Beal no fool

[clabbers]

I must object to Schoonmaker calling Andy Beal a fool, particularly in the context of an artical that describes the benefits other than profit a person derives from poker. Beal enjoyed the rare opportunity to beat the best at their own game. His financial losses from not doing this every time were barely noticable within his vast assets. The mindset which results in great players will almost always try to climb limits too quickly, but the great players find a way. If you think he's a fool, YOU play him heads up! While Beal may be unsure he wishes to return to the table, I'm quite sure he treasures the experiences he has had so far.

[Grasshopp3r]

Beal would be well positioned to buy Party, should there be a reversal of the UIGEA. He already has significant exposure in the gaming business.

[Hoi Polloi]

I agree.

I respect Dr. Al and his assessment of Beal may well be the consensus among the LV poker community. However, he simply cannot cite Craig's book as backing up that assessment. At a minimum, it is quite clear based on Craig's reporting that Beal was able to get the pro's out of their comfort zone in the 100k/200k game. Furthermore, based on Craig's account, Beal owned all but 4 of the pros: Lederer, Harmon, T. Brunson and, to a lesser degree, Forrest.

[King Yao]

It's all relative. If Beal lost 10s of millions, how much was that really to him? I don't know what he is worth, but if he is worth 1 billion, then 10s of millions is no big deal especially if he values the experience that much. That's like me losing a couple hundred dollars goofing around with some friends at the roulette table. The money means absolutely nothing, but it was fun to screw around for a few mintues.

[jfk]

Bearing in mind that I've a) not read the book nor b) followed the match(es) very closely, I would assume that anyone playing against a collection of top players who had the advantage of post game group postmortems and strategy discussions would be at a significant disadvantage.

Is this a fair characterization of the structure of the matches and nature of the opposition?

[King Yao]

[ QUOTE ]
Bearing in mind that I've a) not read the book nor b) followed the match(es) very closely, I would assume that anyone playing against a collection of top players who had the advantage of post game group postmortems and strategy discussions would be at a significant disadvantage.

Is this a fair characterization of the structure of the matches and nature of the opposition?

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be a fair characterization. Let's assume it is. I don't think that changes anything. Positive EU (expected utility) can trump negative EV, especially if the amount of the negative EV is negligible to the person...which maybe tens of millions is negligible to Beal. I'm happy paying the $30 to eat at the Bellagio buffet even though I can get the same nutrition from a $10 meal elsewhere. That's negative EV, but positive EU.

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
It might be a fair characterization. Let's assume it is. I don't think that changes anything. Positive EU (expected utility) can trump negative EV, especially if the amount of the negative EV is negligible to the person...which maybe tens of millions is negligible to Beal. I'm happy paying the $30 to eat at the Bellagio buffet even though I can get the same nutrition from a $10 meal elsewhere. That's negative EV, but positive EU.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand and agree that money was not likely to be a significant consideration to Beal. A loss of tens of millions (if that's accurate) would figure to be negligible as compared to his two billion dollar net worth.

However, Beal is said to be extraordinarily competitive. From an EU perspective, it is easy to imagine that losing in any form takes a toll on his psyche. As such, from a fairness standpoint it would seem that the playing arrangement struck was of a nature that it would be unlikely for any player in Beal's position to have come out on top.

A single player going against a collection of fresh and conspiring (this is not meant in a pejorative sense) minds seems a major disadvantage. Several pros who can put their full energies into discussing insights, tendencies, betting patterns, tells, etc. on a regular basis versus a player on his own who is also responsible for running a very large and complex business seems to be an unbalanced contest.

The loss rather than the money would represent the EU hit. Perhaps a more straightforward heads up arrangement could've given Beal a better opportunity to compete and perhaps truly maximize that EU with a win or draw.

I hope its clear that I'm not trying to bolster the case for the "Beal is a fool" camp. I am interested in the edge a typical, single top end pro might (or might not) have on a dedicated, bright enthusiast like Beal and wonder how much the playing arrangement led to the result.

That being said, I've not read the book, which may push some of these assumption off track.

[King Yao]

jfk - I understand what you mean. Many people wouldn't have chosen the path he did, even if they had his money, I know I wouldn't.

[Shandrax]

If Beal played them to win money he was obviously a fool unless he knew something new about HU strategy. I think it can be taken for granted that he did some serious scientific research on the subject prior to the match.

[JLimbs]

I think its obvious that the money isn't the issue, Beal is worth enough to where the stakes he is playing for are negligable. The fact is he is a competitive man who is matching witts with the best poker minds out there. After reading the book and talking to a few people that were moderately involved in the process I would like to point out that he is holding his own.

I can't remember the exact quote, but some of the pros were remarking that at this point Beal is a very competitive heads up limit poker player. He has put all of his time and effort into mastering this one niche of poker play and has become an expert in his own right.

I think the man deserves praise, to come as far as he has as fast as he has is quite an accomplishment. You can ask anyone that knows him, he is no fish.

-Jerry