What if you lead a semi-conservative life as a poker pro? Sure the buy-ins may be high, but you don't need to lead an extravagant life. Case in point, Daniel Negreanu
Daniel is probably the most marketable pro out there right now. He has many streams of revenue and can afford to pick and chose where he plays.
0
Quote Originally Posted by dimndimn:
What if you lead a semi-conservative life as a poker pro? Sure the buy-ins may be high, but you don't need to lead an extravagant life. Case in point, Daniel Negreanu
Daniel is probably the most marketable pro out there right now. He has many streams of revenue and can afford to pick and chose where he plays.
I was going to post the same thing,,,DN likely makes less than 20% of his yearly net income from the actual flop turn and river these days,,,he's got his fingers in many pies so whether he wins another dollar playing poker now is almost irrelevant to his bottom line.
He's like the modern day Doyle Brunson,,,guru's make money without ever having the practice their own trade further,,,and DN has created himself the image of a poker guru, whether he is or isn't is another debate, but the game has definitely evolved,,,and his style will not be nearly as successful as the new younger generations style IMO,,,only time will tell, but even DN will likely go broke someday. They are all one financial scam away from ruins because most have lost the true essence of the value of a dollar in the real world
No doubt dn will one day be broke to. Look at the best and they go broke. Stu ungar comes to mind died with something like 2000 dollars and it was borrowed money. He won the world series three times. Jimmy the greek died broke. Lindgren and Greenstein both won world series bracelets and lindgren won a couple of wpt events. Thing of it is if you gamble all the time sooner or later you will lose.
You cant go years over years consistantly winning. And once they do lose they continue to gamble because it is all they know how to do. It kind of reminds me of the proffesional wreslters. When there on top rolling in 25,000 a week for shows. They lose value of money, get the women, do drugs. But someday it all ends. Someone else takes your spot and most dont know what to do. Look at jake roberts for one, there is many you can look at he went from headlining the biggest wrestlemania ever with 80,000 or more people.
Now days this is jake https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYIpIMg8nu4 he drives around the country in a minivan wrestling drunk or high and a heroin addict woking for less than a 100 dollars a night. Its like packer said they lose a grasp on reality and a lot of times they never get it back.
0
Quote Originally Posted by packersbackers:
I was going to post the same thing,,,DN likely makes less than 20% of his yearly net income from the actual flop turn and river these days,,,he's got his fingers in many pies so whether he wins another dollar playing poker now is almost irrelevant to his bottom line.
He's like the modern day Doyle Brunson,,,guru's make money without ever having the practice their own trade further,,,and DN has created himself the image of a poker guru, whether he is or isn't is another debate, but the game has definitely evolved,,,and his style will not be nearly as successful as the new younger generations style IMO,,,only time will tell, but even DN will likely go broke someday. They are all one financial scam away from ruins because most have lost the true essence of the value of a dollar in the real world
No doubt dn will one day be broke to. Look at the best and they go broke. Stu ungar comes to mind died with something like 2000 dollars and it was borrowed money. He won the world series three times. Jimmy the greek died broke. Lindgren and Greenstein both won world series bracelets and lindgren won a couple of wpt events. Thing of it is if you gamble all the time sooner or later you will lose.
You cant go years over years consistantly winning. And once they do lose they continue to gamble because it is all they know how to do. It kind of reminds me of the proffesional wreslters. When there on top rolling in 25,000 a week for shows. They lose value of money, get the women, do drugs. But someday it all ends. Someone else takes your spot and most dont know what to do. Look at jake roberts for one, there is many you can look at he went from headlining the biggest wrestlemania ever with 80,000 or more people.
Now days this is jake https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYIpIMg8nu4 he drives around the country in a minivan wrestling drunk or high and a heroin addict woking for less than a 100 dollars a night. Its like packer said they lose a grasp on reality and a lot of times they never get it back.
Daniel is probably the most marketable pro out there right now. He has many streams of revenue and can afford to pick and chose where he plays.
So I used to watch that poker show from Vegas called "High stakes poker" or some other show called, "Poker after dark"..I forget the exact names of the shows as they were on a few years ago.
The point I am trying to make is Daniel N was a regular on these shows all the time...I watched the shows just about every week and Daniel was the biggest loser most of the time that he was on.....I watched him play so bad a few times it was embarrassing to watch. He was always dipping into his little handbag pulling out high value chips to rebuy or he would have to leave the table.
Was it "luck" that the other players used to beat him into a pulp at that game?...or, was it their "skil" that they used as a tactic to beat him?
Since Daniel is the best player alive according to some on this board, one would have to think that him being the best and "skilled" would have had him skillfully outbet and out think his oppnents rather than them do it to him.
Bull....Poker is mostly luck...You hit your card...you win...your opponent hits...he wins. You guys out there play poker on occasion I am sure.
Answer this: When you win, and yes you do win some nights....Do you have the best cards on the showdown, or can you bluff your way to a winning night with crappy cards all night long?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bling:
Daniel is probably the most marketable pro out there right now. He has many streams of revenue and can afford to pick and chose where he plays.
So I used to watch that poker show from Vegas called "High stakes poker" or some other show called, "Poker after dark"..I forget the exact names of the shows as they were on a few years ago.
The point I am trying to make is Daniel N was a regular on these shows all the time...I watched the shows just about every week and Daniel was the biggest loser most of the time that he was on.....I watched him play so bad a few times it was embarrassing to watch. He was always dipping into his little handbag pulling out high value chips to rebuy or he would have to leave the table.
Was it "luck" that the other players used to beat him into a pulp at that game?...or, was it their "skil" that they used as a tactic to beat him?
Since Daniel is the best player alive according to some on this board, one would have to think that him being the best and "skilled" would have had him skillfully outbet and out think his oppnents rather than them do it to him.
Bull....Poker is mostly luck...You hit your card...you win...your opponent hits...he wins. You guys out there play poker on occasion I am sure.
Answer this: When you win, and yes you do win some nights....Do you have the best cards on the showdown, or can you bluff your way to a winning night with crappy cards all night long?
^^^ you do well enough wasting your own time,,, you continue to be one of this site's biggest jokes going
go post more political or gun issue or racism nonsense you love to spam this site with
You don't share my opinion nor my research on a topic in everything from poker to race relations and that makes ME the joke when now, #35 posts in, you've presented nothing but off the cuff remarks and slander to bolster your point.
Yes, I'M the joke here...
0
Quote Originally Posted by packersbackers:
^^^ you do well enough wasting your own time,,, you continue to be one of this site's biggest jokes going
go post more political or gun issue or racism nonsense you love to spam this site with
You don't share my opinion nor my research on a topic in everything from poker to race relations and that makes ME the joke when now, #35 posts in, you've presented nothing but off the cuff remarks and slander to bolster your point.
What you say is true........ for grinders. For the high stake players it is a little different because the stakes they are playing for a high, even by their standards. Most don't have the bankroll or cashflow to wait out for the variations to even out and eek your small % advantage. They usually either hit it big or lose it big, and it is circular. A big loser one month may be the big winner the next, that is why in the interview Lindgren sounds pretty confident that he will be able to eventually pay back the people he owes, because he knows eventually the variations will swing his way. In the end they just end up pushing chips to each other.
True, high-stakes pros play beyond their means because of their degeneracy, but that should not discount the skill they have for long-term success if they had bankroll management.
Wiz and Van are trying to claim that the skill itself involved in the game is minimal, or unimpressive if you will, over the long-term while fusing the players' bankroll management and alternative gambling avenues away from the felt as proof their skill in the game itself isn't sufficient.
That is completely FALSE.
As a sidenote, I do not believe Lidngren will ever settle his debts. He is millions in debt to other players and the former FTP. That is more grinding than anyone wants to take part in.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bling:
What you say is true........ for grinders. For the high stake players it is a little different because the stakes they are playing for a high, even by their standards. Most don't have the bankroll or cashflow to wait out for the variations to even out and eek your small % advantage. They usually either hit it big or lose it big, and it is circular. A big loser one month may be the big winner the next, that is why in the interview Lindgren sounds pretty confident that he will be able to eventually pay back the people he owes, because he knows eventually the variations will swing his way. In the end they just end up pushing chips to each other.
True, high-stakes pros play beyond their means because of their degeneracy, but that should not discount the skill they have for long-term success if they had bankroll management.
Wiz and Van are trying to claim that the skill itself involved in the game is minimal, or unimpressive if you will, over the long-term while fusing the players' bankroll management and alternative gambling avenues away from the felt as proof their skill in the game itself isn't sufficient.
That is completely FALSE.
As a sidenote, I do not believe Lidngren will ever settle his debts. He is millions in debt to other players and the former FTP. That is more grinding than anyone wants to take part in.
True, high-stakes pros play beyond their means because of their degeneracy, but that should not discount the skill they have for long-term success if they had bankroll management.
Wiz and Van are trying to claim that the skill itself involved in the game is minimal, or unimpressive if you will, over the long-term while fusing the players' bankroll management and alternative gambling avenues away from the felt as proof their skill in the game itself isn't sufficient.
That is completely FALSE.
As a sidenote, I do not believe Lidngren will ever settle his debts. He is millions in debt to other players and the former FTP. That is more grinding than anyone wants to take part in.
Please dont misrepresent what I have said here many times in many ways over the course of many years.
I posted an epic thread on the subject
Poker is a skill game. But it is a threshold skill. Once you reach a certain skill threshold, then it is luck. If you are sitting at a table with 8 other players who all are at the threshold, then your luck has to beat the rake, which is impossible longterm.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
True, high-stakes pros play beyond their means because of their degeneracy, but that should not discount the skill they have for long-term success if they had bankroll management.
Wiz and Van are trying to claim that the skill itself involved in the game is minimal, or unimpressive if you will, over the long-term while fusing the players' bankroll management and alternative gambling avenues away from the felt as proof their skill in the game itself isn't sufficient.
That is completely FALSE.
As a sidenote, I do not believe Lidngren will ever settle his debts. He is millions in debt to other players and the former FTP. That is more grinding than anyone wants to take part in.
Please dont misrepresent what I have said here many times in many ways over the course of many years.
I posted an epic thread on the subject
Poker is a skill game. But it is a threshold skill. Once you reach a certain skill threshold, then it is luck. If you are sitting at a table with 8 other players who all are at the threshold, then your luck has to beat the rake, which is impossible longterm.
Poker is a game of skill, but IMO is a game of skill with a ceiling. You can only get so good, and then you are the same as everyone else who is that good and randomness takes over. So there are 2 groups of poker players, group A is not good enough to be in group B. So if there are enough group A players, group B can be profitable. IF there are only group B players, they beat each other up and the house is the only one who wins.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
From that thread:
Poker is a game of skill, but IMO is a game of skill with a ceiling. You can only get so good, and then you are the same as everyone else who is that good and randomness takes over. So there are 2 groups of poker players, group A is not good enough to be in group B. So if there are enough group A players, group B can be profitable. IF there are only group B players, they beat each other up and the house is the only one who wins.
Please dont misrepresent what I have said here many times in many ways over the course of many years.
I posted an epic thread on the subject
Poker is a skill game. But it is a threshold skill. Once you reach a certain skill threshold, then it is luck. If you are sitting at a table with 8 other players who all are at the threshold, then your luck has to beat the rake, which is impossible longterm.
That's fine but that's really not a substantive argument. It essentially devalues the efforts of the intermediate players trying to advance their knowledge in poker and top pros who make a living off of the game because you are watering down the attainable skill.
It is not unlike saying a pitcher can master his craft as can a batter, but when both reach the top of their respective skill levels, it will be likely that an out or a hit take place based on luck, that luck coming from some atmospheric condition like the sun in ones eyes, or the wind blowing hard, or a fan yelling something distracting.
The craft of a poker pro is just like any other.
I think what part of what you are trying to say might be something I do agree with. I have asked top pros why they sit with other top pros at the nosebleed stakes when they could easily take down an virtually unlimited pool of lesser skilled players. At those stakes, luck does take over in certain cases but that doesn't exclude the fact you got your money in with the best of it (the goal of every hand if it is not based on aggression and reads). They all answered the more or less the same, "To be the best you have to beat the best."
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Please dont misrepresent what I have said here many times in many ways over the course of many years.
I posted an epic thread on the subject
Poker is a skill game. But it is a threshold skill. Once you reach a certain skill threshold, then it is luck. If you are sitting at a table with 8 other players who all are at the threshold, then your luck has to beat the rake, which is impossible longterm.
That's fine but that's really not a substantive argument. It essentially devalues the efforts of the intermediate players trying to advance their knowledge in poker and top pros who make a living off of the game because you are watering down the attainable skill.
It is not unlike saying a pitcher can master his craft as can a batter, but when both reach the top of their respective skill levels, it will be likely that an out or a hit take place based on luck, that luck coming from some atmospheric condition like the sun in ones eyes, or the wind blowing hard, or a fan yelling something distracting.
The craft of a poker pro is just like any other.
I think what part of what you are trying to say might be something I do agree with. I have asked top pros why they sit with other top pros at the nosebleed stakes when they could easily take down an virtually unlimited pool of lesser skilled players. At those stakes, luck does take over in certain cases but that doesn't exclude the fact you got your money in with the best of it (the goal of every hand if it is not based on aggression and reads). They all answered the more or less the same, "To be the best you have to beat the best."
Poker is a game of skill, but IMO is a game of skill with a ceiling. You can only get so good, and then you are the same as everyone else who is that good and randomness takes over. So there are 2 groups of poker players, group A is not good enough to be in group B. So if there are enough group A players, group B can be profitable. IF there are only group B players, they beat each other up and the house is the only one who wins.
That's a great point, and why a lot of these pros eventually hit a ceiling.
The only variable now is the evolution of the game. For example, there never used to be these 3 or 4 bets pre or post flop. 10/15 years ago limping into a pot was a common occurrence. These days you rarely if ever get a walk, and if you are not prepared to bet with nothing in this game, you are going to bleed away all your chips. Who knows what it will be like 10/15 years from now.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
From that thread:
Poker is a game of skill, but IMO is a game of skill with a ceiling. You can only get so good, and then you are the same as everyone else who is that good and randomness takes over. So there are 2 groups of poker players, group A is not good enough to be in group B. So if there are enough group A players, group B can be profitable. IF there are only group B players, they beat each other up and the house is the only one who wins.
That's a great point, and why a lot of these pros eventually hit a ceiling.
The only variable now is the evolution of the game. For example, there never used to be these 3 or 4 bets pre or post flop. 10/15 years ago limping into a pot was a common occurrence. These days you rarely if ever get a walk, and if you are not prepared to bet with nothing in this game, you are going to bleed away all your chips. Who knows what it will be like 10/15 years from now.
Barry going broke is kind of shitty, from what I know he was a business man that just loved the game. He won a lot for charity.
Lindgren going broke is not surprising and I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the pros online and offline are broke by now.
It's not so easy being a pro when your sponsors aren't paying you and floating your gambling debts. Honestly, when you have sponsors like FT and stars it's like playing a play money game to them. You lose, then just hit reload and more money automatically appears.
That all being said, before the poker boom all these guy's were just average degenerate gamblers. The the poker boom came and with all the sponsors these two bit degenerates all turned into celebrities over night.
Some of these guy's were smart and invested but most are probably living day to day now.
I was thinking about Eli Elezra one day and how he owned a string street photo booths on the strip. Now with camera phones I wonder how that business is working out
0
Barry going broke is kind of shitty, from what I know he was a business man that just loved the game. He won a lot for charity.
Lindgren going broke is not surprising and I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the pros online and offline are broke by now.
It's not so easy being a pro when your sponsors aren't paying you and floating your gambling debts. Honestly, when you have sponsors like FT and stars it's like playing a play money game to them. You lose, then just hit reload and more money automatically appears.
That all being said, before the poker boom all these guy's were just average degenerate gamblers. The the poker boom came and with all the sponsors these two bit degenerates all turned into celebrities over night.
Some of these guy's were smart and invested but most are probably living day to day now.
I was thinking about Eli Elezra one day and how he owned a string street photo booths on the strip. Now with camera phones I wonder how that business is working out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Greenstein If you read about barry on wikipedia he talked about his donations. While it was true at one point he gave much of his earnings to charity in 06 and i quote from this- "Until now, I was donating the pay-off each time I cashed but I can't afford to continue doing that. I didn't anticipate the growth and expense of tournament poker,” he said.[
Obviously he didnt plan his finances out very well. As for being a business man it says
According to his book, Ace on the River, Greenstein was doing well playing poker, but figured a more conventional job would improve his chances of adopting his stepchildren, so he went to work for the new startup company Symantec, where he worked on their first product Q&A. He left the company in 1991 at age 36.
Not sure he was a "business" man he got a phd in math but never got a job with it. Worked for a computer company for a short time then quit to play poker.
On another interesting note his step son joe sebok, was trying to follow in barrys footsteps being a pro poker player and played in many tourneys. Obvously it wasnt working because he now works for a wine company. He smashes grapes and -
He was charged with punchdowns, the rigorous task of "punching" the top layer of grapes down to the bottom of a fermenting bin, so the fruit is distributed evenly. It said he took a break from poker in 2011 but obviously he wasnt making the money he needed either and decided to pretty much give it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Greenstein If you read about barry on wikipedia he talked about his donations. While it was true at one point he gave much of his earnings to charity in 06 and i quote from this- "Until now, I was donating the pay-off each time I cashed but I can't afford to continue doing that. I didn't anticipate the growth and expense of tournament poker,” he said.[
Obviously he didnt plan his finances out very well. As for being a business man it says
According to his book, Ace on the River, Greenstein was doing well playing poker, but figured a more conventional job would improve his chances of adopting his stepchildren, so he went to work for the new startup company Symantec, where he worked on their first product Q&A. He left the company in 1991 at age 36.
Not sure he was a "business" man he got a phd in math but never got a job with it. Worked for a computer company for a short time then quit to play poker.
On another interesting note his step son joe sebok, was trying to follow in barrys footsteps being a pro poker player and played in many tourneys. Obvously it wasnt working because he now works for a wine company. He smashes grapes and -
He was charged with punchdowns, the rigorous task of "punching" the top layer of grapes down to the bottom of a fermenting bin, so the fruit is distributed evenly. It said he took a break from poker in 2011 but obviously he wasnt making the money he needed either and decided to pretty much give it up.
He's a successful businessman who plays poker...huge difference!
You'll never see Eli whoring himself with sponsor patches and logos
He is the "successful image" all the wanna be poker pros from five years ago wished they could become from those scripted poker after dark TV shows,,,Elezra could lose 500,000 of his own stake and not even blink,,,he owns so much commercial real estate in Israel alone, that the guy has to never worry about money.
I watched those shows myself many times and Elezra was one of the better players overall in my opinion. He had no fear of what he was doing...To be a winnner at cash game higher stakes poker you must be ruthless and have no fear of losing all your money. The scardey cat guys on that show got eaten alive and had no chance.. ( like if I would play).
I always thought the participants on that show played with their own money and got some sort of appearance fee, say $25,000.00 or $35,000.00 per show.
These guys were going to play anyways..Why not get a nice check to play in front of the cameras.
Packersbackers says in his post the poker games on TV were "scripted"...If that is the case I would have no idea if this was all a big put on..or was real to life poker with big winners and big losers.
Anybody know for sure how the producers of that show compensated the players, and what is the true story is behind how that show worked for so long,...3 or 4 years on TV.
0
Quote Originally Posted by packersbackers:
Eli Elezra is not a poker pro
He's a successful businessman who plays poker...huge difference!
You'll never see Eli whoring himself with sponsor patches and logos
He is the "successful image" all the wanna be poker pros from five years ago wished they could become from those scripted poker after dark TV shows,,,Elezra could lose 500,000 of his own stake and not even blink,,,he owns so much commercial real estate in Israel alone, that the guy has to never worry about money.
I watched those shows myself many times and Elezra was one of the better players overall in my opinion. He had no fear of what he was doing...To be a winnner at cash game higher stakes poker you must be ruthless and have no fear of losing all your money. The scardey cat guys on that show got eaten alive and had no chance.. ( like if I would play).
I always thought the participants on that show played with their own money and got some sort of appearance fee, say $25,000.00 or $35,000.00 per show.
These guys were going to play anyways..Why not get a nice check to play in front of the cameras.
Packersbackers says in his post the poker games on TV were "scripted"...If that is the case I would have no idea if this was all a big put on..or was real to life poker with big winners and big losers.
Anybody know for sure how the producers of that show compensated the players, and what is the true story is behind how that show worked for so long,...3 or 4 years on TV.
I watched those shows myself many times and Elezra was one of the better players overall in my opinion. He had no fear of what he was doing...To be a winnner at cash game higher stakes poker you must be ruthless and have no fear of losing all your money. The scardey cat guys on that show got eaten alive and had no chance.. ( like if I would play).
I always thought the participants on that show played with their own money and got some sort of appearance fee, say $25,000.00 or $35,000.00 per show.
These guys were going to play anyways..Why not get a nice check to play in front of the cameras.
Packersbackers says in his post the poker games on TV were "scripted"...If that is the case I would have no idea if this was all a big put on..or was real to life poker with big winners and big losers.
Anybody know for sure how the producers of that show compensated the players, and what is the true story is behind how that show worked for so long,...3 or 4 years on TV.
I'm sure the sponsors bankrolled their buyins. Those shows were just advertisements for online poker rooms. If they got compensated by the producers then it was probably $500 to $1000 an episode.
Also there are two ways to get a show on the air
1) The Network picks it up and finances the show then sells advertising spots. WSOP, WPT and HSP were probably in this scenerio.
2) Producers buy the time slot and sell the advertising spots themselves. FTP and Pokerstars probably did this with their sponsored shows, like Poker After Dark was an obvious FTP show.
Either way I'm sure it was a sweet deal for players being sponsored. I don't know for sure but I highly doubt they were buying in with their own cash.
0
Quote Originally Posted by JimmyDrizzl:
I watched those shows myself many times and Elezra was one of the better players overall in my opinion. He had no fear of what he was doing...To be a winnner at cash game higher stakes poker you must be ruthless and have no fear of losing all your money. The scardey cat guys on that show got eaten alive and had no chance.. ( like if I would play).
I always thought the participants on that show played with their own money and got some sort of appearance fee, say $25,000.00 or $35,000.00 per show.
These guys were going to play anyways..Why not get a nice check to play in front of the cameras.
Packersbackers says in his post the poker games on TV were "scripted"...If that is the case I would have no idea if this was all a big put on..or was real to life poker with big winners and big losers.
Anybody know for sure how the producers of that show compensated the players, and what is the true story is behind how that show worked for so long,...3 or 4 years on TV.
I'm sure the sponsors bankrolled their buyins. Those shows were just advertisements for online poker rooms. If they got compensated by the producers then it was probably $500 to $1000 an episode.
Also there are two ways to get a show on the air
1) The Network picks it up and finances the show then sells advertising spots. WSOP, WPT and HSP were probably in this scenerio.
2) Producers buy the time slot and sell the advertising spots themselves. FTP and Pokerstars probably did this with their sponsored shows, like Poker After Dark was an obvious FTP show.
Either way I'm sure it was a sweet deal for players being sponsored. I don't know for sure but I highly doubt they were buying in with their own cash.
^^^^^ certain hands were set up from a cold deck to make for good TV and a few dramatic clashes of big hands per episode,,,,
I am totally upset to hear this is how the show worked...I thought it was all on the up and up.
So you are saying all the top star poker players on the show were just ACTING out a script.
There were a number of amateur players on that show that were super wealthy in their own right and just played for kicks...If they lose a half million...big deal...they still have 50 mil in the bank.
I cannot fathom that these particular guys would submit themselves to just acting out a role on a poker show with the huge net worth they have...for what?
I could see the grinder pros doing an acting role for a nice payday....but certainly can not imagine that any of those wealthy amateurs playing for kicks would have any interest in that kind of scenerio.
0
Quote Originally Posted by packersbackers:
^^^^^ certain hands were set up from a cold deck to make for good TV and a few dramatic clashes of big hands per episode,,,,
I am totally upset to hear this is how the show worked...I thought it was all on the up and up.
So you are saying all the top star poker players on the show were just ACTING out a script.
There were a number of amateur players on that show that were super wealthy in their own right and just played for kicks...If they lose a half million...big deal...they still have 50 mil in the bank.
I cannot fathom that these particular guys would submit themselves to just acting out a role on a poker show with the huge net worth they have...for what?
I could see the grinder pros doing an acting role for a nice payday....but certainly can not imagine that any of those wealthy amateurs playing for kicks would have any interest in that kind of scenerio.
ok, I was personally on one of these poker shows in the beginning it was just a big game they were taping played on a tourney table so you could see the hole cards. I can assure you we played for real money and to my knowledge none of the hands in this particular season were scripted, some bad acting on the players part did take place when they had the hand or not Phil Laak comes to mind when he pulled his hood up over his head and closed it completely. Taping took place over several days and different players were at the table at different times even people who weren't shown on tv.
0
ok, I was personally on one of these poker shows in the beginning it was just a big game they were taping played on a tourney table so you could see the hole cards. I can assure you we played for real money and to my knowledge none of the hands in this particular season were scripted, some bad acting on the players part did take place when they had the hand or not Phil Laak comes to mind when he pulled his hood up over his head and closed it completely. Taping took place over several days and different players were at the table at different times even people who weren't shown on tv.
ok, I was personally on one of these poker shows in the beginning it was just a big game they were taping played on a tourney table so you could see the hole cards. I can assure you we played for real money and to my knowledge none of the hands in this particular season were scripted, some bad acting on the players part did take place when they had the hand or not Phil Laak comes to mind when he pulled his hood up over his head and closed it completely. Taping took place over several days and different players were at the table at different times even people who weren't shown on tv.
As a poker player of stature, I am more curious to hear your take on the subject of this thread.
Is poker a "threshold skill" as I theorize? If not, where do I go wrong? Without sponsorship and a large pool of "fish", is it possible to be a "poker pro"?
Why is the so called poker top 10 change every year? It would seem if there was truly skill that determined winners and losers, that this list would remain somewhat consistent - afterall - you dont see the top 10 in golf or tennis change top to bottom every year.
Thanks in advance.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by GambleForProfit:
ok, I was personally on one of these poker shows in the beginning it was just a big game they were taping played on a tourney table so you could see the hole cards. I can assure you we played for real money and to my knowledge none of the hands in this particular season were scripted, some bad acting on the players part did take place when they had the hand or not Phil Laak comes to mind when he pulled his hood up over his head and closed it completely. Taping took place over several days and different players were at the table at different times even people who weren't shown on tv.
As a poker player of stature, I am more curious to hear your take on the subject of this thread.
Is poker a "threshold skill" as I theorize? If not, where do I go wrong? Without sponsorship and a large pool of "fish", is it possible to be a "poker pro"?
Why is the so called poker top 10 change every year? It would seem if there was truly skill that determined winners and losers, that this list would remain somewhat consistent - afterall - you dont see the top 10 in golf or tennis change top to bottom every year.
ok, I was personally on one of these poker shows in the beginning it was just a big game they were taping played on a tourney table so you could see the hole cards. I can assure you we played for real money and to my knowledge none of the hands in this particular season were scripted, some bad acting on the players part did take place when they had the hand or not Phil Laak comes to mind when he pulled his hood up over his head and closed it completely. Taping took place over several days and different players were at the table at different times even people who weren't shown on tv.
So, Gamble, How did you do? I am sure it was a thrill to do something like that..Very exciting.
You were certainly up against probably some of the best and luckiest players in the WORLD..Nice accomplishment!!!
Question being though...Did you cash?
I know it is never easy to win...Yet it is so easy to lose.
0
Quote Originally Posted by GambleForProfit:
ok, I was personally on one of these poker shows in the beginning it was just a big game they were taping played on a tourney table so you could see the hole cards. I can assure you we played for real money and to my knowledge none of the hands in this particular season were scripted, some bad acting on the players part did take place when they had the hand or not Phil Laak comes to mind when he pulled his hood up over his head and closed it completely. Taping took place over several days and different players were at the table at different times even people who weren't shown on tv.
So, Gamble, How did you do? I am sure it was a thrill to do something like that..Very exciting.
You were certainly up against probably some of the best and luckiest players in the WORLD..Nice accomplishment!!!
Question being though...Did you cash?
I know it is never easy to win...Yet it is so easy to lose.
I am totally upset to hear this is how the show worked...I thought it was all on the up and up.
So you are saying all the top star poker players on the show were just ACTING out a script.
There were a number of amateur players on that show that were super wealthy in their own right and just played for kicks...If they lose a half million...big deal...they still have 50 mil in the bank.
I cannot fathom that these particular guys would submit themselves to just acting out a role on a poker show with the huge net worth they have...for what?
I could see the grinder pros doing an acting role for a nice payday....but certainly can not imagine that any of those wealthy amateurs playing for kicks would have any interest in that kind of scenerio.
Jimmy,
Why in the hell would you believe this idiot.
A) He comes in a thread and pulls the "Do you believe everything you hear?" as a counter to a 2+2 thread with some pretty compelling evidence that it is the actual Barry Greenstein. His evidence? There are people on google with the name Barry Greenstein and it could be one of them.
B) Then he claims Poker After Dark and High Stakes Poker was 'fixed' to the point where the deck was dealt in a certain manner to make for good TV.
His evidence for that claim? Nothing...Not a single shred. Just his speculation...
Uh, here's some news for you moron. The original PAD episodes were $20K buy-in sit-n-go's. That amount is NOTHING for top pros. They can easily lay that amount.
Is that good enough for Packers? Nope! Game MUST be fixed.
The original HSP espisodes were 50K a seat. Some got up to 100K and top pros like Dwan brought up to 500K.
Again, the latter two amounts are NOTHING to top pros.
Is that good enough for Packers? NOPE. The deck must be fixed as must the stake.
The evidence? Nothing. Just his opinion.
Beat it you joke. You've turned this thread on it's head...
0
Quote Originally Posted by JimmyDrizzl:
I am totally upset to hear this is how the show worked...I thought it was all on the up and up.
So you are saying all the top star poker players on the show were just ACTING out a script.
There were a number of amateur players on that show that were super wealthy in their own right and just played for kicks...If they lose a half million...big deal...they still have 50 mil in the bank.
I cannot fathom that these particular guys would submit themselves to just acting out a role on a poker show with the huge net worth they have...for what?
I could see the grinder pros doing an acting role for a nice payday....but certainly can not imagine that any of those wealthy amateurs playing for kicks would have any interest in that kind of scenerio.
Jimmy,
Why in the hell would you believe this idiot.
A) He comes in a thread and pulls the "Do you believe everything you hear?" as a counter to a 2+2 thread with some pretty compelling evidence that it is the actual Barry Greenstein. His evidence? There are people on google with the name Barry Greenstein and it could be one of them.
B) Then he claims Poker After Dark and High Stakes Poker was 'fixed' to the point where the deck was dealt in a certain manner to make for good TV.
His evidence for that claim? Nothing...Not a single shred. Just his speculation...
Uh, here's some news for you moron. The original PAD episodes were $20K buy-in sit-n-go's. That amount is NOTHING for top pros. They can easily lay that amount.
Is that good enough for Packers? Nope! Game MUST be fixed.
The original HSP espisodes were 50K a seat. Some got up to 100K and top pros like Dwan brought up to 500K.
Again, the latter two amounts are NOTHING to top pros.
Is that good enough for Packers? NOPE. The deck must be fixed as must the stake.
The evidence? Nothing. Just his opinion.
Beat it you joke. You've turned this thread on it's head...
I highly doubt those shows were scripted, seriously that's just stupid. Now, the one hour you see on TV could have been the best hands from 4 or 5 hours of play.
0
I highly doubt those shows were scripted, seriously that's just stupid. Now, the one hour you see on TV could have been the best hands from 4 or 5 hours of play.
I highly doubt those shows were scripted, seriously that's just stupid. Now, the one hour you see on TV could have been the best hands from 4 or 5 hours of play.
According to Packers they are and there are precisely ZERO players who have ever been on the show to corroborate his claim. But what does evidence matter...
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sharkysden:
I highly doubt those shows were scripted, seriously that's just stupid. Now, the one hour you see on TV could have been the best hands from 4 or 5 hours of play.
According to Packers they are and there are precisely ZERO players who have ever been on the show to corroborate his claim. But what does evidence matter...
A) He comes in a thread and pulls the "Do you believe everything you hear?" as a counter to a 2+2 thread with some pretty compelling evidence that it is the actual Barry Greenstein. His evidence? There are people on google with the name Barry Greenstein and it could be one of them.
B) Then he claims Poker After Dark and High Stakes Poker was 'fixed' to the point where the deck was dealt in a certain manner to make for good TV.
His evidence for that claim? Nothing...Not a single shred. Just his speculation...
Uh, here's some news for you moron. The original PAD episodes were $20K buy-in sit-n-go's. That amount is NOTHING for top pros. They can easily lay that amount.
Is that good enough for Packers? Nope! Game MUST be fixed.
The original HSP espisodes were 50K a seat. Some got up to 100K and top pros like Dwan brought up to 500K.
Again, the latter two amounts are NOTHING to top pros.
Is that good enough for Packers? NOPE. The deck must be fixed as must the stake.
The evidence? Nothing. Just his opinion.
Beat it you joke. You've turned this thread on it's head...
OK, I knew that what he posted really did not make much sense to me so that's why I came back with my own line of reasoning about the issue.
See, I am new on this board, and I did not realize that there could be someone so deluded in their thinking posting regular comments with a seemingly airy confidence that what is being reported by him on these pages is accurate and true. I am not that deluded myself in thinking that I could possibly know every thing about every possible subject that could come up....SO, maybe it was true what he posted as I am certainly not privy to any information of that type regarding the big money poker scene.
He's got over 12,000 posts...Him starting on this board in 2007...Me, a paltry 57 posts.
Being a newbie, I certainly did not want to insult anybody or make waves.
So, I just laid back and gave my opinion to counter the flawed thinking...I really never bought the scripted idea 100% as I was a regular viewer of that show for a number of years. Not at any time watching did I ever think it was fixed...It just came across as any legit game with all the standard variables of poker thrown in. Suckouts included.
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Jimmy,
Why in the hell would you believe this idiot.
A) He comes in a thread and pulls the "Do you believe everything you hear?" as a counter to a 2+2 thread with some pretty compelling evidence that it is the actual Barry Greenstein. His evidence? There are people on google with the name Barry Greenstein and it could be one of them.
B) Then he claims Poker After Dark and High Stakes Poker was 'fixed' to the point where the deck was dealt in a certain manner to make for good TV.
His evidence for that claim? Nothing...Not a single shred. Just his speculation...
Uh, here's some news for you moron. The original PAD episodes were $20K buy-in sit-n-go's. That amount is NOTHING for top pros. They can easily lay that amount.
Is that good enough for Packers? Nope! Game MUST be fixed.
The original HSP espisodes were 50K a seat. Some got up to 100K and top pros like Dwan brought up to 500K.
Again, the latter two amounts are NOTHING to top pros.
Is that good enough for Packers? NOPE. The deck must be fixed as must the stake.
The evidence? Nothing. Just his opinion.
Beat it you joke. You've turned this thread on it's head...
OK, I knew that what he posted really did not make much sense to me so that's why I came back with my own line of reasoning about the issue.
See, I am new on this board, and I did not realize that there could be someone so deluded in their thinking posting regular comments with a seemingly airy confidence that what is being reported by him on these pages is accurate and true. I am not that deluded myself in thinking that I could possibly know every thing about every possible subject that could come up....SO, maybe it was true what he posted as I am certainly not privy to any information of that type regarding the big money poker scene.
He's got over 12,000 posts...Him starting on this board in 2007...Me, a paltry 57 posts.
Being a newbie, I certainly did not want to insult anybody or make waves.
So, I just laid back and gave my opinion to counter the flawed thinking...I really never bought the scripted idea 100% as I was a regular viewer of that show for a number of years. Not at any time watching did I ever think it was fixed...It just came across as any legit game with all the standard variables of poker thrown in. Suckouts included.
OK, I knew that what he posted really did not make much sense to me so that's why I came back with my own line of reasoning about the issue.
See, I am new on this board, and I did not realize that there could be someone so deluded in their thinking posting regular comments with a seemingly airy confidence that what is being reported by him on these pages is accurate and true. I am not that deluded myself in thinking that I could possibly know every thing about every possible subject that could come up....SO, maybe it was true what he posted as I am certainly not privy to any information of that type regarding the big money poker scene.
He's got over 12,000 posts...Him starting on this board in 2007...Me, a paltry 57 posts.
Being a newbie, I certainly did not want to insult anybody or make waves.
So, I just laid back and gave my opinion to counter the flawed thinking...I really never bought the scripted idea 100% as I was a regular viewer of that show for a number of years. Not at any time watching did I ever think it was fixed...It just came across as any legit game with all the standard variables of poker thrown in. Suckouts included.
Welcome to Covers
0
Quote Originally Posted by JimmyDrizzl:
OK, I knew that what he posted really did not make much sense to me so that's why I came back with my own line of reasoning about the issue.
See, I am new on this board, and I did not realize that there could be someone so deluded in their thinking posting regular comments with a seemingly airy confidence that what is being reported by him on these pages is accurate and true. I am not that deluded myself in thinking that I could possibly know every thing about every possible subject that could come up....SO, maybe it was true what he posted as I am certainly not privy to any information of that type regarding the big money poker scene.
He's got over 12,000 posts...Him starting on this board in 2007...Me, a paltry 57 posts.
Being a newbie, I certainly did not want to insult anybody or make waves.
So, I just laid back and gave my opinion to counter the flawed thinking...I really never bought the scripted idea 100% as I was a regular viewer of that show for a number of years. Not at any time watching did I ever think it was fixed...It just came across as any legit game with all the standard variables of poker thrown in. Suckouts included.
OK, I knew that what he posted really did not make much sense to me so that's why I came back with my own line of reasoning about the issue.
See, I am new on this board, and I did not realize that there could be someone so deluded in their thinking posting regular comments with a seemingly airy confidence that what is being reported by him on these pages is accurate and true. I am not that deluded myself in thinking that I could possibly know every thing about every possible subject that could come up....SO, maybe it was true what he posted as I am certainly not privy to any information of that type regarding the big money poker scene.
He's got over 12,000 posts...Him starting on this board in 2007...Me, a paltry 57 posts.
Being a newbie, I certainly did not want to insult anybody or make waves.
So, I just laid back and gave my opinion to counter the flawed thinking...I really never bought the scripted idea 100% as I was a regular viewer of that show for a number of years. Not at any time watching did I ever think it was fixed...It just came across as any legit game with all the standard variables of poker thrown in. Suckouts included.
It can happen with a guy with 120,000 posts.
Just know, when you see me post that I am not well-liked so people take a contrarian stance just to attack me, all with falsified claims.
Packers is front and center in this thread and the horse's a$$ is bigger and more evident than ever.
0
Quote Originally Posted by JimmyDrizzl:
OK, I knew that what he posted really did not make much sense to me so that's why I came back with my own line of reasoning about the issue.
See, I am new on this board, and I did not realize that there could be someone so deluded in their thinking posting regular comments with a seemingly airy confidence that what is being reported by him on these pages is accurate and true. I am not that deluded myself in thinking that I could possibly know every thing about every possible subject that could come up....SO, maybe it was true what he posted as I am certainly not privy to any information of that type regarding the big money poker scene.
He's got over 12,000 posts...Him starting on this board in 2007...Me, a paltry 57 posts.
Being a newbie, I certainly did not want to insult anybody or make waves.
So, I just laid back and gave my opinion to counter the flawed thinking...I really never bought the scripted idea 100% as I was a regular viewer of that show for a number of years. Not at any time watching did I ever think it was fixed...It just came across as any legit game with all the standard variables of poker thrown in. Suckouts included.
It can happen with a guy with 120,000 posts.
Just know, when you see me post that I am not well-liked so people take a contrarian stance just to attack me, all with falsified claims.
Packers is front and center in this thread and the horse's a$$ is bigger and more evident than ever.
Hot Forum Topics
