Daniel Negreanu's Latest Cardplayer Article

[davidlong14]

Manichean fallacy.

[Taylor Caby]

i do agree there may be good reasons for some to take big risks of going broke.

three years ago when these players were all nobodies many did take big risks, relative to their br, by playing all the 10k events and big live games. the ones that found success now enjoy great endorsement deals and even if they had gone broke back in the day they would have just found some more backers.

this doesn't apply as much anymore, but it still sort of does. if some college kid grinds out a million online and heads straight to bobby's room, he either goes back to college broke like everyone else or he becomes a poker legend. the latter would likely afford him a few million (set for life if invested properly), endorsement deals, buyins to tourneys, and a lifetime of stakes should he ever go broke.

tc

[cwar]

Where is this article? I cant find it online is it released in the actual magazine?

[Victor]

"hree years ago when these players were all nobodies many did take big risks, relative to their br, by playing all the 10k events and big live games. the ones that found success now enjoy great endorsement deals"

taylor, i dont think this is a good argument that the risks these guys took were reasonable simply bc no one had any idea that poker was gonna blow up and make big tourney winners celebrities.

and really, if they suspected poker would achieve mainstream popularity, there were far better poker related investements for the money.

[Taylor Caby]

[ QUOTE ]
"hree years ago when these players were all nobodies many did take big risks, relative to their br, by playing all the 10k events and big live games. the ones that found success now enjoy great endorsement deals"

taylor, i dont think this is a good argument that the risks these guys took were reasonable simply bc no one had any idea that poker was gonna blow up and make big tourney winners celebrities.

and really, if they suspected poker would achieve mainstream popularity, there were far better poker related investements for the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

no one knew about it in 2003 when moneymaker won, but after this it was pretty widely known that winning a WPT event or getting far in the main event would lead to endorsements and fame. there was a two year period where basically any "pro" who won anything could expect to see a ton of cash and possibly an endorsement deal for doing anything noteworthy in poker.

i agree about the business aspect. however, most people that were drawn to the poker lifestyle (before the boom) are not the types of people that have the forsight to realize this and/or have what it takes to succeed in business. the smart ones simply bought a piece of companies but most didn't even do that.

tc

[Burdzthewurd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"hree years ago when these players were all nobodies many did take big risks, relative to their br, by playing all the 10k events and big live games. the ones that found success now enjoy great endorsement deals"

taylor, i dont think this is a good argument that the risks these guys took were reasonable simply bc no one had any idea that poker was gonna blow up and make big tourney winners celebrities.

and really, if they suspected poker would achieve mainstream popularity, there were far better poker related investements for the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

no one knew about it in 2003 when moneymaker won, but after this it was pretty widely known that winning a WPT event or getting far in the main event would lead to endorsements and fame. there was a two year period where basically any "pro" who won anything could expect to see a ton of cash and possibly an endorsement deal for doing anything noteworthy in poker.

i agree about the business aspect. however, most people that were drawn to the poker lifestyle (before the boom) are not the types of people that have the forsight to realize this and/or have what it takes to succeed in business. the smart ones simply bought a piece of companies but most didn't even do that.

tc

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really the case? I didn't think anyone aside from Martin Dejkniff or Gus Hansen got any kind of endorsement deals from poker sites for winning WPT titles (as most of the ones won by pros were already signed on to FT/Stars).

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"hree years ago when these players were all nobodies many did take big risks, relative to their br, by playing all the 10k events and big live games. the ones that found success now enjoy great endorsement deals"

taylor, i dont think this is a good argument that the risks these guys took were reasonable simply bc no one had any idea that poker was gonna blow up and make big tourney winners celebrities.

and really, if they suspected poker would achieve mainstream popularity, there were far better poker related investements for the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

no one knew about it in 2003 when moneymaker won, but after this it was pretty widely known that winning a WPT event or getting far in the main event would lead to endorsements and fame. there was a two year period where basically any "pro" who won anything could expect to see a ton of cash and possibly an endorsement deal for doing anything noteworthy in poker.

i agree about the business aspect. however, most people that were drawn to the poker lifestyle (before the boom) are not the types of people that have the forsight to realize this and/or have what it takes to succeed in business. the smart ones simply bought a piece of companies but most didn't even do that.

tc

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, moneymaker was 4 years ago. i didnt realize but ya, your points are very valid. gawd it feels like yesterday.

[bustedromo]

Here's what's interesting to me:

(a) high # of opps with moderate +EV, each of which require small % of capital

vs

(b) small # of opps with very high +EV, each of which require very large % of capital

In poker, by "opps" I mean a session at a specific table, not hands. (b) would obviously require a lot less time than (a) to make the same income.

There are lots of example of (a) and (b) in trading. There are big name traders who don't have a problem committing 1000% (10x) leverage of their risk capital on a single (b) trade.

I don't think there is a (b) poker scenario. Those type of heavily skewed dist curves don't exist in poker.

An example I don't really believe would pan out is the following:

Take a very good 10/20 grinder whose bread-and-butter is games where bad players show up occassionally, lose a buy-in or two and walk. He sees a 100/200 game with a whale capable of donating millions who shows no problem losing buyin after buyin. He's extremely confident he can play avoidance with the pros at the table and take his share of blubber. His roll is 200K, and he's used to 2K buyins = 1% BR.

Should he step-up to 20K buyins = 10% BR ? Is the answer any different if he has a rule that he quits the table if he loses 1 buyin ? 2 buyins ?

[David Sklansky]

My position is that if you think there is any reasonable chance that you can average more money per hour in a higher game, once you got some experience in it, then you should play in that higher game for a while as long as you don't risk the money that you would need to have a proper cushion in your smaller bread and butter game. And as long as you don't lose a ridiculous amount in the bigger game.

I also believe that these shots should not be taken if it is almost certain that the bigger game would not lead to significantly bigger earnings.

In Daniel's column, the nit refused to move up from 5-10 NL to 10-20 NL. That was what I meant by a sad case.

Personally I play 300-600 mixed games for the most part.

The bottom line is this:

If you can make one big bet an hour and your hourly standard deviation is ten big bets, you really need a 500 big bet bankroll. But that required bankroll is proportional to your standard deviation and inversely proportional to your hourly rate. So if you double your stakes but figure to earn only the same amount, you need four times as much money.

[jeff329]

[ QUOTE ]
My position is that if you think there is any reasonable chance that you can average more money per hour in a higher game, once you got some experience in it, then you should play in that higher game for a while as long as you don't risk the money that you would need to have a proper cushion in your smaller bread and butter game. And as long as you don't lose a ridiculous amount in the bigger game.

I also believe that these shots should not be taken if it is almost certain that the bigger game would not lead to significantly bigger earnings.

In Daniel's column, the nit refused to move up from 5-10 NL to 10-20 NL. That was what I meant by a sad case.

Personally I play 300-600 mixed games for the most part.

The bottom line is this:

If you can make one big bet an hour and your hourly standard deviation is ten big bets, you really need a 500 big bet bankroll. But that required bankroll is proportional to your standard deviation and inversely proportional to your hourly rate. So if you double your stakes but figure to earn only the same amount, you need four times as much money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only agree if you believe moving up would mean FAR bigger earnings, but I don't understand how you and others don't see "stress" as a factor to be taken into account if this is what you do. I mean if moving up a big jump in stakes means tougher games, but you know for sure it will mean a 10% increase in overall earnings, it still is not that desirable, as you must ask is a 10% raise worth the stress of swings that are now 100k when they were 20k. It is a factor.