Re: A new theory on Negraneau challenge matches
 

I had underoos for the Flash when I was 8 years old (the super-fast guy in the Red with the yellow lightning-bolt).
Underoos ROCK!!!

spiderman underoos weren't too shabby either.....any boy who wo re Wonder Woman underoos though....geez, that's just weird...and I think a lot of kids did that.
Hey, I crushed on Linda Carter just like anyone else....and I would still happily get tangled in her magic-lasso-of-truth ANYTIME...but I'll be damned if I was ever going to wear chick-underoos. That's just WRONG!


end of underoos rant.

Re: A new theory on Negraneau challenge matches
 

[ QUOTE ]
While 3-3.5 mill a year may not be accurate, Daniel must be making a amount close to that. How much of a lose is he taking, not being able to play any poker in Vegas outside of the Wynn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Equal, this gets to the fundamental point raised in my original post. I'm sure that Daniel thought he was taking no loss at all becuase the big games would naturally migrate to the Wynn. Hence, he'd just play in his "regular" games while making extra money from the Wynn. Unfortunately for him, most of the big action remains at the Bellagio. Daniel simply miscalculated. As a result, he found himself with no games to play at the limits he prefers. That's why I posit that he came up with the whole "challenge match" concept--an easy way to generate some big action.

As for O'Malley, I'll take a stab at your over/under challenge. Assuming there are no performance-based incentives, I guess 150K.

Re: A new theory on Negraneau challenge matches
 

He's only losing money not playing the big games if he woulda beat them. He could be saving money.

Re: A new theory on Negraneau challenge matches
 

Again where do you get your information. How do you know he's losing? You assume he's losing since he lost in the past. You have 0 knowledge about what he's currently doing money wise. This is the repeated point everyone is making. According to his site, he's done alright in the big cash games. Losses and wins mixed in. According to you, for some reason, he's constantly getting crushed. Where do you get this information? You assume he's consistantly -EV at the big games. Why is that? Oh cause it's your opinion he is...rofl.

March 31-25k winner (2k/4k game)
April 10-3k Winner (NL Game)
March 1st/28th-600k winner (big game)
March 2nd- -114k loser (big game)
Dec 23-+49k (big game)
Dec 22-+22k (big game)
Dec 12-+30k (big game)

Wow, he's really a big loser in the big game. I guess he doesn't report all his losses....But if he does...he's doing much better in cash games than tournies this year.

Re: A new theory on Negraneau challenge matches
 

Where did i say he wasn't beating the big game? I said he is only losing money if he would be beating the big game in the future long term. Which netiehr of us know. Seem to think you know. All i said is he hasn't proven that he will be it long term. So to say he lost alot of money because he can't play the "big game" at the bellagio is just speculation with no fact. He could just as easily saved money. I'm sure there were some that would have said the same thing about Gus Hansen if he was given that contract beofre he started playing the big game. But unfortunatly for Gus he wasn't offered(or took anybody up) on such an offer. Had he, he might still be rich/ Instead of losing most or all of it in the big game.