$3 Million Downsizing.............

[baronzeus]

hey busted romo, do you think any of the big winners in poker have gotte anywhere without risk? you gotta be willing to lose a good portion of your bankroll even if you're properly rolled

[ne14dirt]

Bustedromo, In reading your posts I get the feeling that you think BT may be busto by years end.

Would you be willing to take action on BT playing the highest stakes the internet has to offer? I was thinking an over under on busto or maybe just an over? This would give you an ample opportunity to put your vast knowledge base to a real test and I'm sure you would get plenty of action, myself included.

[El Diablo]

R,

"Personally i am very thankful for a high-stakes player like SBRugby to have a blog online that takes us for the amazing ride that is his life."

"He doesn't HAVE TO do this"

I agree that it's pretty sweet to be able to read an insider take on these insanely big games and swings. But while Brian doesn't HAVE to do that, it's not exactly just for the enjoyment of his fans and railbirds. He's a partner in CardRunners.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
Also...taxes, you actually think these online idiots are paying taxes? Tell me...what exactly would they chalk that up under?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, it's called income. Not to mention a foreign bank account in excess of $10k that is required to be reported.

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you're wrong. Brian may not be a math whiz but he knows useful rules of thumb for bankroll requirements in NL/PL games.

More importantly he has given every indication that he is willing to step down when his bankroll gets hit too big. He is aware that in bankroll terms he was taking a shot at 1k/2k.

Finally, there is a flaw in your model which is that even if Brian were willing to play to the point of busto rather than step down, he can not endlessly increase his stakes until probability catches up with him.

1k/2k is the end of the road... it has never gotten any higher. Even under your unfavorable assumptions about his risk taking, if he can get safely bankrolled for 1k/2k he will be home free.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying you need to be a math whiz. I'm saying you have to consistently approach the game from the standpoint of managing risk of ruin, no matter how good you get, and no matter what stakes you play at.

What I see in BT and some other guys is an over-emphasis on how well they play, and an under-emphasis on variance that is natural part of the game no matter how good you are.

I would say a lot of this comes down to how big you think BT's roll is. To play long-term the way he's been playing with a low (<5%) probability of busto, I'd say he needs a roll of about $100M. I don't think he has anywhere near that much.

A lot of what drives this is an awareness that it can happen. BT's never gone busto. Most great players have, one or more times.

Players like DN had the luxury of learning their craft before the inet, before everything was so accelerated. They had their busto experiences while earning their livings as mid-limits live pros. Their rolls were more like $50K or something.

It's a lesson you have to learn by actually having it happen to you.

The problem with BT and those like him is that they've been on a one-way rocket train to the top. When they invariably go busto, it very likely might be too hard to re-assess, start small, and come back. And no, I don't consider being continually staked to be a true comeback.

[EmpireMaker2]

This has prolly been posted but Townsend is the next ungar according to retard.com

http://www.pocketfives.com/8A37DAC0-...6BE7DD5EE.aspx

[innerpeace]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you also have degrees in psychology?


[/ QUOTE ]

david's 'everyone's going to go broke' argument has both a math component and a psychological component. the math component accounts for concepts like a player's edge, variance, risk of ruin, etc.

the psychological component accounts for a player's inability to successfully move down in stakes. this inability could be due to ego causing him to stay in his current game or it could be due to a player playing worse when they move down since the game appears too boring or because they are too focused on quickly rebuilding a stake to play the bigger game.

with the popularity of poker, there is a considerable amount of hero worship and a fair degree of openness regarding results since many people are railbirding and datamining the big online games. so today's young star probably feels even more pressure to continue at current stakes.

also, a player's edge in a given game is constantly changing, especially in the bigger games. opponents are constantly adapting, and factors like psychological mettle and tilt control matter much more. at higher stakes, it can really disastrous if you are off your game at the wrong time, even for a brief moment.

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It should be very clear to anyone who has studied the math of bankroll management, risk-of-ruin, and variance that Townsend is well on his way to being effectively busto.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just string together these buzzwords randomly or do you have any idea what they actually mean? Your whole post makes no sense at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have degrees from UCB in engineering, math, and computer science. I've been a professional financial trader for over 10 years. I've studied these concepts extensively, so to answer your question, yes, I think I know what I'm talking about.

Variance is a measure of fluctuation from the mean in a stochastic process. If a player, even a winning player, does not well-manage his variance as he increases his $ velocity (the amount of money wagered per unit of time), the normal expectation is that he will at some point lose his entire roll.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's all well and good, but it requires you to know a bunch of stuff about BT, about his roll, about his edge in the games that you really don't. This thread exists under the assumption that he dosn't manage his variance well, but beyond OMG 3 MILLION IS A BIG NUMBER we don't really have any evidence of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

dids you are not understanding his point and make yourself look stupid by discarding them like you do

Romo's argument is that when the increase in Brian's swings is growing faster than his increase in winrate, no matter how big Brian's current poker bankroll is, he will go busto

whether those assumptions hold up (that Brian's swings will continue to grow) is another issue

[Dids]

I understand his point fine. What he ignores is that BT can do stuff like "stop playing" and "drop down" before variance bustos his roll away.

[Riina]

[ QUOTE ]
R,

"Personally i am very thankful for a high-stakes player like SBRugby to have a blog online that takes us for the amazing ride that is his life."

"He doesn't HAVE TO do this"

I agree that it's pretty sweet to be able to read an insider take on these insanely big games and swings. But while Brian doesn't HAVE to do that, it's not exactly just for the enjoyment of his fans and railbirds. He's a partner in CardRunners.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure, but i think when cardrunners approached him he could have opted to just make the vids and not do a blog. A bit like when sportclubs attract a big player and give him privileges because of his value to the club and more importantly the expected monetary return in the form of endorsements, visitors and such.

Furthermore, like i stated a big part of the appeal of his blog for me is the fact that he seems sincere in his thoughts and tries to give full disclosure of his pokerlife. I respect and like that a lot. Even if he was obligated to do a blog he could probably just bungle the job. Yet, he appears to go beyond the call of duty, and make it as insightful as it is now imo. For those taking that extra mile i can only think alternative motives are in play than merely serving out the contract. Of course these are my thoughts, not my claims...