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

[Smoothcall]

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]

[ 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]

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...) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[LuvDemNutz]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[tonypaladino]

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
If everyone here knew the amount of work that I know went into TOP, SSHE, and others you would appreciate it much more.

TONY