daniel n busto? - Page 6

rageotones · #51 12-22-2006, 09:11 PM

what the f is the deal with the golf. it's like he's risking a good amount at the worst ev possible. it blows my mind how he can be losing this much money.

grdred944 · #52 12-23-2006, 10:28 AM

Thanks for the link. I always knew his investing in Poker Vitamins would come back to burn him.

David Sklansky · #53 12-23-2006, 12:47 PM

Most of the super high stakes players will eventually go broke, especially if endorsement opportunities fall off.
The reasons are:

1. They overestimate their win rate. They don't realize how much Andy Beal and a few others contribute to it and they don't realize how tiny or non existent it is when they are playing in games without someone like that.

2. They don't know how to calculate required bankroll for a given set of win rates and standard deviations. For the games they play in they need ten million easy.

3. They can't drop down. The idea of playing all day to win $20,000 is almost impossible for them to deal with. And when they are forced to drop down they play too loose against the very tough competitors that they falsely think they can easily outplay. I have personally seen this downward spiral many times.

But there are exceptions and Daniel may be one of them.

tdp · #54 12-23-2006, 01:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt he's busto. If he has a $10 million bankroll, losing $1 million is very significant and it would be hard for anyone to handle losing that kind of money. It's not on the same level as losing $100 out of a $1000 bankroll, or even $10,000 from $100K.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you being serious?10% is just 10%,nothing more nothing less.A 10% bankroll swing is no big deal.

DLizzle · #55 12-23-2006, 01:35 PM

he is short on cash. this is not a big deal.

dankhank · #56 12-23-2006, 02:27 PM

i heard that the house danny was living in and filming spots at over the summer, is owned by jen harman, not him.

seemed strange for a guy with millions to not invest in his own place.

Men the Master · #57 12-23-2006, 02:27 PM

Actually, the explanation for why the super high stakes players eventually go brok is psychological/emotional/personality-based, not lack of knowledge. It just so happens that people who get to the very high stakes are "adventurers" not "plodders". Type A types that even if they know that they shouldn't be playing a certain stakes level with less than 300 to 500 big bets, do so anyway. They can't help it. It's in their psychological/emotional makeup. They'll know their real win rates and standard deviations but they'll go for broke anyway. It's "in their blood".

I don't agree with you that Daniel N. is an exception. A leopard cannot change his spots. He'll wind up like Eskimo.

DesertCat · #58 12-23-2006, 02:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i heard that the house danny was living in and filming spots at over the summer, is owned by jen harman, not him.

seemed strange for a guy with millions to not invest in his own place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, seems so stupid not to invest in the Las Vegas Real Estate Market!

llayner · #59 12-23-2006, 11:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Today's "Stu Ungars" have a problem staying broke - too much "other" money (promotions) enables those "go offs" to stay in action.

What about: Phil - Gus - Ted - Mike M. - same "ship" as Daniel - borrow from each other - then find someway to give the $$$$$ away. (there are others involved in that loaning pool)

If those are your "hero's", one does not comprehend the fact the game is measured by accumulating dollars, not blowing dollars.

Five Hundred Thousand could be one round of golf in the correct circumstances.

KATHY [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
In pretty much every instance that you used quotes in this post, they were unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

i "concur"

David Sklansky · #60 12-23-2006, 11:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the explanation for why the super high stakes players eventually go brok is psychological/emotional/personality-based, not lack of knowledge. It just so happens that people who get to the very high stakes are "adventurers" not "plodders". Type A types that even if they know that they shouldn't be playing a certain stakes level with less than 300 to 500 big bets, do so anyway. They can't help it. It's in their psychological/emotional makeup. They'll know their real win rates and standard deviations but they'll go for broke anyway. It's "in their blood".

I don't agree with you that Daniel N. is an exception. A leopard cannot change his spots. He'll wind up like Eskimo.

[/ QUOTE ]

They might have those other flaws as well but I stand by my statement. In fact you are making the sme mistake they are, because 500 bets is only sufficient if their hourly standard deviation is no more than 17 times their hourly win rate. In fact its more like 50.