Daniel Negreanu's very own containment thread. All things Danny go here
how bad must he be when a girl falls asleep while making out and snores right after?
life fish..... food arrived but didn
Wonder what the motivation for that analysis is. It certainly isnt good for poker, and anyone who knows anything about variance already realized this was the case.
Maybe to take some air out of the high roller nonsense? Are high rollers actually good for poker? I don't know..
Maybe to take some air out of the high roller nonsense? Are high rollers actually good for poker? I don't know..
High rollers are just one giant circle jerk of a small fraction of the poker population who are staked by incredibly wealthy people while having little to no entertainment value to "the masses" to make for interesting viewing that would bring more players into the game.
Pretty much everyone in high rollers is staked or selling shares, except for the few rich fish. Negreanu of course being stakes by GG. Some of them sell shares to each other. The variance is much greater than for big cash games, so everyone has to be staked. There is prestige in being good enough to play that high and not get clobbered and have people willing to stake you. I am sure there are some people who are beating them.
The people playing them are mostly not playing with their own money, and may make a living playing lower tournament or cash games.
It is also easier to get staked for tournaments where your results are known, so you can sell shares or whatever. People playing big cash games (mostly mixed games or PLO) are probably mostly playing with their own money.
In poker, amateurs subsidize the pros, so of course some people make money. Obviously, there are lots of fish in mid stakes games, cash or tournament.
As far as Negreanu, he doesn't even seem to play that much. He gets a big salary from GG, so he doesn't bother to try that much to make money from poker. I can see that really annoys some people ITT.
Turns out, basically everyone is a loser at high rollers
Shocked this isn't it's own thread in here. in 2010 it would be 200 pages by now
How could basically everyone be a loser at super high rollers? The rake is low and there are a few rich amateurs playing them.
The rake and service fees charged by Triton combined are 6%, according to internet search result. I believe that PokerGo tournaments are unraked, but may be wrong. Either way, it's hard to envision how most high roller players are way in the negative for ROI given the very small fees. Travel expenses are another matter entirely, but obviously aren't relevant to the discussion of tourney ROIs.
How could basically everyone be a loser at super high rollers? The rake is low and there are a few rich amateurs playing them.
Well first, not everyone is a loser.
Second, a lot of the guys on the losers side have played a lot of events. Just think about it this way - if the rake is 6% as someone said, that means every 17 events, you are contributing your entire buyin as a loss to the casino. So, you have 16 events to earn prize money exceed 17 buyins, meaning your expectation needs to be about 1.06. Oh, and although there's some amateurs, the majority of the field is the best players in the world.
Like with anything in a casino...your best chance of leaving a winner is probably hitting big and walking away. The longer you stay, the more chance you end up a loser.
How could basically everyone be a loser at super high rollers? The rake is low and there are a few rich amateurs playing them.
You gotta actually click and look at it before saying stuff like that. There were quite a few winners, but some of the losers were surprising. Ike being -$7.8m was not expected. I was under the impression he's very sharp with EV and stuff, but he's been a consistent loser over the years at Triton if you look at his graph there, even with $40m in earnings.
How could basically everyone be a loser at super high rollers? The rake is low and there are a few rich amateurs playing them.
There aren't that many rich amateurs playing and these days it's not like they're Guy Liberte types just straight up torching. They're obviously dogs but even if a few guys have a - 50 percent ROI (which is probably way high) it's not that much to go around.
They're a giant circle jerk ego fest. Of course a few guys may have a small edge and a few people will randomly run super hot. We'll never get a big enough sample size in these things to know true win rates but even for those with an edge it's not big.
From a purely ev standpoint there are way better ways to make money in poker and with way less variance. But they want the prestige and they're mostly playing on other people's money.
There aren't that many rich amateurs playing and these days it's not like they're Guy Liberte types just straight up torching. They're obviously dogs but even if a few guys have a - 50 percent ROI (which is probably way high) it's not that much to go around.They're a giant circle jerk ego fest. Of course a few guys may have a small edge and a few people will randomly run super
Santosh Suvarna? The Chinese businessmen? Matt Kirk?
You gotta actually click and look at it before saying stuff like that. There were quite a few winners, but some of the losers were surprising. Ike being -$7.8m was not expected. I was under the impression he's very sharp with EV and stuff, but he's been a consistent loser over the years at Triton if you look at his graph there, even with $40m in earnings.
I guess that is why Ike needs to stall so much. He definitely belongs in the HOF with $40m in earnings!
Must say, I find it very amusing that there are Ike fanboys who are also vocal DNegs haters. Looks like Ike is DNegs without mixed game success plus DN is paid to play the SHRs. And as far as being someone who recs like to see and play against, it’s DNegs and not even close.
Must say, I find it very amusing that there are Ike fanboys who are also vocal DNegs haters. Looks like Ike is DNegs without mixed game success plus DN is paid to play the SHRs. And as far as being someone who recs like to see and play against, it's DNegs and not even close.
Are you sure they are Ike fanboys? I didn't know there were any Ike fanboys.
Must say, I find it very amusing that there are Ike fanboys who are also vocal DNegs haters. Looks like Ike is DNegs without mixed game success plus DN is paid to play the SHRs. And as far as being someone who recs like to see and play against, it's DNegs and not even close.
Are you sure they are Ike fanboys? I didn't know there were any Ike fanboys.
Oh yes there are frequent posters who have just recently nut hugged this losing player lol. They know who they are
Oh yes there are frequent posters who have just recently nut hugged this losing player lol. They know who they are
I wouldn't call Ike a losing player either. Presumably he sells shares to those Tritons and has won something. He certainly doesn't have the record Negreanu has, and not sure about him for the HOF. Almost any one who is a regular in those high rollers is selling shares or getting staked, and can't really be a losing player. Maybe a player who play too high, like DN.
I wouldn't call Ike a losing player either. Presumably he sells shares to those Tritons and has won something. He certainly doesn't have the record Negreanu has, and not sure about him for the HOF. Almost any one who is a regular in those high rollers is selling shares or getting staked, and can't really be a losing player. Maybe a player who play too high, like DN.
Selling shares or not doesn’t define whether you’re a losing player or not, it just transfers a share of the losses to other people.
lol. it turns literally zero fish off of poker and showing that tournaments (all of them) are a losing proposition makes poker much much better. In fact, if it were "common knowledge" that poker was a losing proposition engaged in only by gambling addicts and scoundrels poker would be much much better. Everyone who played before the poker boom knows this is a fact. marketing poker as a JOB, played by spectrummy stiffs who belong in a cubicle somewhere has killed CASINO poker and driven REAL poker private.
Fun one today where he is watching AI history videos because he doesn't need to work on his 8-game because he know to play the games and playing them for a few weeks a year is all he needs to stay at the top.
Fun one today where he is watching AI history videos because he doesn't need to work on his 8-game because he know to play the games and playing them for a few weeks a year is all he needs to stay at the top.
Lol I had to turn it on to see how much you misunderstood it or blatantly took it out of context and I sure wasn’t disappointed
He did not say that he never needs to work on his games and that a few weeks a year is enough.
Clearly he was referring to fact that many bracelet players have to cram for basic rules and strategy and he doesn’t. As if he’s supposed to be studying something right before the event.
Selling shares or not doesn’t define whether you’re a losing player or not, it just transfers a share of the losses to other people.
Haxton lost $7m, -25% ROI. If he is good enough to sell shares, he is not a losing player. High stakes players think differently. Doyle once said he had his first losing year. Now a typical grinder could not afford to have a losing year.
There are plenty of losing high stakes players who present themselves or someone presents them as professional players. There were many who were FTP and other sites' pros in the poker boom. Probable examples are Elezra, Hansen, and Blizerian.
I don't know/care if DNegs is a winner/loser. I will comment on my experience though. Yesterday I played the $1500 8 game mix and played with him for 3 hours when he was moved to my table roughly mid day. First, what a terrible table draw I had. To my immediate left was Justin Liberto, DNegs was 2 to my right, and halfway through the woman to my immediate right(who only knew
love these types of posts
thx for sharing
So by your logic a company that loses money isn’t really unprofitable as long as it sells shares to the public to raise capital.
He is obviously losing money, but that doesn't make him a losing player. It could be variance, and he could probably make a good living at lower stakes games.
So when Doyle had a losing year, did that make him a losing player?
Maybe its semantics, but many of the TV pros and people who make beginners videos, etc. are literally losing players.
Rubix's report of being at the table with Negreanu gives a good feel for the type of player he is, which I would not define as a losing player.
I watched PokerGo videos of high stakes mixed games, and you could see how Elezra and Hansen played. They played junk hands, etc., like fish. That is a losing player.
If hes selling 90% of his action at a 1.5 mark up then hes printing money off a -25% ROI. I have no clue if hes doing this, but he probably could
If hes selling 90% of his action at a 1.5 mark up then hes printing money off a -25% ROI. I have no clue if hes doing this, but he probably could
I don’t pay attention to this stuff but after a quick google and seeing Brock Wilson selling at 1.05 for a 50K it seems extremely doubtful to me
1.5 for a losing player…
