Skansky's reference to other fish that feed the Big Game

[Martin Aigner]

Didn´t Daniel Negreanu mention in his blog that these guys are actually playing with $1 chips, since nobody of these players travels with that much money, and they all trust each other. Well, if Gus or any other of these players was broke I doubt that the other players take him by his word that he will be able to pay the later. At least I would be pretty carefully. But I´m not in the game and have no desire of ever playing there.

Best regards

Martin Aigner

[Michael Davis]

Honestly, I think all of the stuff you hear from Doyle about his fatigue, his bad year, how young guys are better than ever and how it's a young man's game are cold, calculated BS from a great player.

-Michael

[dragon14]

Yes Michael, it was cold and calculating how he admitted to having a losing year for the first time ever. Everybody surely reads the NY Daily News, right Michael. It's the best known NY paper, right Michael. Doyle knew that all weak rich players read the NY Daily News and planted the story. Give me a break.

At chess the top players lose their titles to younger players because they can't calculate as quickly as they did when they were younger.

If we're talking the highest stakes of poker it seems logical that the best players in their 20's, 30's and 40's get the best of Doyle through quicker thinking. Mason Malmuth has an essay in his Poker Essays books where he theorizes that speed of thought is what separates a good 20-40 from a good 100-200 player.

Whereas nearly every other poster's answer to this thread is along the lines of "I bet it's Phil Hellmuth", I've provided direct quotes from a player in the big game that he's losing and a solid theory of why Sklansky would not want to mention his name.

If you guys wish to worship Doyle that's fine. Even Kasparov, considered the greatest chess player ever, lost the chess championship a few years ago. The player who beat him was significantly younger.

[InfernoLL]

Are you making this up or do you have an exceptionally bad source for this speculation?

[InfernoLL]

Don't want to sound like a dick, but your post demonstrates well the tendency people have to misread things. He mentioned that they were playing w/ $1 chips at a casino in southern California after a tournament. He only mentioned this happening once. It may be standard for "away games" but the vast majority of the 4k/8k game is played at the Bellagio in Vegas, where they play with the actual amounts.

[Michael Davis]

The tone of your post makes you seem like a giant douchebag. That you have me on Doyle's jockstrap following my comment shows a serious inability to think logically.

And yeah, obviously if Doyle goes around telling newspapers and TV cameras that he's losing people are going to hear about it. Succeeding in poker is often about disguising yourself as something lesser than what you really are. Do you expect Doyle to say "I'm crushing the games and these people have no chance?" And of course if he is losing, your reason about Sklansky not giving his name is perfectly valid. But that doesn't mean any of it is true.

Obviously I won't dispute the quick-thinking abilities of the young over the old. I am a quicker thinker than Doyle, but I make a lot of wrong decisions and he doesn't. Who's better?

Regardless, of course he could be telling the truth, but you're an idiot if you think there's no chance he's not. Actually you're an idiot either way based on your response.

-Michael

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a lot of talk about the big game and yet nobody has mentioned 2 other good motivations for playing:

1) Practice/Fun! Don't professional athletes practice, don't top professionals like to be challenged. This game keeps their game sharp, their interest in playing up. Imagine anyone of those guys playing with some weaker player, they'd be bored out of their minds (unless the money is good or prestigious event).

2) Marketability. Playing in the big game could help you sell your books, get a deal with online poker sites, and all kinds of other things.

For example, let's assume Doyle is a small loser at the big game (I am in no way implying anything nor do I know anything). The fact that he has a book out, a site to play on, playing in the big game has positive EV in overall scheme of things even if you assume he is a small loser.

Besides, why does the big game have to have a fish. Sure it's nice, but whatever the table charge is for the big game, assuming all players are even it's a small price to pay for that practice, entertainment, marketing and fun!

A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


I'd like to see you play in 100k pots "for fun". Also, the big game isn't televised or anything so I don't know what you're talking about with marketing. If someone plays in the big game it's solely for profit. There are other ways to market yourself without losing 100's of 1000's in a game that wouldn't even provide definite, if any, marketing.


Also, nobody in the right mind would play in the big game if they needed "practice"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be underestimating the ego of some players who probably want to say they play in the biggest games. Not everyone playing can be winning. I don't think everyone who plays in the big games are doing so because they can't find a more profitable game.

[dragon14]

First off, show some class and don't call me a douchebag and an idiot. Secondly, since Doyle is playing in the biggest game in Las Vegas and may be the most famous player in the freaking world surely he is not being underestimated.

Gamblers like Angelil and Flynt play big games due to their big egos and desire to play the best. They know Doyle is very good. The other players in the game certainly know Doyle is a big talent as well. So what exactly would Doyle gain from deceiving others? The answer is absolutely nothing.

Please tell us all about how you personally have succeeded at poker by making yourself out to be less than you really were.

The point is Michael, why would a man who wanted to title his Super/System "How I Won a Million Dollars Playing Poker" state that he is having his first losing year ever? Probably because he's having his first losing year ever.

[Michael Davis]

"The point is Michael, why would a man who wanted to title his Super/System "How I Won a Million Dollars Playing Poker" state that he is having his first losing year ever? Probably because he's having his first losing year ever."

Quite possibly you're right.

If you want class shown to you, you need to possess it yourself. Your original post was insulting and talked to me as if I were five years old. You also lumped me in with a bunch of others you are apparently arguing with when I'm not even really disputing anything you say.

Goodnight.

-Michael

[Martin Aigner]

OK, sometimes, when you write in a laguage which isn´t your mothertounge it´s tough get get the point across exactly, anyway, I never meant to say that they play the big game with $1 chips at the Bellagio. I don´t know which chips they use over there, and I really don´t care whether it´s $1 chips or $1000 chips, but it seems rather obvious that it would be high nomination chips at the Bellagio. On the road though, which is often enough, the $1 chips seem to be the standart way to play that game with. The point is, they obviously think that these players are trustworthy for more than $1 million, and I doubt that someone would trust any other pokerplayer for that much money knewing the other was broke (and without backers). I might be wrong of course, it´s just my interpretation, or rather the way I would handle the situation if I was part in the game.

From Daniel´s blog:

After the movie it was time to debate what to do. Before I did that i decided to check and see if the big game was going. Sure enough, Chau was just quitting and Chip Reese, Gus Hansen, and Phil Ivey were playing the same old 4000-8000 mixed game.

Of course they were playing with $1 chips. Why $1 chips? Well for one, none of us would ever bring money like that on the road, and secondly everyone in the game was trustworthy.

Best regards

Martin Aigner