tell Danny he is lying when he says he went broke. Because how could it be? If i say it its a lie. Now you see it in his own words lets see what you say now?

Smoothcall

06-15-2005, 02:37 AM

Where did i say players who play very high limit? I said most pros don't go broke. Sure if they play over there head they can go broke. But most pros don't play over there bankroll. Thats one of the things that makes them pros. Knowing how to control a bankroll. My definaition of a pro is someone that makes there living playing poker(making money, not blowing a big bankroll). And you can't do that if your going broke. People who play high limit and go broke are not pros. They are gamblers. A pro is smart enough to not risk going broke.

TheCroShow

06-15-2005, 04:22 AM

"And I plan on literally, this is gonna sound really bad...but I plan on beating him so badly that eventually I have to stake him in a 40/80 Hold Em game." DN 121312312 BG 0

Quote of the year by DN

grass

06-15-2005, 05:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once they are 8 tabling 15/30 for 3.62342 BB/hr, they have reached the pinnacle of poker existance and have sex with many attractive women.

[/ QUOTE ]

That much is definitely true, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't let the cat outta the bag.

Ulysses

06-15-2005, 06:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Where did i say players who play very high limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say you did? Man, you have one helluva confrontational attitude and sure do come off like a jackass.

Smoothcall

06-15-2005, 07:31 AM

i come off confrotational because i am constantly getting called a liar, dumb, or a jackass. Have a called you any names? Why the hostility? Everytime you post a reply to me it is to try and show a mistake in what i'm saying. If you posted a reply to me when i say somthing you agree with i might not come off hostile. Everybody in this wpt board only reply to try to show a mistake i made or to insult me. That is why i may seem to come off hostile. If you gave me a chance you would realize i'm a nice guy and a smart pker player. And can contribute in a positive way on this forum. The question is are you a nice guy? You come off as arrogant and that you think what you have to say is more important than others. You might be a nice guy i don't know. Maybe you just have a bad image on here like me. Obviously not as bad as mine. As everybody thinks i'm some jackass. And think its proper to constantly insult me. When i have not insulted you ever. Did you ever think about that? I have never insulted anybody on this board until someone insulted me first.

And btw i have nothing against you and think you are one of the better posters. And i agree i come off argumentative but don't mean any ill will. Don't take it personally. I'm sorry if i was unnecessarily rude to you. But i feel like i'm put on the offensive because everytime i make a post it is ripped and somebody calls me an insulting name. Not that i'm thinned skinned. I could care less what those clowns think. Just irritating to get insulted from people who hide behind there computer and say them.

Anyway just wanted to explain why i may come off like a jackass when i actutality am a nice guy.

Ulysses

06-15-2005, 07:52 AM

Fair enough. Note that I did not call you a jackass. I simply pointed out that you often come off like one.

As for me thinking what I say is more important than what others have to say, that is incorrect. However, it is indeed correct that I believe what I have to say is more often correct than what many others here say. Whether or not you agree with that is something you'll have to decide for yourself.

If you go back and read my post, I was not arguing with you , I was merely providing some facts and elaboration for people who are curious about what this thread is about. Especially those surprised at the idea of top pros taking super-underbankrolled shots.

While you make a number of points about what you consider to be a pro, your points are largely irrelevant wrt this thread and this forum. People are not here to read about responsible pros who grind out a solid stable mid-limit income. There are plenty of other forums on this site where many people do that successfully for far more than most anyone in cardrooms ever makes, and there's plenty of disucssion about that in those forums. In this forum, though, they are primarily here to read about the top tourney and high-limit pros, including how they got there. For you to say that people who will take very high risk shots because they aspire to play at the highest limits as quickly as possible are not pros, well that just seems silly to me. Are guys like Phil Ivey, Howard Lederer, Daniel Negreaunu - are these people not pros? If you define never putting yourself in a situation where you have a high risk of going broke (thus some percentage of the time actually going broke) as a requirement for being a pro (which you seem to do in your post), then many of the most well-respected and successful (over the long term, not short-term guys) poker players around would not be "pros" by your definition.

I do not know if you post on the strategy forums or not, but that is the best place for you to show that you have a lot to contribute to this place. There is one sure way to gain respect at these forums and that is to provide solid poker advice.

Smoothcall

06-15-2005, 10:29 AM

Fair enough on what most of what you had to say as well.

As far as what you say being more often correct than others i would say that is probably true. Not that i really know that as i haven't heard much of your strategy and tactics. But from the way other respect you on here you probably are a good player and are more often correct than others.

You say it seems silly to say Phil Ivey, Daniel N, and howard lederer are not pros because they take risks of going broke. Well it is not all black and white i think. There are different issues with each individual and also on definitions of a pro. For instance i would not group all 3 of those guys together. Because imo daniel for one has not proven to be able to beat live games to say he is a pro. I'm not sure about the other guys either but i will discuss daniel for now. Btw i would coinsider all 3 tourney pros. Reason is they have made good money playing tournaments and have had alot of success. But that does not make them live cash game pros. They may or may not be. We don't know as we don't keep there records. But what we have to go on with daniel is throughout the years he has made lots of money in tournies then took that money played live cash games and gone broke. This to me doesn't mean we should call him a pro cash game player do you? The other guys i don't know about as far as there cash game success. But i do know they haven't blown fortunes in cash games like daniel has. Barry makes it sound like Phil is winning. Sounds like Howard wasn't(at least in the big gameand or at least not enough money to make it worthwhile to keep playing) otherwise he probably would still be playing it.

Then there is the issue of what defines a pro. Some define it by whther you are earning your living doing it. Others may define it by the talent of the person and not by whether or not they are making money. And or earning a living doing it. Some would call the ones willing to go broke and not earning there living doing it gamblers. They can be very talented gamblers or not but gamblers nonetheless. And not pros. So it all goes by definition i think.

I have not posted in the strategy forums much. But plan to in the future more. And i agree it might allow me to show i have something to contribute.

Lastly i think some of my coming off like a jackass has to do with the fact that i like to stir things up a bit. So i may say somthing in a more argumentative tone. Although its usually with someone who has insulted me first. But don't mean to truley upset you or anyone else in doing so. Just having some fun i guess. But i will try to ease the tone to make peace and harmony. I look foward to reading your posts in the future.

Mason Malmuth

06-15-2005, 11:43 AM

Hi Everyone:

Smoothcall is correct about this. Most pros make absolutely sure they don't go broke since starting over with nothing can be very difficult.

In fact, I would venture to say that there are a group of pros, and Smoothcall may fit this category, who are a little too conservative. But any good statistician (such as myself?) who works with this stuff will tell you that if you are going to error, you should error on the conservative side.

An exception does seem to occur with some of the tournament stars because they seem to be part of the "get staked" system. That is they know that if they run out of money they can get someone to put them in because of the name recognition that they have. In addition, it appears to me that some of them who do very well for a while don't realize that even though they are very good, they have also run very good. Thus they get caught by surprise wqhen the inevitable bad streak hits.

Another comment on some of Negreanu's claims is that he seems to mix tournament strategy with ring game strategy, and then is very critical of authors like myself for being too tight and unimaginative. Of course he never points out that if you were to play correct tournament strategy in a full ring game, as many of the tournament stars do, you won't do very well.

Finally, Negreanu seems to be saying that at times you should take a shot when the situation appears pretty good. This is consistent with the advice I gave in Gambling Theory and Other Topics which was originally published in 1987.

If Daniel ever read this, he would discover that he has far more in common with me than he realizes. The difference I believe is that GTOT advocates being able to pull out and quickly move lower when the shot goes bad and not to continuously move up if the shot goes well. He seems to say, and I could have this wrong, that you're not tough enough as a person if you advoid going broke. In my opinion that's an example of taking "non-self-weighting strategies" and converting them to foolish strategies.

Finally, I am a practicer of what I preach. Except that I chose not to gamble with my poker and other gambling. My "non-self-weighting" approach occurred with Two Plus Two Publishing. If we would have run this company with a more conventional conservative approach, we would probably be no more than one-fourth the size and and have half as many books as we do today. But that's another story.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason Malmuth

06-15-2005, 11:52 AM

Hi Masked Man:

I disagree. At the ultra high limits, and I'm talking let's say $500-$1,000 and above, I think you'll discover that the majority of pros have income (or made a great deal of money) from another source. Sometimes it's an inheritance, with a few of them its been sports betting, and in many cases, such as myself even though I choose not to play this high, its a business that worked out very well.

There are a couple of exceptions that I can think of -- that is these people only got there by playing poker. Also, this by no means impinges on their ability to play very well. But going broke is not usually part of their path to success.

Best wishes,
Mason

Shaman

06-15-2005, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My "non-self-weighting" approach occurred with Two Plus Two Publishing. If we would have run this company with a more conventional conservative approach, we would probably be no more than one-fourth the size and and have half as many books as we do today. But that's another story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big deal. I can't see anything non-conventional/conservative in your marketing approach. All you do is sell to big wholesalers like everyone else does. Nothing unconventional about that.

Howard Treesong

06-15-2005, 12:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i come off confrotational because i am constantly getting called a liar, dumb, or a jackass. Have a called you any names? Why the hostility?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are constantly being called names because your posts are often imprecise and slightly off-topic. Much of what you say has merit in the abstract, but is aimed at a particular agenda (the strength of the mid-limit, grind-it-out pro) as opposed to whatever else might be the topic of a particular thread.

Diablo is more aggressive than you are, and thus seems confrontational. But his posts are precise and pointed and on-topic.

That guy

06-15-2005, 12:50 PM

Hi Mason,

saw this on Paul Phillips website journal:

"Daniel's heads-up matches: If he keeps it up long enough and if he's not receiving some sort of rebate from Wynn, I think he's likely to get into financial trouble. I have no doubt of his abilities overall but he's taking a self-weighting strategy to the worst possible extreme. I expect to play him myself at some point in triple draw even though $100K is more than I like to throw around in the short term."

Is this a correct application of the statistical concept? playing for $500k amid other much less lucrative games clusters results around a small sample size -- magnifying variance...

ptmusic

06-15-2005, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Who the hell is Jane Harmon? Do you mean Jennifer?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, my bad. I didn't have the issue in front of me, and I remembered incorrectly. Although like most(including me at times), you seem to have relished the opportunity to pounce on someone's 2+2 post mistake ("Who the hell....")! Congrats.

-ptmusic

ptmusic

06-15-2005, 01:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So i guess you need to go broke to be considered a good poker player. I guess i suck because i haven't. Knock on wood.

[/ QUOTE ]

You certainly don't need to go broke to be considered a good poker player. But just because someone HAS gone broke doesn't make that person a non-pro player, as your earlier posts implied. That's why I posted a few pro names that have gone broke.

As far as DN goes, I believe he has gone broke AND he is a pro.

-ptmusic

Richie Rich

06-15-2005, 03:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Now everybody tell Danny he is lying when he says he went broke. Because how could it be? If i say it its a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doyle went broke on his first trip to Vegas. He lost it all playing poker, and had to go home to re-build his BR. Many other well-known poker pros have gone broke. It can happen to anyone, even the best.

Ulysses

06-15-2005, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you'll discover that the majority of pros have income (or made a great deal of money) from another source.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, Mason. While I could have been clearer (and tried to clarify), I was specifically referring to those pros who climb their way up to the big limits just via poker. Big does not necessarily mean 4k-8k, what I say goes for limits like 300-600 as well (and maybe even 100-200 in many cases). From stories I have read about the ultra-high-limit players and from people I know who play the pretty-damn-high limits, getting to those levels in a relatively short time by playing poker often requires them to overextend themselves to a large degree.

Kevin K.

06-15-2005, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you! Now everybody tell Danny he is lying when he says he went broke. Because how could it be? If i say it its a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, dumbass. If you say it, it's hearsay.

Smoothcall

06-15-2005, 04:15 PM

It is fine to like Diablo's posts better than mine. But it doesn't mean i deserve to be called a liar(especially since i have not once lied about anything in here) or any other names. You can argue with me if you disagree with what i have to say. Or you can choose to pass up my posts. But to call me names is childish and inappropriate.

You may be right about my posts being slightly off topic. Not all the time but sometimes. And i will work at trying to stay on topic so i don't get called profanities in the future.

Mason Malmuth

06-15-2005, 04:38 PM

Hi Guy:

It's exactly the opposite. Non-self weighting strategies have the effect of increasing expectation but at the expense of a higher variance.

Self weighting strategies, like getting Paul Phillips to play heads-up triple draw lowball, have the effect of changing your expectation from positive to negative.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason Malmuth

06-15-2005, 04:45 PM

Hi Shaman:

That's certainly the way it appears now, but that's not the way we got here. We followed a very different strategy from all other publishers in this field. It was predicated on the idea that we could produce books at a quality level that no one else could come close to, and we seperated ourselves from those other entities who were no better than mediocre in ou view.

Best wishes,
Mason

snakehead

06-15-2005, 05:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I lose it all, I go work or scrounge up some money somehow so I can play $5/10 again

[/ QUOTE ]

or,in daniel's case, jen will loan me enough to play 80-160 again.

oreogod

06-15-2005, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Masked Man:

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome.

Smoothcall

06-15-2005, 10:42 PM

Its not hearsay clueless when i say it after reading daniel admit it. I know this is above your comprehension though. Maybe you need to go back to kindergarten where its all about the alphabet.

d1sterbd

06-16-2005, 03:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh please. Now your just reachin to win an argument and not admit Daniel has had his struggles in live play through the years.

Just to prove you wrong he wrote about what he did when he came to vegas and what he did in toronto before vegas. He went back and forth between 10-20 and 20-40. I mean this is a ridulous argument to say he didn't lose the money he won in tournaments. It has been stated many places that he went broke. Even he stated it. He said ity was his old girlfriends fault and because he drank when he played. Bottom line is he lost playing live poker. All pros sometimes have issues outside of poker that may affect there game. But they didn't go broke. In fact they still increased there bankrol. Maybe not as much as they would have if not for outside interference. But increased it nonetheless. So why didn't daniel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of the most successful poker players were broke multiple times. Doyle said in one of his books that he was broke a couple of times when he first went to Vegas. In a Card Player article, Phil Ivey said that one specific guy personally kept him broke for 6 months.

pokergripes

06-24-2005, 04:47 PM

Oh. My. God.

Howard, you convinced him of something!

You just gained mucho respect from me for your argument skills (it always just seemed like contradictions to me, but I guess you actually WERE headed towards proving a premise...) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

LuvDemNutz

06-24-2005, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But some get lucky a couple of times and get to rocket up limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to be one of those people. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

tonypaladino

06-25-2005, 04:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My "non-self-weighting" approach occurred with Two Plus Two Publishing. If we would have run this company with a more conventional conservative approach, we would probably be no more than one-fourth the size and and have half as many books as we do today. But that's another story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big deal. I can't see anything non-conventional/conservative in your marketing approach. All you do is sell to big wholesalers like everyone else does. Nothing unconventional about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is OT, but there is nothing "conventional" about book publishing, in relation to other businesses. I've been in the book business for years, and publishing is one of riskiest businesses around. They do not "sell to wholesalers" like a company making t-shirts does. A publisher has to take the entire risk producing a book, from hiring/signing the writer, conducting market research, printing the book, and marketing to consumers. If a book flops, the author doesn't lose, Barnes & Noble doesn't lose, it's the publishing company that takes the hit.

I'm sorry for being defensive about this, but as I've said I've been in the book business for years, both on the publishing and retail sides, and many people take for granted the fact that there are millions of books on innumerable topics in print, and such easy access to all of them is available to anyone. A lot of blood, sweat, and tears went into making it so that you can order a book on anything of off Amazon and get it in two days.

I also feel a great debt of graditude to Mason, David, and everyone at 2+2, because without them, I would still be calling J2o and calling to the river. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
If everyone here knew the amount of work that I know went into TOP, SSHE, and others you would appreciate it much more.

TONY