$80 million freezeout

[ArseneLupin3 0]

Thats just complete nonsense.  Its not like they're going to be waiting for premium cards or anything.  What would be the point if they could stick anyone in the game and rely and the luck of getting good cards?  By this reasoning, they could stick koko the monkey into the game and if he gets the cards, koko will be the first monkey millionaire in the world.  Nonsense.

Nonsense. If the game is ONLY 20% skill, and Jen Harman is 10% better than everyone else, that's a huge huge huge huge huge huge huge difference, in terms of bling.

A 2% edge? You should do some reading into statistics and probability; specifically, learn enough about variance to the point where you understand the complex math required to determine how long it would take for a player with an edge of 1BB/100 hands to have a higher than 90% chance of being ahead after a reasonable number of hands. It's a lot. Keep in mind 2% doesnt equate to 2bb/100h, either.Playing HU LHE vs. a strong opponent properly according to game theory, the edge begins at a fraction of a bet per hour and approaches 0 without tells. The edge tells provide is widely debated, however, with people like DN (arguably one of the best readers in poker) proposing that it is higher than others.

And he has won before, BIG. But that doesn't mean he is the best. And no one is saying that he has no chance. He has a big chance. At least 50/50 right?

Uh.. that would make him a favorite.-adam ps Howard claimed to have beaten someone in TX out of $8.5m on FTP chat. pps The book about Beal is due out in a few months.

[ArseneLupin3 0]

3. Barry Greenstein- nobody has won more money in cash games than him in the last 10 years.

I find it amazingly humorous that Barry has been able to convince the public that this a fact and it's so widely accepted. It's simply not possible. According to the high limit players, Barry only started showing his face in the big game over the last four years or so. Yet he somehow claims he's won more money than the others in that four year span than those who've been playing high limit poker for that entire decade.Maybe he has won more money, but he should also be including his losses you would think!

How high do they play in California and are there any private games of this magnitude? I've seen stories about Barry playing here and there at the Hustler in games above 1k/2k, but I have no idea if, when, or how frequently it happened. Also keep in mind that he qualifies his statement with "probably" on his website. Sadly, it seems that even the pros use anecdotal evidence in your little jousting matches. It's a pretty silly debate regardless, especially when it's mainly the public (as seen in bigkgs quote) perpetuates and twists rumors into statements of fact... well, at least that's what they do when they don't make the bases of their arguments entirely up.-adam

[ArseneLupin3 0]

"Endurance, creativity, focus, shorthanded skills, dedication. You could go on and on about Phil's strengths really. He is a student of the game and the fact that he respects all of his opponents skills is what keeps him sharp. He takes no one lightly. " -Daniel  "Some of the top players are still skeptical, but they don’t seem to realize he is still an improving player and he has unmatched raw talent." -Barry GI'm a little confused right now ArseneLupin3.  We are debating as to whether or not Phil Hellmuth would be a good candidate for playing Beal.  Interestingly, the above quotes are about Phil Ivey.  :?

Sorry. I smoked too many crack rocks earlier.jk. I have never seen anyone other than PH say that PH is good at cash games. If nothing else, this should be a case for not just using the name Phil when talking about poker pros. -adam

[faketree 0]

You are being ridiculous.  Maybe your deep down love for Phil is clouding your judgement.  Don't get me wrong, I love watching Phil play.  But like Daniel said, no one is trusting him with millions of dollars of their own money.  I can see it now, 'Andy, how can you play 72 when I have the button?  I mean, a professional would never raise me there!  You !#$@%#$#er!'

Hmm... starting with anecdotal arguments. I can see where this post is going..

And there is no way Beal would be even slightly intimidated by Phil.  If anything, It'd probably be the opposite.

Who is being ridiculous here? Your statement has no merit whatsoever. Phil is one of the most psychologically solid poker players in the business. Read any profile of him:"Endurance, creativity, focus, shorthanded skills, dedication. You could go on and on about Phil's strengths really. He is a student of the game and the fact that he respects all of his opponents skills is what keeps him sharp. He takes no one lightly. " -Daniel"Some of the top players are still skeptical, but they don’t seem to realize he is still an improving player and he has unmatched raw talent." -Barry G

Side note, based on Daniels player profiles of Barry and his comments in this thread, that they aren't the best of friends.    

Where in Daniel's profile is this implied? I'm lucky I read it beforehand so I didn't have to load the window to know you were just making stuff up. All he said in this thread was that they wouldn't trust his abilities playing in the big big game.

Also, I've personally watched Phil drop about $50K in the last two weeks playing 80/160 2-7 triple draw.  Still want to stake him?

He lost what will most likely be less than a big bet in the big game playing an entirely different game online at a different limit. This is relevant how?While Phil May not be on the list they provide Andy, you really didn't make a single valid argument against his play. I do honestly wonder, however, if Daniel would be willing to elaborate on why he wouldn't be one of those backed to play.This whole poll is kind of silly. How many of us have seen any of these players play live HU LHE other than Howard in the PPM? 1. Daniel.-adam

Ok since you decided to pick on my post, I have to defend myself. First of all, those quotes were about phil ivey. Nothing more to be said for that. And as for the most psychologically solid, you're an idiot. Phils biggest weakness is tilt. And he has no respect for amateur players. Look at any quote he's made about amateur players and you'll see.Ok, Daniels profiles about Barry. It was actually his comments in the thread after the profile. Re-read those and you will see that Daniel is almost offended by his overt atheism. Not to mention his comments in this thread.While it wasn't hold'em, Phil has said online that he is one of the best triple draw players around. Dropping about 50K heads up 2-7 in a week is pretty bad. He constantly went on tilt, especially playing against spirit rock. I was merely making a point about heads up limit poker.And the whole poll isn't silly. This is a place to express opinions and to read other peoples opinions. If this was a fact based forum it'd be pretty boring. And I got news for you, Daniel was expressing him opinion as well. Just because it comes from his mouth doesn't make it gospel.Thanks for your attempt to pick apart my post and try to make me look stupid. You're a hell of a guy.

[faketree 0]

You are being ridiculous. Maybe your deep down love for Phil is clouding your judgement. Don't get me wrong' date=' I love watching Phil play. But like Daniel said' date=' no one is trusting him with millions of dollars of their own money. I can see it now' date=' 'Andy, how can you play 72 when I have the button? I mean, a professional would never raise me there! You !#$@%#$#er!'[/quote''']Hmm... starting with anecdotal arguments. I can see where this post is going..

And there is no way Beal would be even slightly intimidated by Phil. If anything' date=' It'd probably be the opposite.[/quote']Who is being ridiculous here? Your statement has no merit whatsoever. Phil is one of the most psychologically solid poker players in the business. Read any profile of him:"Endurance, creativity, focus, shorthanded skills, dedication. You could go on and on about Phil's strengths really. He is a student of the game and the fact that he respects all of his opponents skills is what keeps him sharp. He takes no one lightly. " -Daniel"Some of the top players are still skeptical, but they don’t seem to realize he is still an improving player and he has unmatched raw talent." -Barry G

Side note' date=' based on Daniels player profiles of Barry and his comments in this thread, that they aren't the best of friends. [/quote']Where in Daniel's profile is this implied? I'm lucky I read it beforehand so I didn't have to load the window to know you were just making stuff up. All he said in this thread was that they wouldn't trust his abilities playing in the big big game.

Also' date=' I've personally watched Phil drop about $50K in the last two weeks playing 80/160 2-7 triple draw. Still want to stake him?[/quote']He lost what will most likely be less than a big bet in the big game playing an entirely different game online at a different limit. This is relevant how?While Phil May not be on the list they provide Andy, you really didn't make a single valid argument against his play. I do honestly wonder, however, if Daniel would be willing to elaborate on why he wouldn't be one of those backed to play.This whole poll is kind of silly. How many of us have seen any of these players play live HU LHE other than Howard in the PPM? 1. Daniel.-adam

Ok since you decided to pick on my post, I have to defend myself. First of all, those quotes were about phil ivey. Nothing more to be said for that. And as for the most psychologically solid, you're an idiot. Phils biggest weakness is tilt. And he has no respect for amateur players. Look at any quote he's made about amateur players and you'll see.Ok, Daniels profiles about Barry. It was actually his comments in the thread after the profile. Re-read those and you will see that Daniel is almost offended by his overt atheism. Not to mention his comments in this thread.While it wasn't hold'em, Phil has said online that he is one of the best triple draw players around. Dropping about 50K heads up 2-7 in a week is pretty bad. He constantly went on tilt, especially playing against spirit rock. I was merely making a point about heads up limit poker.And the whole poll isn't silly. This is a place to express opinions and to read other peoples opinions. If this was a fact based forum it'd be pretty boring. And I got news for you, Daniel was expressing him opinion as well. Just because it comes from his mouth doesn't make it gospel.Thanks for your attempt to pick apart my post and try to make me look stupid. You're a hell of a guy.That being said, you avatar is great. Good stuff.

[ArseneLupin3 0]

Furthering that discussion, PH seemed to be specializing in self-promotion for about 2 years. Before that and after Daniel woke Hellmuth's brain back up from hibernating inside of his ego, he specialized in big bet tourneys. In retrospect, I should have known they weren't talking about PI.Back to PH.. anyone notice that his second book is full of lies? My favorite, and this quote may not be worded correctly, but the EXACT MEANING of the statement is preserved: "I never semi-bluff or bluff for all my chips."Phil has the remarkable characteristic of believing that his edge in playing and reading ability outweighs certain extreme situations of tournament and pot equities forcing a call in a specific situation. From watching him (up until the HU championship to be aired on NBC) it is apparent that, for at least a few years, this was not at all the case. It seemed as if he couldn't outplay a drunken monkey at some points, provided the monkey had the ability to properly heckle.-adam

[Absolute 0]

I am out of the loop.Can someone direct me towards a website that has the results from the last time Beal went to Vegas and where he played the 100K-200K games and lost all that money.Id like to read about it.

[ArseneLupin3 0]

Ok since you decided to pick on my post, I have to defend myself. First of all, those quotes were about phil ivey. Nothing more to be said for that. And as for the most psychologically solid, you're an idiot.

Hey hey hey. I picked on your post, not you. Additionally, I said "one of the most." Please refrain from twisting my words to make me look bad. I had read Daniel's initial post where he said "Phil" and did not specify or quote someone specifying which Phil was being referenced. As both had been discussed and these forums do not let you see the referenced posts (AFAIK) I had no idea until rereading the thread.

Ok, Daniels profiles about Barry. It was actually his comments in the thread after the profile. Re-read those and you will see that Daniel is almost offended by his overt atheism. Not to mention his comments in this thread.

Sorry, again I was misreading. It's been a long day and my brain shut off after getting through 4 chapters of an anthropology textbook.

And the whole poll isn't silly. This is a place to express opinions and to read other peoples opinions. If this was a fact based forum it'd be pretty boring. And I got news for you, Daniel was expressing him opinion as well. Just because it comes from his mouth doesn't make it gospel.

My point was that most of the arguments involved people talking out of their asses and providing (often entirely incorrect) anecdotal evidence as either fact or in an unqualified form that made it appear as such. I apologize if my inability (or lack of a desire) to read the posts as carefully as I should have gave anyone that impression of either myself or, more importantly, you.

Thanks for your attempt to pick apart my post and try to make me look stupid. You're a hell of a guy.

Yes. We all see how well that worked, eh? You were rubber and I was glue.

That being said, you avatar is great. Good stuff.

Ty. I made it myself.-adam

[ArseneLupin3 0]

I'm too lazy to verify it, but this page had some of the info about the big game around wsop time last year, if my memory serves me:http://pokerworks.pokerclan.com/forum/pokerclan/?f=25

[Mattnxtc 0]

Forget Phil, theres no way he should play in it and 95% of the forum knows it.I want to hear a case against Ted Forrest playing. So far I can't find a reason why Ted shouldn't play.

If this game were Stud...Andy Beal would be insane or stupid or both to want to play Ted Forrest heads up....but since it is Holdem...they got better arms warming up in the bullpen.

I agree...Ted Forrest is one of the best stud players but i dont think he is rated extremely high as a holdem player

[Absolute 0]

thanks Arsene, it all looks recent thoughill dig around

[Absolute 0]

Here is a post I found on a forum about the big game, from a user named "cjs"

I wrote this to Linda on 10/08/04, and she suggested I post it here. I've been reading a non-technical introduction to game theory as part of my ongoing "poker game improvement program". Sklansky talks about using game theory, but he does a suck job of explaining it. I've also been reading about cryptography, which has the same concerns as a poker game, that is, never sending a consistent signal that your opponent can read. Game theory should provide a way to "encrypt" your poker game, so I'm reading it.Here's some background to understand what Gus Hansen and Andy Whatshisname are probably doing. Imagine you are in a game with one other player. The other player has four strategies (A, B, C, and D). You also have four strategies (1, 2, 3, and 4). Whenever the other player chooses a strategy, you reply with one of yours; lather, rinse, repeat. If you make a table of what the two of you are doing, there will be 16 squares in the table (your four times opponent's four is 16).Some of your strategies are "dominated", that is, they will always make the game worse for you, so you never play them. Some of your opponent's strategies are dominated, so they are out, too. You could play the leftover strategies equally (play each of them 25% of the time), but there's a mix of percentages that will give you the most wins. A little bit of algebra will show what the mix is, and the same equation can show what your opponent's best mix is.In the real world, folks usually don't plan their mix like that, but they are still playing a mix. ANDY is using his chips to track his opponent's mix, and he's probably calculating what his mix ought to be in response to that. He never looks at the other player because, in strict game theory terms, he does not need to look anywhere except at the "mix of strategies data" to get the best of it. (NOTE: while this is actually true--he can get the best of it by his method--he might find it easier sometimes to win a hand MERELY by looking at the other player; but that isn't his goal, so he doesn't care, and he isn't looking.)Some time in the 1960's, someone did a study treating a farmer as one player in "the farming game" and all forces of all kinds--government, weather, other farmers, etc.--as a single, giant opponent. This is both "legal" and acceptable under the systems of game theory, and this is what Sklansky means when he talks about "implicit collusion." GUS is pretending all other players in the world are one giant player, and he is playing a pure mix strategy. He has calculated the best possible mix percentage for all hands, and he plays that strictly. To understand his actual behavior at the table, you must remember he is playing each and every starting hand on a percentage. He is playing AA on some percentage, and he is playing 72 on some percentage. He is remembering the number of times he has received each hand and turning that into a percentage of all the hands he has received. If he has already played a certain hand to its mix percentage, he throws it in. That is why you see him play so many "bad hands" and why you see him throw "good hands"--he must play the bad hands to their ideal percentage, and he must throw away good hands if keeping them would exceed the ideal percentage. Fortunately for him, the bad hands have a much lower ideal percentage than the high hands, so he doesn't have to throw the high very often. But he does have to throw them.If you look at the way he draws out on people, it tends to bear out my hypothesis. Admittedly, I am watching edited games on television, but if we take the omitted hands to have relatively little effect on the game, then in the effective hands, Gus usually draws out. That's not significant. What is significant is the WAY he draws out: usually, Gus and his opponent each make a hand on the flop, and it looks like the opponent has the best of it; but Gus usually re-draws-out on the turn and takes a striking lead in the hand. He does this even with the worst hands, so it's not about his hand strength--it's about the pattern of the draws themselves.The danger with Gus's play is breaking his bankroll. The pure ideal mix DOES NOT account for the amount wagered on each hand, so if he is playing no-limit, and if the percentage play doesn't work out on this particular hand, he can be completely busted. That's an element NOT covered by game theory. He could work out a separate risk equation under game theory and try to combine it with the ideal mix percentage equation, but...In the case of tournament no-limit, his total risk is limited to the entry fee, so risking points (tournament chips) on a hand is not really a consideration. It matters even less once he's in the money.Of course, total risk is a non-consideration in a limit game with a cap, which is what he plays most of the time anyway.Well, that's what I think is going on. Let me know if you have specific observations that belie any of this.

[eleutheromaniac 0]

I just read about this on cardplayer.com. The latest news is that it will happen, and they'll play on Doyle's terms.As for who I'd pick, I got to say that Phil Helmuth (not invited, though I don't know why) really impressed me when he went heads up against Annie Duke. Yes, he lost, but he made some unbelievable lay downs that most players wouldn't make heads up (of course, that's what he's best known for, and sometimes he takes it too far and releases some winning hands). And since it's limit hold em, the tilt factor--which is known as Phil's biggest weakness--is somewhat reduced.I've heard a lot about Chip Reese and Phil Ivey, but haven't seen enough of them to really comment. Since limit hold'em is more about math and odds than no limit, I think Lederer, Gus Hansen or Chris Ferguson (another non-invitee) would do well, as they're all known for their exceptional math skills.But to be honest, I don't think it really makes a difference who you pick among the pros. I really don't understand why they chose limit instead of no limit. Heads up, limit hold em is really much more about luck than skill (just my opinion). You'll see every flop, and probably a lot of bad river beats, maybe every once and a while a contested pot but that's about as exciting as it will get. Aside from the money at stake, I really don't have much interest in watching that for too long. To me, NLHE heads up is as pure as it gets, and would be infinitely more exciting....especially at these stakes--I can just imagine one of the pros losing their mind and pushing $40m in the middle when they're drawing dead against the nuts; the horrified looks on the other pros' faces as they watch on a live feed; the announcer's screaming, 'What the hell could he be thinking here?!'; and the life-long pyschological repercussions that would follow. Forget $80m, that would be priceless.

[ArseneLupin3 0]

I just read about this on cardplayer.com. The latest news is that it will happen, and they'll play on Doyle's terms.As for who I'd pick, I got to say that Phil Helmuth (not invited, though I don't know why) really impressed me when he went heads up against Annie Duke. ... And since it's limit hold em, the tilt factor--which is known as Phil's biggest weakness--is somewhat reduced.

The tilt factor of losing a couple million in a single pot would tilt Phil much worse than losing a pot that only meant a chance at cashing high in an event that paid, at a maximum, ~$1m (or for the wsop, $5m, but the chances of this happening negate the tilt induction). That and Phil's game is heavily read-based.

But to be honest, I don't think it really makes a difference who you pick among the pros. I really don't understand why they chose limit instead of no limit. Heads up, limit hold em is really much more about luck than skill (just my opinion). You'll see every flop, and probably a lot of bad river beats, maybe every once and a while a contested pot but that's about as exciting as it will get.

1. It matters who you choose. A lot. Any edge, no matter how small, is a lot of money at these limits. Andy Beal has been tutored and has practiced intensely. He is a competitive man.2. HU NLHE, while more exciting, involves a lot of dull pots where the small blind folds and nothing else happens. Much of the HU play you've seen has been with stacks so small relative to the blinds that pushing is a correct play in a huge percentage of circumstances, thus increasing rather than decreasing the luck factor. An argument can be made that limit involves gambling far more frequently on patterns and game theory. Players vie to get maximum value of their hands far more frequently, instead of running coinflip draw vs. made hand semibluffs, etc. 3. The less players there are, the less beats you will see on the end as a result of less people seeing the river, less showdowns, etc. You obviously haven't watched much of the quality HU play at 200/400, 300/600 on UB. I've seen about an hour and a half of it and I know that it's pretty interesting and typically has more action than the NL games.

Aside from the money at stake, I really don't have much interest in watching that for too long. To me, NLHE heads up is as pure as it gets, and would be infinitely more exciting....especially at these stakes--I can just imagine one of the pros losing their mind and pushing $40m in the middle when they're drawing dead against the nuts; the horrified looks on the other pros' faces as they watch on a live feed; the announcer's screaming, 'What the hell could he be thinking here?!'; and the life-long pyschological repercussions that would follow. Forget $80m, that would be priceless.

Yeah, but you're living in a fantasy world if you think that anyone would ever float their entire stake on a single pot. Bankroll management applies to these folks, as well. This reason alone is probably the best explanation for why they chose LHE.-adam

[RonBurgundy 0]

DN, looks like right now Ivey is leading by far. What do you think of this choice?

[Random Fluke 0]

Limit hold em and NL hold have some very big differences between them... mainly that in NL your stack is in jeapordy during every hand. Because of this bluffs, and talented bluffers, become more powerful in NL. In limit a bluff still has power, but nowhere near what it has in NL. There are many players who are great NL players but terrible limit players. There is also a big difference between Cash NL games and tournament NL games, once again it boils down to the fact that bluffing has much more power in a tournament than in a cash game. Hellmuth is a great NL tournament player, but there is no way I would stake him in a heads-up cash game against pretty much any other pro.Also, say what you want about Andy Beal, but he is one of the best limit hold 'em players in the world. I would not be at all surprised to see him win this thing. If I gave odds I might say it was 60/40 in favour of the pros, but I think a lot of the pros themselves would say that is being too generous. If it were my money I'd want Ivey to play out the whole thing. But Todd Brunson's results vs Beal are hard to argue with as well.

[eleutheromaniac 0]

Yeah, but you're living in a fantasy world if you think that anyone would ever float their entire stake on a single pot. Bankroll management applies to these folks, as well. This reason alone is probably the best explanation for why they chose LHE. -adam

You know, judging by your avvy I would've thought you had more of a sense of humour. :roll:

1. It matters who you choose. A lot. Any edge, no matter how small, is a lot of money at these limits. Andy Beal has been tutored and has practiced intensely. He is a competitive man.

Well, we'll find out soon enough, won't we? If we were talking pros vs. amatuers, I would agree, but I just don't buy that there's that much of a difference between, say, Gus Hansen and Howard Lederer to really make it a deal breaker. It's really just a question of who's playing their absolute best on that day. You definately want to choose someone who's usually emotionally and psychologically balanced, so you're less likely to catch him/her on a bad day. Someone who's known for having really bad days at 'the office' and is prone to funky mood swings is someone you don't want to stake, since you don't know ahead of time what day they'll play.

involves a lot of dull pots where the small blind folds and nothing else happens.

The magic of editing.

Also, say what you want about Andy Beal, but he is one of the best limit hold 'em players in the world. I would not be at all surprised to see him win this thing. If I gave odds I might say it was 60/40 in favour of the pros, but I think a lot of the pros themselves would say that is being too generous. If it were my money I'd want Ivey to play out the whole thing. But Todd Brunson's results vs Beal are hard to argue with as well.

I wouldn't be surprised either. Scared money never wins, and if this guy's as rich as all that I don't think he even cares that much about losing $40m (I don't know how rich this guy is, but it's probably equivalent to you or me losing $400 or $4000), but you know the players care about losing their share of $40m, and that's a huge advantage. Then again, not caring as much can also be a disadvantage, depending on your personality. Some people are just better when they're up against it.

[Erik67 0]

I hope Beal crushes them :twisted: These guys are 2/4 players in the game of life compared to Andy. What he did in business requires more talent, people reading ability and guts than all Doyle's crew has combined. Think about it. Beal pays more in taxes in a month than the list combined pays in a year. That's all that matters, don't tell me it isn't. This whole forum is about making the most money.I just don't have my lips superglued to big time pro's behinds like some do. Maybe that's why I root for Beal :-) Erik

[KDawgCometh 2]

I just read about this on cardplayer.com. The latest news is that it will happen, and they'll play on Doyle's terms.As for who I'd pick, I got to say that Phil Helmuth (not invited, though I don't know why) really impressed me when he went heads up against Annie Duke. Yes, he lost, but he made some unbelievable lay downs that most players wouldn't make heads up (of course, that's what he's best known for, and sometimes he takes it too far and releases some winning hands). And since it's limit hold em, the tilt factor--which is known as Phil's biggest weakness--is somewhat reduced.I've heard a lot about Chip Reese and Phil Ivey, but haven't seen enough of them to really comment. Since limit hold'em is more about math and odds than no limit, I think Lederer, Gus Hansen or Chris Ferguson (another non-invitee) would do well, as they're all known for their exceptional math skills.

quite the opposite actually. I can tell you don't play that much limit at all. In limit one bad beat can lead to a massive string of bad decisions and reads to where you can eaisly piss away your money. It'll be a cold day in hell before Doyle would entrust millions in a freezeout cash game to Philly Dilly Willy. If you don't believe me just watch the PPM II where Chip Jett goes on massive tilt and gives away a huge chip lead to Howard Lederer and doesn't recover. This is where limit gets hard because if you don't catch yourself your roll will dissapear much quicker than you would realize

[superchuck 0]

i liked doyles example of bill gates coming down and flipping coins for 100 million at a time until someone cried for mercy. very amusing. the corporation is risking a lot more than beal in this situation.

[MilesZS 0]

1. It matters who you choose. A lot. Any edge, no matter how small, is a lot of money at these limits. Andy Beal has been tutored and has practiced intensely. He is a competitive man.

Well, we'll find out soon enough, won't we? If we were talking pros vs. amatuers, I would agree, but I just don't buy that there's that much of a difference between, say, Gus Hansen and Howard Lederer to really make it a deal breaker. It's really just a question of who's playing their absolute best on that day. You definately want to choose someone who's usually emotionally and psychologically balanced, so you're less likely to catch him/her on a bad day. Someone who's known for having really bad days at 'the office' and is prone to funky mood swings is someone you don't want to stake, since you don't know ahead of time what day they'll play.

If we were talking pros vs. amatuers, I would agree, but I just don't buy that there's that much of a difference between, say, Gus Hansen and Howard Lederer to really make it a deal breaker.Maybe not much of a difference, but the point is that one exists. A 1% difference in a low limit game could mean pennies. A 1% difference in a game with 80 mill on the table is a bit bigger. That and the lineup is going to have something to do with who has already had success against Andy. Barry (Greenstein) claims that Howard lost his first round against Andy, and all but begged for the others to let him play again (he claimed cold cards), and from what Barry says he hasn't lost since. A player with that type of track record (not to mention toughness) should be chosen over a world-class player who hasn't played against Andy or something. Chip is a badass, no matter how you put it. I guarantee he'll be in the game (all you have to do is read SS2 to know this is true, Doyle says, "If I had to choose someone to play for the survival of my family, it would be Chip Reese." I think the lack of credit given to Chip is his lack of face time. He doesn't play in tournaments, so everyone assumes he sucks.I'd bet Phil Ivey will get chosen, and obviously Doyle will play. A case can be made for Jen, since she wrote the limit hold 'em section of SS2.I'm basing most of this assuming Doyle is the 'leader' of the group.

[TFABOM 0]

What's Andy Beal's net worth?

[MilesZS 0]

What's Andy Beal's net worth?

In the billions somewhere, that's all I know.

[eleutheromaniac 0]

quite the opposite actually. I can tell you don't play that much limit at all. In limit one bad beat can lead to a massive string of bad decisions and reads to where you can eaisly piss away your money. It'll be a cold day in hell before Doyle would entrust millions in a freezeout cash game to Philly Dilly Willy. If you don't believe me just watch the PPM II where Chip Jett goes on massive tilt and gives away a huge chip lead to Howard Lederer and doesn't recover. This is where limit gets hard because if you don't catch yourself your roll will dissapear much quicker than you would realize

It's true I play more no limit than limit, but I'm no stranger to limit. I guess I just don't go on tilt--I'm not bragging, I've just had so many bad beats online it just doesn't bother me anymore. I was just using simple logic: since 'tilt' is a temporary emotional state, I would assume that the protection that limit affords would give you time to get over it. Just as you said, you would need a string of bad decisions to really get hurt, whereas in no limit you only need one. I guess I can see your point too though, where it might be easier to let yourself go in limit.

[moneymanbc 0]

Lets not forget about Bill Fillmaff (http://www.planetstacked.com/fillmaff/) He should be on the list for sure!