[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
i think that most pros think in terms of bankroll=net worth. i know that i lump it all together. there are a few very disciplined types that seperate the two, but that isn't the usual story. also, i think that most gamblers lump unpaid debts into the 'asset' category when determining their net worth, when in fact many of these debts should be listed at a big discount. lending money is just such a bad idea. --ba

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the book Micheal Craig wrote about the series of games the pros played against Andy Beal, most of the top pros take money from their bankrolls and move it into investments and no longer consider it poker money. It is a bad day for any of these players when they have to convert any of this money back to their bankrolls.

Since I have no idea how any of these folks do on their investments, and how disciplined they are at investing their winnings and how much they may make on endorsements or ventures such as Supersytems one and two (in the case of Dolye), I have no idea how many truly rich players there may be.

Having said that, if it were just based on poker winnings, I doubt there would be any 10 million dollar men in poker, and even with these outside sources of income would be surprised if there are more than a handfull of 10 million dollar men. And I'm skeptical there are any 20 million dollar men. (With just maybe the possible exception of Doyle, whose had the longevity that he may have had real estate investments or stock investments appreciating for decades, and may, for all I know, have made multiple millions off of his books).

Remember, within the past couple of years, a consortium of players did not find it a breeze to put together the bankroll to play Andy Beal. If all of these players were worth 10 million plus, it should've been easy for them to find the liquidity to pool together the right bankroll.