daniel n busto?

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the super high stakes players will eventually go broke, especially if endorsement opportunities fall off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it overstatement to say that "most" of the super high stakes players will eventually go broke? Even given everything you say is true with regard to insufficient bankroll about the EV/SD ratio at that level, seems that "most" can't be right unless there are obvious super sharks at the highest level as well sucking up significantly more than their share.

Is that the case, or is "most" an exaggeration for ~40%?

[SA125]

If he plays the way same in the high stakes live cash games as he does in HSP, how could he not go broke? The man refuses to fold. On TV he's an ATM.

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
If he plays the way same in the high stakes live cash games as he does in HSP, how could he not go broke? The man refuses to fold. On TV he's an ATM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's just nasty...

[grdred944]

[ QUOTE ]
He'll wind up like Eskimo.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kathy]

Here is a quote from a Doyle interview - for all those with "stardust" in their eyes.

BRUNSON: Once you lose your reputation in this business, that's it. It's over. When I was coming up through the ranks, not that many people carried a lot money of money on them. This was before checks and credit cards. Sometimes, all you had was your word. So, we gambled with each other based on trust. Now, in the upper echelon of gambling and poker, we deal in such big figures that you can't actually talk to people anymore about this, because they all think you're lying. No one believes the big figures we exchange, and the trust we have amongst ourselves. For instance, last month we were playing in a big poker game and -- I'm not going to use the guy's name -- he loaned this other guy in the game a million dollars. Finally, the game broke up and he turned and said to me, "Hey, I loaned that guy a million bucks -- and I don't even know his last name!" I told him, as far as I know, he's never done a thing wrong about money. So, you gotta' give him credit. But, he didn't even know the guy's last name! And, we all laughed about it. Of course, the guy made good on the loan. That's what I'm talking about -- that real gamblers can be trusted when they give their word.



KATHY

[monkeymaps]

I think alot of these HSP players play more for the prestige than anything else. I dont think any of these pros realy have any huge edges over each other so their win rates if the are even positive in the long run can't be very high. If these players played slightly lower stakes games they could prob beat them and win just as much if not more money with less risk. I think they play for the Prestige or whatever you want to call it.

I've seen Phil Laak On HSP but have also seen him playing 10/20 or 25/50 NL in LA rooms plenty of times since then he just looks for profitable games not just looking for the biggest games I think this is the better long term approach.

[ICallHimGamblor]

[ QUOTE ]

Here is a quote from a Doyle interview - for all those with "stardust" in their eyes.

BRUNSON: Once you lose your reputation in this business, that's it. It's over. When I was coming up through the ranks, not that many people carried a lot money of money on them. This was before checks and credit cards. Sometimes, all you had was your word. So, we gambled with each other based on trust. Now, in the upper echelon of gambling and poker, we deal in such big figures that you can't actually talk to people anymore about this, because they all think you're lying. No one believes the big figures we exchange, and the trust we have amongst ourselves. For instance, last month we were playing in a big poker game and -- I'm not going to use the guy's name -- he loaned this other guy in the game a million dollars. Finally, the game broke up and he turned and said to me, "Hey, I loaned that guy a million bucks -- and I don't even know his last name!" I told him, as far as I know, he's never done a thing wrong about money. So, you gotta' give him credit. But, he didn't even know the guy's last name! And, we all laughed about it. Of course, the guy made good on the loan. That's what I'm talking about -- that real gamblers can be trusted when they give their word.



KATHY

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this now the third of fourth different thread where you have posted this exact same thing?

[apak]

Forgive my naivete, but I'm genuinely puzzled. I'd rather assumed that the world's best poker players would have a mastery of the mathematics of the game -- that they'd know the odds, understand where game theory can give good approximations to optimal strategy, and so on. If you don't get these things right, I'd assume, you get stomped on in the long run by people who have about as much intuitive talent as you and *do* get them right.
Bankroll management and game selection seems like one of the simpler aspects of poker mathematics. Can it really be true that the top pros either don't understand these things or understand them but ignore them?

Also, if even the world's best poker players struggle to keep up a bankroll of $10 million or so, why would anyone want to pursue poker as a career? Obviously we all tend to overestimate our abilities, but on any dispassionate appraisal the odds of becoming one of the world top 20 (say) are huge, the pitfalls are legendary, and it sounds as if the rewards aren't even that spectacular.

Am I missing something?

[grdred944]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. I believe most of these guys talk a good game when it comes to bankroll management but do a lousy job at managing their own. I don't know Danny's finances so I am not pretending to know if he is like this but it does seem as if his non-poker gambling has gotten him stuck here.

Someone posted his 2006 poker record and if you believe it (and why not?) then you have to think he had a good year -- certainly one most of us would envy. So why is he hurting? Either he is very disciplined and took too much money off the table and didn't replenish his bankroll or he pissed it away with his props and his golf. Easily, 80% of the pros I know do not take too much off of the table (they take too little) so I would venture a guess and say that he was not disciplined in his non-poker gambling and is really stuck.

Two things I find odd about this. He just took up golf recently and is mixing it up with the likes of Tomko and Brunson? Wow, I thought I was sick but that is like asking to be seriously punished.

Second, he seems to be really sensitive about his reputation as a world class all-around great player. At what point does he swallow his pride and step down to a limit in poker that matches his bankroll? Poker made him what he is so he's going to have to come back and play sometime.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the super high stakes players will eventually go broke, especially if endorsement opportunities fall off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it overstatement to say that "most" of the super high stakes players will eventually go broke? Even given everything you say is true with regard to insufficient bankroll about the EV/SD ratio at that level, seems that "most" can't be right unless there are obvious super sharks at the highest level as well sucking up significantly more than their share.

Is that the case, or is "most" an exaggeration for ~40%?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't follow this "logic" at all. Don't understand why players can push a great deal of money around at small edges and not go broke. Why does this necessitate super sharks sucking up more than their share? Why couldn't players borrow money and/or have new players take their place and/or have more players playing higher? Explain further please.