TheLadiezMan 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I wish my credit was better. I would take out a $50 million loan....stake 4 other players and myself. If one of the 4 I stake wins...then I get $55 million to pay back the bank and keep a few million for my troubles, and I would give the winner $5 million. If I win..then I pay back the bank and keep the rest. If Phil Ivey wins.......I go up to my hotel room and take a quick bath with a toaster.I bet the money would get caught up in the wire transfer though.....so it would probably never happen.Theoretically if they would allow you to take out a 50 million dollar loan you would probably lose a lot of money even if someone won.a=50,000,000(1+.01)^2 = $51,000,500 only after two months is how much you would owe to the bank at 1% interest. Now take taxes out of your winnings which god knows how much they would nit and pick and adjust my equation with the real interest rate and your probably censored pretty hard. But hey it sounded like a good idea at the time right?Banks wouldn't charge that much.If there is any kind of overlay then they probably will make a deal.You couldn't come back to US after winning. Taxes would murder you even if you won.A bank wouldn't charge interest on a high risk loan like that? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a prick, but are you kidding me? You lend out $50 million dollars, which would take quite some time to pay back, and you wouldn't charge interest? Well shit, I wish you would open up a bank because I would immidiately start an account with you, you would run it the way I would die for it to be run. Think about the value of the money they would lose if they didn't charge interest due to the rate of inflation. Not to mention, why the **** would a bank lend out that sum of money when they aren't going to get any profit in return. What the hell are you saying? Link to post Share on other sites
Petoria 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 We already know Ivey, and apparantly maybe Todd brunson. Who else? Who has the roll to put up the cash themselves? I was thinkin Doyle, Greenstein, maybe Chip Reese, Harmen, Juanda, Tedd Forrest... anyone else?eracYou act like these guys have 50 million dollar bankrolls; as in, money they can afford to lose and not sell their house/wife/ kids. I would highly expect most pro's playing to be staked, but Ivey could be different. Sounds like he plays constantly and he probably could win it back much faster than the rest. Doyle obviously...doesn't have too (in terms of worth, anyway).I don't think Ivey would put it up himself either. He's what, 28? and been one of the best in the world for maybe 5 years? (5 years is prolly stretching it). How much money do you think he's actually earned? even if he's has a career earnings of $30 mil (very doubtfull), I'm thinkin he would risk 1/3 of his LIFETIME earnings on one STT.Well, Ivey has been playing professionally since he was 16. Phil is a gambler. I think Ivey would take the risk, he doesnt care about money. Link to post Share on other sites
sdnuol 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Phil Ivey, widely regarded as one of the best Texas Hold 'Em players in the world, will be in the field. The second player will be unveiled during FSN's coverage of the 2006 Aussie Millions tournament in January.from fsn.com Link to post Share on other sites
KowboyKoop 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Phil Ivey, widely regarded as one of the best Texas Hold 'Em players in the world, will be in the field. The second player will be unveiled during FSN's coverage of the 2006 Aussie Millions tournament in January.from fsn.comI'm gonna say Todd will be in it. I bet he can scrape together a good chunk of it and get staked by a lot of other pros.Edit: I originally put Doyle. But I meant Todd. Link to post Share on other sites
erac22 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 What about Chip Reese? I know he's not a tourney circuit guy, but he has a gigantic roll and could probably put together enough to get staked for the rest. I'm just not sure he's be in to the whole single table freeze out format. Any thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites
KowboyKoop 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 What about Chip Reese? I know he's not a tourney circuit guy, but he has a gigantic roll and could probably put together enough to get staked for the rest. I'm just not sure he's be in to the whole single table freeze out format. Any thoughts?Yeah..the tourney format will probably keep him away. I swear to god though..they'd better have a low and slow blind structure...I don't want to see Poker Superstars for 60 million. That'd be bullsh*t!!! Link to post Share on other sites
erac22 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 What about Chip Reese? I know he's not a tourney circuit guy, but he has a gigantic roll and could probably put together enough to get staked for the rest. I'm just not sure he's be in to the whole single table freeze out format. Any thoughts?Yeah..the tourney format will probably keep him away. I swear to god though..they'd better have a low and slow blind structure...I don't want to see Poker Superstars for 60 million. That'd be bullsh*t!!!Poker Superstars is the most boring television on cable right now, including the Golf Channel. Link to post Share on other sites
KowboyKoop 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 What about Chip Reese? I know he's not a tourney circuit guy, but he has a gigantic roll and could probably put together enough to get staked for the rest. I'm just not sure he's be in to the whole single table freeze out format. Any thoughts?Yeah..the tourney format will probably keep him away. I swear to god though..they'd better have a low and slow blind structure...I don't want to see Poker Superstars for 60 million. That'd be bullsh*t!!!Poker Superstars is the most boring television on cable right now, including the Golf Channel.That is probably the ONLY poker I won't watch on TV anymore. Even Poker Royale is better...and that is EXTREMELY sad. I swear to god...all PS II was was random all ins...seeing Q-7 suited vs. A 3 offsuit all in OVER AND OVER AND OVER is just nauseating. Link to post Share on other sites
tyfgine 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 i'm in... .. but in all seriousness i read somewhere that Todd Brunson will be in it.with daddy's money?No, with the money he wins, bc he's one of the top 10 players out there. It's the reason he played in the Andy Beal game, not bc he's daddy's son, but bc he's a great player. If there was an "sw" sorry for such a retort, but T. Brunson is awesome, except for his hideous pony tail FYP Link to post Share on other sites
Toxic Moe 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Todd Brunson has the mulletude of 10. Link to post Share on other sites
TowneyG 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Todd Brunson's a great player, and might have the money, but I don't see him playing in this tournament. I've read that he doesn't play in the big game very often simply because he can win more if he takes a step down and plays a lower stake limit game (like 400-800 or something). Plus I've read he's the "laziest guy in poker" or something like that. I just don't see him as the kinda guy who would risk that much on a tournament where he wouldn't have an edge. You'd have to be a real gambler to do that, like Ivey, Doyle, maybe Chip Reese, etc. Todd Brunson's certainly capable of winning but I just don't see him taking that big a risk. Link to post Share on other sites
reedmcneal 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 If Ted Forrest had the money (which I doubt), I bet he would do it in an instant. Of all the top pros he definately has the most gamble in him, and as seen in the games with Andy Beal, Forrest would not be intimidated by the stakes. Link to post Share on other sites
VegasBone 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I wish my credit was better. I would take out a $50 million loan....stake 4 other players and myself. If one of the 4 I stake wins...then I get $55 million to pay back the bank and keep a few million for my troubles, and I would give the winner $5 million. If I win..then I pay back the bank and keep the rest. If Phil Ivey wins.......I go up to my hotel room and take a quick bath with a toaster.I bet the money would get caught up in the wire transfer though.....so it would probably never happen.Theoretically if they would allow you to take out a 50 million dollar loan you would probably lose a lot of money even if someone won.a=50,000,000(1+.01)^2 = $51,000,500 only after two months is how much you would owe to the bank at 1% interest. Now take taxes out of your winnings which god knows how much they would nit and pick and adjust my equation with the real interest rate and your probably censored pretty hard. But hey it sounded like a good idea at the time right?Banks wouldn't charge that much.If there is any kind of overlay then they probably will make a deal.You couldn't come back to US after winning. Taxes would murder you even if you won.A bank wouldn't charge interest on a high risk loan like that? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a prick, but are you kidding me? You lend out $50 million dollars, which would take quite some time to pay back, and you wouldn't charge interest? Well censored, I wish you would open up a bank because I would immidiately start an account with you, you would run it the way I would die for it to be run. Think about the value of the money they would lose if they didn't charge interest due to the rate of inflation. Not to mention, why the censored would a bank lend out that sum of money when they aren't going to get any profit in return. What the hell are you saying?I am now put in a perplexing position. Do I let you guys continue to debate the validity of my above ridiculous post, or do I let the cat out of the bag and let you know that I was just being a sarcastic bastard so you guys can stop figuring out proper interest and tax structure and get back to your Will and Grace episodes that are in syndication.I think I want to let you guys take the ball and run with it.....so I was being serious. Link to post Share on other sites
blueodum 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I think that most of the participating players would be selling pieces of themselves to other high stakes players who are not participating. Very few can afford to lose this kind of entry fee without crippling their bankroll (of course they could borrow to start and rebuild, but that would be a pain).Forrest might be the only one "crazy" enough to risk nearly his entire bankroll on such a thing. Link to post Share on other sites
cu in 4years Dan 1 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 if i had the money ide stake myself im serious i can take em all down, Link to post Share on other sites
TheLadiezMan 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I am now put in a perplexing position. Do I let you guys continue to debate the validity of my above ridiculous post, or do I let the cat out of the bag and let you know that I was just being a sarcastic censored so you guys can stop figuring out proper interest and tax structure and get back to your Will and Grace episodes that are in syndication.I think I want to let you guys take the ball and run with it.....so I was being serious.If you thought I for one second was being for real, then sorry my friend, you are an idiot. I was merely trying to be a big prick until the guy told me banks wouldn't charge interest on a loan because they give them out for free now. Then I felt the need to pounce on him like a cat on a baby mouse. Which now that I think about it I was still being a prick to him too. So I'm a prick, deal with it. Link to post Share on other sites
Timdog1010 0 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 So I'm a prick, deal with it. Yes... that is correct...(never gets old) Link to post Share on other sites
kansas... poker? 0 Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 I read about it on ESPN's poker site, seems like Ivey is the only one in for sure. Are you in?28 posts should be enough to know that Daniel will not be answering you.Over 600 posts should be enough to know that if Daniel was allowed to answer the question and saw the thread he would. Link to post Share on other sites
FileError404 0 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Larry Flint will be in. You heard it here first 8) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now