$30,000/$60,000
Raider Fan
Even if they are sure they're a better player than the whale, there's
always the risk of getting terrible cards. Is this a situation where the
biggest cash game pro's would look for a backer to offset some of the
risk? I'd love to hear Howard or Danny's thoughts.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
noiseboy
are a better player than your opponent, you'd be stupid not to play. You
wouldn't want a backer because you wouldn't want to split your winnings.
That's a mighty big bankroll you'd need, however,
Paul Phillips
Raider Fan <anon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>How much is too much? Why would any pro risk his bankroll for this game?
>Even if they are sure they're a better player than the whale, there's
>always the risk of getting terrible cards. Is this a situation where the
>biggest cash game pro's would look for a backer to offset some of the
>risk? I'd love to hear Howard or Danny's thoughts.
Nobody playing that game is playing more than a fraction of their own
money. Except the texas guy, of course.
--
Paul Phillips | Where there's smoke, there's mirrors!
Caged Spirit |
Empiricist |
up hill, pi pals! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Jason Root
trump
lol
Artist Formerly Known as PA
mega dollars. The rest of them all pool their funds which is the reason most
people will not play in the big games. Its 5 people working on 1 bankroll
who in there right mind would play against that.
PA
$9oa$1...@spoon.improving.org...
Paul Phillips
Artist Formerly Known as PA <pokerace(not really)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Jennifer Harmon is playing all her own money.
I seriously doubt that. Unless you have first-hand knowledge (as in
"she told you that herself") then I don't believe it. If you're thinking
that's true because you heard on TV that she was way up last time they
played, then be aware that TV has a tendency to leave out salient details.
>The rest of them all pool their funds which is the reason most
>people will not play in the big games. Its 5 people working on 1 bankroll
>who in there right mind would play against that.
The texas guy only plays heads-up. It makes absolutely no difference
if people share bankrolls in a heads-up game.
beanie
Artist Formerly Known as PA
declined to be part of the group with the pooled funds? Thus leading me to
believe it was her own dollars. I know the rest are pooling thought. Again I
could be wrong on this , just second hand info.
PA
"Paul Phillips" <rgp...@improving.org> wrote in message
news:blcirj$ael$1...@spoon.improving.org...
Artist Formerly Known as PA
"Jason Root" <anon...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3f79cb9c$0$168$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
gmr
needed.
gmr
"Artist Formerly Known as PA" <pokerace(not really)@comcast.net> wrote in
message news:erkeb.471285$cF.152900@rwcrnsc53...
James L. Hankins
> Jennifer Harmon is playing all her own money. And she happens to be plus
> mega dollars.
How do you know this? I have a difficult time believing this to be true.
The rest of them all pool their funds which is the reason most
> people will not play in the big games. Its 5 people working on 1 bankroll
> who in there right mind would play against that.
>
> PA
My understanding is that the pros pool their money and only one pro at a
time plays against Beal and that Beal knows this. If that's the case, I
don't see anything wrong with it ethically-wise. I still don't understand
why the guy plays limit. If I was Beal and wanted a big poker thrill, I'd
plop down $10 million on the table and say, "Hey Doyle, let's play some no
limit!"
Calahan MacCool
yourself in a 30k 60k hold'em game, as a poker pro, why would you even
play anymore? Or if you took home and cleared 1.5 mill from the big
dance, and it was all yours, WTF would you play for serious money
anymore?
"Raider Fan" <anon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f79c4d1$0$209$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
says...
>
>My only answer to this question is, if you have enough to bankroll
>yourself in a 30k 60k hold'em game, as a poker pro, why would you even
>play anymore? Or if you took home and cleared 1.5 mill from the big
>dance, and it was all yours, WTF would you play for serious money
>anymore?
>
>
leaving aside the fact that a million dollars isnt what it used to be,
why do you think the business/trader billionaires keep working, long after they
have made their first billion?
there must be more than money involved...
Jonathan
>"Raider Fan" <anon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f79c4d1$0$209$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
>> How much is too much? Why would any pro risk his bankroll for this game?
>> Even if they are sure they're a better player than the whale, there's
>> always the risk of getting terrible cards. Is this a situation where the
>> biggest cash game pro's would look for a backer to offset some of the
>> risk? I'd love to hear Howard or Danny's thoughts.
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
no matter where you go, there you are....
Paul Phillips
Calahan MacCool <cal...@thefianna.org> wrote:
>My only answer to this question is, if you have enough to bankroll
>yourself in a 30k 60k hold'em game, as a poker pro, why would you even
>play anymore? Or if you took home and cleared 1.5 mill from the big
>dance, and it was all yours, WTF would you play for serious money
>anymore?
Your question appears in earnest...
One of the great truisms of life is that nearly everyone (especially
when younger) hypothesizes a number that would be "enough money", but
should they actually arrive at that point, they quickly notice that
an even greater amount of money is actually "enough money." For most
people "enough money" indefinitely recedes into the distance. I've
known a lot of people that have earned large sums of money one way or
another and not one has said "OK, done! Couldn't possibly find a use
for any more."
Another answer is that poker is fun, and for most people part of the
fun is playing big enough for it to matter.
BIG RAY
YOU ARE NOT REALLY GAMBLING. TO A BILLIONAIRE A GAMBLE HAS TO START AT
10K-20K.
_________________________________________________________________
Ken Lovering
"gmr" <gmr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:W1leb.42816$uJ2....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
Bill Ying
definitely afford it with no problem. I'll play Gates for 1 million/2
million. If I get lucky, I can retire. If I lose, I don't think he is
going to get paid....<g>
"Jason Root" <anon...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<3f79cb9c$0$168$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
MSA1213
>Date: 9/30/03
>WELL SAID PAUL. IF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU, THEN
>YOU ARE NOT REALLY GAMBLING. TO A BILLIONAIRE A GAMBLE HAS TO START AT
>10K-20K.
Bill Gates can enjoy a 3/6 HE game. He's played these in Vegas.
For him, losing/winning at a 10K/20K* game is no more meaningful financially
than doing so at a 3/6 game. Since losing the most he could would not effect
his lifestyle, IMO he still would not truly be "gambling". And he probably
wouldn't like the publicity.
marc
* -50 BB x 20 K = $1 M. This is
the same fraction of his wealth as a $100 loss for someone worth $3.4M.
And someone could spend all of $3.4 M.
He can't spend $34 B.
MSA1213
>Date: 9/30/03
>Trump doesn't have enough money for that game :)
>
>
>"Jason Root" <anon...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:3f79cb9c$0$168$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>> Why stop there.. why not a 1,000,000/2,000,000 game .. heads
>up gates vs.
>> trump
>>
He has enough to play.
He's quite successful at filing for bankruptcy. :)
marc
O-PGManager
thrill of winning.
O-PGManager
> why the guy plays limit. If I was Beal and wanted a big poker thrill, I'd
> plop down $10 million on the table and say, "Hey Doyle, let's play some no
> limit!"
Because even against a pro he has a good chance to win at limit. He'd
probably lose 8 out of 10 times to Doyle in NL, but only 6 out of 10 in
limit.
Playing No Limit against Doyle would be somewhat analagous (note I said
analogous, not equivalent) to some hacker playing against a pro golfer for
money, and getting no odds.
O-PGManager
> He can't spend $34 B.
President Bush begs to differ.
Paul Phillips
O-PGManager <anon...@online-pokerguide.com> wrote:
>Because even against a pro he has a good chance to win at limit. He'd
>probably lose 8 out of 10 times to Doyle in NL, but only 6 out of 10 in
>limit.
Made-up numbers. Not only do I question the degree of disparity, I
question which is larger.
>Playing No Limit against Doyle would be somewhat analagous (note I said
>analogous, not equivalent) to some hacker playing against a pro golfer for
>money, and getting no odds.
It's not even vaguely analogous, let alone equivalent. A hacker playing
a pro golfer will win 0.000% of the time.
A totally naive formulaic all-in strategy at no-limit ought to win
a good 1/3 of the time against anyone, and probably more like 40%.
20% is ludicrous. There are very few hands that are 4-1 dogs to other
hands preflop. If the disparity were as bad as you are making it, he'd
do much better to move all-in blind every hand!
O-PGManager
Do you disagree that a pro's edge in NL is not significantly greater than
in limit?
_________________________________________________________________
doblee
approach to worth measured by money is the intellectual arresting of
their growth resulting from their coming into money at a young age
and/or for little effort relative to final compensation. Many years
ago when in my mid twenties I decided to value my worth relative to
different qualifiers. Shaw suggested valuing one's worth based on a
measure of " awaking and looking forward to the day." Since reading
his efforts in that regard I have modified slightly and now value my
worth as "awaking and looking forward to my day (in service.)" My
worth monetarily would probably rival many posting to this group. My
worth in service, discounting monetary considerations of those
posting, would be hard to rival. I do look forward to the day and
don't have to count.
Mark Harman
keep working, long after they
have made their first billion? <<
Because enough is never enough for the ultra-wealthy. It's called greed.
Mark Harman
Rick Nebiolo
<anon...@online-pokerguide.com> wrote:
>That's some good nitpicking, but you understand my point right?
>
>Do you disagree that a pro's edge in NL is not significantly greater than
>in limit?
The size of the game matters.
Doyle has quite a bankroll but against Andy Beal in a game with huge
blinds he would feel tremendous money pressure, pressure that Andy
wouldn't feel. In other words, Andy could bust Doyle, but Doyle
couldn't bust Andy. That has to hurt Doyle's play and reduce his
edge.
Regards,
Rick
Rick Nebiolo
wrote:
I believe it has little to do with greed. Entrepreneurs who build a
great enterprise take pride in seeing it expand and continue to
prosper. This is especially true if they believe in their product, as
Gates and others such as Michael Dell seem to.
In addition, they become close to their associates. They know their
employees success depends on the success of the company they started.
So they continue to work hard even though they could take the rest of
their life off. It's called human nature.
Regards,
Rick
at the Gates level or .
>
>Mark Harman
Paul Phillips
O-PGManager <anon...@online-pokerguide.com> wrote:
>That's some good nitpicking, but you understand my point right?
>
>Do you disagree that a pro's edge in NL is not significantly greater than
>in limit?
It's hard to parse the double negative, but I think I disagree, yes,
in the context of a heads-up game. If the inferior player moves all-in
frequently, he can erase a large portion of the superior player's
advantage. There is no comparable strategy for limit poker.
Someone playing a superior player in a heads-up freezeout is very likely
to be better off playing no-limit, because when you are the inferior
player you cannot expect to make better decisions than your opponent, and
there are many more decisions in limit than in no-limit. In no-limit you
you may only have to be right (or lucky) once to emerge victorious.
Stephen D. Cohen
> * -50 BB x 20 K = $1 M. This is
> the same fraction of his wealth as a $100 loss for someone worth $3.4M.
> And someone could spend all of $3.4 M.
> He can't spend $34 B.
Simply astounding. Of course he is not worth anything like $34B
since the vast majority of it is in MS stock. What do you think will
happen to the share price as he dumps it? The last time I saw an
economist's estimate they said count on recouping about half of his
share value when he starts to sell...
Regards,
Steve "Marlin" Cohen
UDB - Unaffiliated Drunken Bastard
Stephen D. Cohen
> My only answer to this question is, if you have enough to bankroll
> yourself in a 30k 60k hold'em game, as a poker pro, why would you even
> play anymore? Or if you took home and cleared 1.5 mill from the big
> dance, and it was all yours, WTF would you play for serious money
> anymore?
Something to do day-to-day? Amazingly, some folks *enjoy*
playing poker. I know this is *completely* unthinkable, but maybe
they play because they like it?
I just wish I played well enough to make a living at it. I would
quit the day job in an instant. Alas, I seem to be the only other
RGPer that looses money on-line.
Mark Harman
grave.
>Jonathan Kaplan writes: >>why do you think the business/trader billionaires
>keep working, long after they
>have made their first billion? <<
>
>Because enough is never enough for the ultra-wealthy. It's called greed.
I believe it has little to do with greed. Entrepreneurs who build a
great enterprise take pride in seeing it expand and continue to
prosper. This is especially true if they believe in their product, as
Gates and others such as Michael Dell seem to...
But if it's not really the money, why aren't the ultra-wealthy more
philanthropic? Why do so many of them insist on taking as many pennies to the
grave as they can?
Mark Harman
James L. Hankins
"Rick Nebiolo" <ricknebiolo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gs0lnvkq9a5nki6vo...@4ax.com...
>
> The size of the game matters.
>
> Doyle has quite a bankroll but against Andy Beal in a game with huge
> blinds he would feel tremendous money pressure, pressure that Andy
> wouldn't feel. In other words, Andy could bust Doyle, but Doyle
> couldn't bust Andy. That has to hurt Doyle's play and reduce his
> edge.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rick
Yes. That's why I don't understand why Beal subjects himself to the slow
torture and drawn out death of playing these guys limit poker.
Mr. Tiny
after they have earned a fortune."
It seems to me that at the highest levels, poker is not what the players
do, it is who they are. Poker is their skill and their lives are built
around that skill. In their minds, without poker who would they be, what
would they do? Poker is the arena where their star shines the
brightest........Stan
AJ
wrote:
>Because enough is never enough for the ultra-wealthy. It's called greed.
>
>Mark Harman
Being wealthy has nothing to do with it. All humans are greedy and
want more.
AJ
<ricknebiolo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The size of the game matters.
>
>Doyle has quite a bankroll but against Andy Beal in a game with huge
>blinds he would feel tremendous money pressure, pressure that Andy
>wouldn't feel. In other words, Andy could bust Doyle, but Doyle
>couldn't bust Andy. That has to hurt Doyle's play and reduce his
>edge.
>
>Regards,
>
>Rick
But on the other hand, Doyle has heart and talent. As long as the
stakes aren't TOO big he should emerge victorious.
Rick Nebiolo
wrote:
Mark Harmon wrote:
>>Because enough is never enough for the ultra-wealthy. It's called greed.
>
Rick Nebiolo wrote:
>I believe it has little to do with greed. Entrepreneurs who build a
>great enterprise take pride in seeing it expand and continue to
>prosper. This is especially true if they believe in their product, as
>Gates and others such as Michael Dell seem to...
Mark responded:
>But if it's not really the money, why aren't the ultra-wealthy more
>philanthropic? Why do so many of them insist on taking as many pennies to the
>grave as they can?
I thought the wealthy are philanthropic. My observation is they are
and that's what I've read over the years (and I'm not one of them :)
). They also don't take money to the grave - they pass it on to their
offspring who often continue the enterpises they created.
Rick
AJ
Cohen) wrote:
> Simply astounding. Of course he is not worth anything like $34B
>since the vast majority of it is in MS stock. What do you think will
>happen to the share price as he dumps it? The last time I saw an
>economist's estimate they said count on recouping about half of his
>share value when he starts to sell...
>
>Regards,
>
>Steve "Marlin" Cohen
>UDB - Unaffiliated Drunken Bastard
I read about five years ago that Bill Gates and Paul Allen sell an
average of 1 million shares of Microsoft a day each.
Rick Nebiolo
I agree Doyle has heart and talent and the edge. But it would have to
be reduced by the huge stakes.
~ Rick
Calahan MacCool
money if they could bankroll themselves into a 30k 60k game of
hold'em? I know why compulsives and degenerates continue to play.
They could win all the chips in the world and it wouldn't be enough
for 'em.
Alot of players live the *BIG LIE*, that they are winning players and
pro's, when they are simply degenerate or compulsives who have learned
to adapt around it and hide it. Like functional alcoholics in
corporate America. They have a bankroll from an inheritance, or
residuals, well paying jobs, or trust funds or just wealthy parents
who don't care and can continue to pay the debts forever.
Keep your eyes and ears open and you'll see em. They run good for a
time and are everywhere, but then start to lose, you'll see 'em lose
100-300BB on more then one occasion, then simply dissapear for a spell
only to show back up when the annuity pays up.
Aside from the ones that escape the trap either though GA or they
simply wisen up, those are the lucky ones. Some of 'em just dissapear
forever due to suicide, or prison, or long term drug alcohol
addiction.
I've heard Doyle Brunson took a big chunk of his bankroll when he was
running good and life was fine and invested it in businesses and
corporate America. He's probably done better by it then all the
gambling He's done since.
I mean, by all means hang out at the casinos getting comp'ed, grinding
out in 20-40 or 40-80, and keeping your eyes and ears open for
Overlays.
But why put in play a bankroll that can easily coast for the rest of
your life on?
sdc...@tampabay.rr.com (Stephen D. Cohen) wrote in message news:<f6f60ac.03100...@posting.google.com>...
Garycarson1
>happen to the share price as he dumps it? The last time I saw an
>economist's estimate they said count on recouping about half of his
>share value when he starts to sell...
>
He could borrow that much against it. You're right that you couldn't get full
price for it, but he could certainly get more than half.
Dave L
While you are not up to Bill Gate's net worth (at least not that I am aware
of), I am assuming that winning or losing in a high stakes game on any given
night won't effect your standard of living one way or another. I would also
venture to hypothesize that no matter how much you win in poker, it will not
effect your lifestyle much.
In fact, i would say that you, in essence, face nothing but a negative EV in
your career. No matter how much you win, you will remain virtually
unchanged, however, you can certainly lose all your assets (if not careful),
and therefore GREATLY effect your overall quality of life.
Don't get me wrong, If I am financially established enough to retire by 31,
I will also spend quite a bit of my "retirement" playing poker. It would be
the case if I was worth $1 million or $100 million. So, I assume you play
because you actually love the game, love to play, love the action, etc. Any
money made in this venture is strictly icing on the cake.
Correct me if I am wrong. I am sure you will.
"Paul Phillips" <rgp...@improving.org> wrote in message
news:bld055$i8o$1...@spoon.improving.org...
> In article <231db32c.03093...@posting.google.com>,
> Calahan MacCool <cal...@thefianna.org> wrote:
> >My only answer to this question is, if you have enough to bankroll
> >yourself in a 30k 60k hold'em game, as a poker pro, why would you even
> >play anymore? Or if you took home and cleared 1.5 mill from the big
> >dance, and it was all yours, WTF would you play for serious money
> >anymore?
>
> Your question appears in earnest...
>
> One of the great truisms of life is that nearly everyone (especially
> when younger) hypothesizes a number that would be "enough money", but
> should they actually arrive at that point, they quickly notice that
> an even greater amount of money is actually "enough money." For most
> people "enough money" indefinitely recedes into the distance. I've
> known a lot of people that have earned large sums of money one way or
> another and not one has said "OK, done! Couldn't possibly find a use
> for any more."
>
> Another answer is that poker is fun, and for most people part of the
> fun is playing big enough for it to matter.
BlackLabel
Andy Beal irritates the hell out of me. I know it's his money and all
that stuff. But if he wants to play high stakes poker against world
class players, why doesn't he just enter a bunch of high buy in
tournaments? All the people he is playing are in a lot of these
tournaments. It would cost millions less than what he is doing and he
could donate some of the savings to worthwhile charities of his choice.
But going to Vegas and donating millions to card sharks is just
miserable and frankly morally irresponsible IMO. And he thinks he is
protecting himself playing a group of players heads up one at a time?
Does he really believe he is that good at varying his play? Not only
are they better than him to begin with, together I am sure they have
assembled the complete book on his playing tendencies.
--
BlackLabel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access RGP from Pokeritis.com, create a poker journal, and more.
http://www.pokeritis.com/forums
View this thread @ Pokeritis.com forums: http://www.pokeritis.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=22269
Dont Know My Name
>
> > Simply astounding. Of course he is not worth anything like $34B
> >since the vast majority of it is in MS stock. What do you think will
> >happen to the share price as he dumps it? The last time I saw an
> >economist's estimate they said count on recouping about half of his
> >share value when he starts to sell...
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Steve "Marlin" Cohen
"AJ" <AJ...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> I read about five years ago that Bill Gates and Paul Allen sell an
> average of 1 million shares of Microsoft a day each.
You're probably thinking of back in 1999 when Allen was planning
on leaving Microsoft. He left in 2000.
Gates has sold about 200,000,000 shares in the past 2 years.
AJ
<ricknebiolo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I agree Doyle has heart and talent and the edge. But it would have to
>be reduced by the huge stakes.
>
>~ Rick
It is reduced by the huge stakes. Hence, the corporation.
AJ
wrote:
>My question is: Why would a poker -*"PRO"*- continue to play serious
>money if they could bankroll themselves into a 30k 60k game of
>hold'em?
Or you could ask: why would a poker "PRO" continue to play serious
money if they could bankroll themselves into a 100-200 game of hold
'em?
Why not stay at 10-20?