|
|
#81
08-21-2007, 12:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
[ QUOTE ]
You misunderstood me, I take it for granted that every poker player who talks about "bankroll" has a separate poker bankroll. Otherwise, you're obviously displaying horrible BR management. I take it that is what Bakes meant as well (poker bankroll), otherwise I would obviously understand being scared to play with life bankroll...which is just stupid. Edit: horrible BR management or just getting into poker/playing microstakes, but I feel that is beyond what we're discussing here. [/ QUOTE ] Makes sense to me. I think it's obv that what some folks see as a reasonable % of total funds to use as a poker bankroll can differ. I probably don't actually practice *great* BR management, in the sense that on the couple occasions I have gone busto, I know I can just deposit another $200 with no sweat, that's like 2/3 a day's pay at my day job, and the one nice score I had, back in late 2005, once I withdrew that, I can deposit a few times and still be lifetime up online. But, whether it's from working in the legal field (which is, generally speaking, full of financially risk-averse folk, despite the handful of prominent types who are not), or from seeing the economy really about to go [censored] up for a while, I don't mind hoarding cash, either. Oddly enough, I have no problem ponying up $70-150 for a buyin for live tournaments, I just prefer not to online, since my ROI has been a lot better live, albeit in a tiny sample size. Anyway, I'll quit posting, since this really is unrelated. But I think we're on the same wavelength. Cheers. 
|
|
#82
08-21-2007, 01:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
[ QUOTE ]
I think he's trying to say that some mediocre players, who could possibly be -ev in big live events could very easily hit a huge score in wsop, wpt, etc. and already owe tons of makeup so bax/sheets get to keep the majority of the winnings. [/ QUOTE ] lol, you realize that they already paid the majority of the winnings in previous buy ins right?
|
|
#84
08-21-2007, 01:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
[ QUOTE ]
I think he's trying to say that some mediocre players, who could possibly be -ev in big live events could very easily hit a huge score in wsop, wpt, etc. and already owe tons of makeup so bax/sheets get to keep the majority of the winnings. [/ QUOTE ] Ah, I don't think I understand this makeup thing. Are you saying the backer would keep a running tab, which the horse would have to pay off in full if they win enough to do so? -Z
|
|
#85
08-21-2007, 01:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think he's trying to say that some mediocre players, who could possibly be -ev in big live events could very easily hit a huge score in wsop, wpt, etc. and already owe tons of makeup so bax/sheets get to keep the majority of the winnings. [/ QUOTE ] lol, you realize that they already paid the majority of the winnings in previous buy ins right? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I know that. But lets say that a horse runs up 50k in makeup and then hits a 100k score. The stakers get to keep 75k of it. Even though 50 of it was already invested by them, it's certainly nice to get it all back at once.
|
|
#86
08-21-2007, 01:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think he's trying to say that some mediocre players, who could possibly be -ev in big live events could very easily hit a huge score in wsop, wpt, etc. and already owe tons of makeup so bax/sheets get to keep the majority of the winnings. [/ QUOTE ] lol, you realize that they already paid the majority of the winnings in previous buy ins right? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I know that. But lets say that a horse runs up 50k in makeup and then hits a 100k score. The stakers get to keep 75k of it. Even though 50 of it was already invested by them, it's certainly nice to get it all back at once. [/ QUOTE ] lol? it would be much better to have the player breakeven for whatever period and then get a 25k out of nowhere. especially since there is opportunity cost in "getting it all at once"
|
|
#87
08-21-2007, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
I would think if a horse was 50k down in makeup, without any ROI to that point, that's one horse that should be headed to the glue factory. Even at a $500 buy-in, that's 100 tournaments. Unless you're talking five $10k buy-ins, that's a lot of tournaments to back without seeing any chance at being an eventual successful investment.
|
|
#88
08-21-2007, 01:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
[ QUOTE ]
I would think if a horse was 50k down in makeup, without any ROI to that point, that's one horse that should be headed to the glue factory. Even at a $500 buy-in, that's 100 tournaments. Unless you're talking five $10k buy-ins, that's a lot of tournaments to back without seeing any chance at being an eventual successful investment. [/ QUOTE ] nm
|
|
#89
08-21-2007, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
[ QUOTE ]
matt, convince me that Fischmann is honestly +ev... ready set go [/ QUOTE ] not sure how I could do that for you, but he does have 2 million in lifetime live major winnings. at the same time he is up 131k in Stars MTTs, up 17k in tilt MTTs, up 13k in UB MTTs. all i can really go by
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
