Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you have your old notebooks from back when you were pounding on the players at 10/20, it would be neat to see the data or even better a photo of a page from a random day.Just interested in how you formated your playing information, the type of notes you wrote, and the general layout of your stats back then.flintsword

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit off topic, but didn't really think this question needed a new post.From your experience Daniel, who is the funniest player in these regular big games? You know, the "life of the table?".I refer only to the regulars (Brunson, Reese, Ivey, Greenstein, Hansen, Harman, Giang, Berman, T. Brunson, Elezra, Lee Salem, etc.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest insano
If that really is Phil Hellmuth how can you badtalk him.He is the unluckiest poker player I have seen on TV.He has won more money than you will in your whole lives.Almost every time Phil gets knocked out of a tournament on TV it is bad luck,I mean in the 2004 world series of poker in the 3,000$ dollar pot limit holdem championship,2 players hit running flush cards in 2 huge pots.You guys should show more respect to World Champions.
That isn't quite true. I'd have to say Howard Lederer has been even more unlucky in big touranment play lately. He has taken some truly brutal beats. Always a gentleman though!
Link to post
Share on other sites
If that really is Phil Hellmuth how can you badtalk him.He is the unluckiest poker player I have seen on TV.He has won more money than you will in your whole lives.Almost every time Phil gets knocked out of a tournament on TV it is bad luck,I mean in the 2004 world series of poker in the 3,000$ dollar pot limit holdem championship,2 players hit running flush cards in 2 huge pots.You guys should show more respect to World Champions.
That isn't quite true. I'd have to say Howard Lederer has been even more unlucky in big touranment play lately. He has taken some truly brutal beats. Always a gentleman though!
really?? what about when his all-in T :D T :D beat out J :club: J :D by flopping a set in the US poker championship??? it all balances out man.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If that really is Phil Hellmuth how can you badtalk him.He is the unluckiest poker player I have seen on TV.He has won more money than you will in your whole lives.Almost every time Phil gets knocked out of a tournament on TV it is bad luck,I mean in the 2004 world series of poker in the 3,000$ dollar pot limit holdem championship,2 players hit running flush cards in 2 huge pots.You guys should show more respect to World Champions.
That isn't quite true. I'd have to say Howard Lederer has been even more unlucky in big touranment play lately. He has taken some truly brutal beats. Always a gentleman though!
really?? what about when his all-in T :D T :D beat out J :club: J :D by flopping a set in the US poker championship??? it all balances out man.
really wat about when he hit a full house and corkins hit a 2 outer king on the river
Link to post
Share on other sites
A bit off topic, but didn't really think this question needed a new post.From your experience Daniel, who is the funniest player in these regular big games? You know, the "life of the table?".I refer only to the regulars (Brunson, Reese, Ivey, Greenstein, Hansen, Harman, Giang, Berman, T. Brunson, Elezra, Lee Salem, etc.)
David Grey is pretty funny, and so is Chau if you can unerstand him, lol.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A bit off topic, but didn't really think this question needed a new post.From your experience Daniel, who is the funniest player in these regular big games? You know, the "life of the table?".I refer only to the regulars (Brunson, Reese, Ivey, Greenstein, Hansen, Harman, Giang, Berman, T. Brunson, Elezra, Lee Salem, etc.)
David Grey is pretty funny, and so is Chau if you can unerstand him, lol.
your playing wiht the best player in the world baby. I like to play pookah, pookah is nice :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Date Limit Hours ResultFeb 6 1500-3000 7 +45,600Feb 21 4000-8000 8 -251,000Feb 22 4000-8000 8 -190,000Feb 26 4000-8000 5 +598,000Mar 1 4000-8000 31 -114,000Mar 18 2000-4000 2.5 + 16,500Mar 30 2000-4000 5.5 + 25,300Apr 9 100-200 NL 1.5 + 1,200Apr 15 2000-4000 3 + 78,000Apr 16 4000-8000 6 +120,000Totals 77.5 +329,600Hourly Rate= $4252.90
when did this happen? wonder who he played against.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Date Limit Hours ResultFeb 6 1500-3000 7 +45,600Feb 21 4000-8000 8 -251,000Feb 22 4000-8000 8 -190,000Feb 26 4000-8000 5 +598,000Mar 1 4000-8000 31 -114,000Mar 18 2000-4000 2.5 + 16,500Mar 30 2000-4000 5.5 + 25,300Apr 9 100-200 NL 1.5 + 1,200Apr 15 2000-4000 3 + 78,000Apr 16 4000-8000 6 +120,000Totals 77.5 +329,600Hourly Rate= $4252.90
when did this happen? wonder who he played against.
He comments on the players in the game at the end of his journal entry.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'd like to know is where all the winnings in the 2k/4k and 4k/8k game come from. Most of the names mentioned in Daniel'd blogs are top poker players who I very much doubt would continue to come back to an ultra high limit game where they are an overall loser. If no one is an overall loser then you're just playing musical chips from one night to the next but since Daniel is clearly a winner in this game that means someone HAS to be a loser.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That question is constantly asked (I started a thread on it once) but no one ever can come up with the answer...Here is my opinion/ what I previous posted:"The thing I dont understand is how everyone who seems to be playing in the "Big Game" is winning. This logically doesn't make senes. All I hear is "so and so plays and wins at the highest levels". Ok, so people have said that "whales" and other big shot millionaires come and play and lose big. Well, if this is true, than what makes the big game so special? If all it is pros beating rich amateurs...? Anyone of the top 100 pros could beat out rich amateurs? I don't want to knock on Daniel or anyone else that plays in the game, but if people like Phil Ivey are said to be winning 10 or 15 million or whatever yearly than who is losing all this money?? Really sorry to ask the question that has probably been asked a million times, but I just dont buy the answers everyone is giving."I know Daniel respects others about sharing their results, so I don't think we will get the answer we are seeking...

Link to post
Share on other sites
That question is constantly asked (I started a thread on it once) but no one ever can come up with the answer...Here is my opinion/ what I previous posted:"The thing I dont understand is how everyone who seems to be playing in the "Big Game" is winning. This logically doesn't make senes. All I hear is "so and so plays and wins at the highest levels". Ok, so people have said that "whales" and other big shot millionaires come and play and lose big. Well, if this is true, than what makes the big game so special? If all it is pros beating rich amateurs...? Anyone of the top 100 pros could beat out rich amateurs? I don't want to knock on Daniel or anyone else that plays in the game, but if people like Phil Ivey are said to be winning 10 or 15 million or whatever yearly than who is losing all this money?? Really sorry to ask the question that has probably been asked a million times, but I just dont buy the answers everyone is giving."I know Daniel respects others about sharing their results, so I don't think we will get the answer we are seeking...
ok lets go threw this again. Millionare amatures dont happen alot in the big game its usualy jsut the same old big pros all the time. Now lets say that there are 9 players in the big game, not all of them are the same some are better then others!!! players 123 are winning more then 456 and 456 are winning more then 789. So there a deffinatley LOSING players in the big game. People saying money goes around and back and around again threw the players are rong. But i really doubt any one will say that there a losing player in the big game. i guess if you make it to the big game thats good enoufe. thats y poeple always say so and so play in the biggest game in the world but they never say there a winning player.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That question is constantly asked (I started a thread on it once) but no one ever can come up with the answer...Here is my opinion/ what I previous posted:"The thing I dont understand is how everyone who seems to be playing in the "Big Game" is winning. This logically doesn't make senes. All I hear is "so and so plays and wins at the highest levels". Ok, so people have said that "whales" and other big shot millionaires come and play and lose big. Well, if this is true, than what makes the big game so special? If all it is pros beating rich amateurs...? Anyone of the top 100 pros could beat out rich amateurs? I don't want to knock on Daniel or anyone else that plays in the game, but if people like Phil Ivey are said to be winning 10 or 15 million or whatever yearly than who is losing all this money?? Really sorry to ask the question that has probably been asked a million times, but I just dont buy the answers everyone is giving."I know Daniel respects others about sharing their results, so I don't think we will get the answer we are seeking...
ok lets go threw this again. Millionare amatures dont happen alot in the big game its usualy jsut the same old big pros all the time. Now lets say that there are 9 players in the big game, not all of them are the same some are better then others!!! players 123 are winning more then 456 and 456 are winning more then 789. So there a deffinatley LOSING players in the big game. People saying money goes around and back and around again threw the players are rong. But i really doubt any one will say that there a losing player in the big game. i guess if you make it to the big game thats good enoufe. thats y poeple always say so and so play in the biggest game in the world but they never say there a winning player.
That was exactly my question. It sounds like it's pretty much the same players in the 4k/8k game all the time and we know for a fact (unless you have reason to think Daniel is lying about his results) that Daniel is a winner, therefore someone HAS to be a loser. My question was also, why would a top pro who is a consistent loser stay in the same game?If there weren't any "winners" and "losers" in the big game they would all just lose money to the rake and the casino would be the only winner. I think it's undeniable that in that game someone is a loser I was just curious as to why they'd keep coming back to the game (and who they are).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the regulars at the Big Game from what I've read Gus Hansen might be a slight loser. I would guess most of his money came from tournaments. However Daniel or any other pro in this game would never call someone out by name as saying they were a losing player.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That question is constantly asked (I started a thread on it once) but no one ever can come up with the answer...Here is my opinion/ what I previous posted:"The thing I dont understand is how everyone who seems to be playing in the "Big Game" is winning. This logically doesn't make senes. All I hear is "so and so plays and wins at the highest levels". Ok, so people have said that "whales" and other big shot millionaires come and play and lose big. Well, if this is true, than what makes the big game so special? If all it is pros beating rich amateurs...? Anyone of the top 100 pros could beat out rich amateurs? I don't want to knock on Daniel or anyone else that plays in the game, but if people like Phil Ivey are said to be winning 10 or 15 million or whatever yearly than who is losing all this money?? Really sorry to ask the question that has probably been asked a million times, but I just dont buy the answers everyone is giving."I know Daniel respects others about sharing their results, so I don't think we will get the answer we are seeking...
ok lets go threw this again. Millionare amatures dont happen alot in the big game its usualy jsut the same old big pros all the time. Now lets say that there are 9 players in the big game, not all of them are the same some are better then others!!! players 123 are winning more then 456 and 456 are winning more then 789. So there a deffinatley LOSING players in the big game. People saying money goes around and back and around again threw the players are rong. But i really doubt any one will say that there a losing player in the big game. i guess if you make it to the big game thats good enoufe. thats y poeple always say so and so play in the biggest game in the world but they never say there a winning player.
That was exactly my question. It sounds like it's pretty much the same players in the 4k/8k game all the time and we know for a fact (unless you have reason to think Daniel is lying about his results) that Daniel is a winner, therefore someone HAS to be a loser. My question was also, why would a top pro who is a consistent loser stay in the same game?If there weren't any "winners" and "losers" in the big game they would all just lose money to the rake and the casino would be the only winner. I think it's undeniable that in that game someone is a loser I was just curious as to why they'd keep coming back to the game (and who they are).
I have an idea of why. Mabey they think that theree next session will be better or there make it back in the next session. Also there isent just ONE loser in the big game.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If there weren't any "winners" and "losers" in the big game they would all just lose money to the rake and the casino would be the only winner. I think it's undeniable that in that game someone is a loser I was just curious as to why they'd keep coming back to the game (and who they are).
I have an idea of why. Mabey they think that theree next session will be better or there make it back in the next session. Also there isent just ONE loser in the big game.
It's all just speculating anyway. But I doubt that they'd keep coming back to a game waiting for a session where their cards will just run better than average. If you can't consistently beat a game over an extended period of time you are only going to lose your bankroll in a hurry. True, they can get better and learn and perhaps become winners in the game but $50,000 + pots are an expensive way to improve your game.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous
"The thing I dont understand is how everyone who seems to be playing in the "Big Game" is winning. This logically doesn't make senes. All I hear is "so and so plays and wins at the highest levels". Ok, so people have said that "whales" and other big shot millionaires come and play and lose big. Well, if this is true, than what makes the big game so special? If all it is pros beating rich amateurs...? Anyone of the top 100 pros could beat out rich amateurs? I don't want to knock on Daniel or anyone else that plays in the game, but if people like Phil Ivey are said to be winning 10 or 15 million or whatever yearly than who is losing all this money?? Really sorry to ask the question that has probably been asked a million times, but I just dont buy the answers everyone is giving."I know Daniel respects others about sharing their results, so I don't think we will get the answer we are seeking...
In phil ivery's article in cardplayer, he talks bout times being consistantly beat in the big game, so he would drop down (1K/2K) to build his roll back up. he'd step back up and lose again.this is where the "fresh" money comes from. It is from the lower levels being shuttled up by the loser.I'd venture to guess if DN ever got stuck. he'd do the same. so someone would show a big profit for a night , but once DN built his roll back he'd show even.So there you have it. a Big winner, and all the rest equal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"The thing I dont understand is how everyone who seems to be playing in the "Big Game" is winning. This logically doesn't make senes. All I hear is "so and so plays and wins at the highest levels". Ok, so people have said that "whales" and other big shot millionaires come and play and lose big. Well, if this is true, than what makes the big game so special? If all it is pros beating rich amateurs...? Anyone of the top 100 pros could beat out rich amateurs? I don't want to knock on Daniel or anyone else that plays in the game, but if people like Phil Ivey are said to be winning 10 or 15 million or whatever yearly than who is losing all this money?? Really sorry to ask the question that has probably been asked a million times, but I just dont buy the answers everyone is giving."I know Daniel respects others about sharing their results, so I don't think we will get the answer we are seeking...
In phil ivery's article in cardplayer, he talks bout times being consistantly beat in the big game, so he would drop down (1K/2K) to build his roll back up. he'd step back up and lose again.this is where the "fresh" money comes from. It is from the lower levels being shuttled up by the loser.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"The thing I dont understand is how everyone who seems to be playing in the "Big Game" is winning. This logically doesn't make senes. All I hear is "so and so plays and wins at the highest levels". Ok, so people have said that "whales" and other big shot millionaires come and play and lose big. Well, if this is true, than what makes the big game so special? If all it is pros beating rich amateurs...? Anyone of the top 100 pros could beat out rich amateurs? I don't want to knock on Daniel or anyone else that plays in the game, but if people like Phil Ivey are said to be winning 10 or 15 million or whatever yearly than who is losing all this money?? Really sorry to ask the question that has probably been asked a million times, but I just dont buy the answers everyone is giving."I know Daniel respects others about sharing their results, so I don't think we will get the answer we are seeking...
In phil ivery's article in cardplayer, he talks bout times being consistantly beat in the big game, so he would drop down (1K/2K) to build his roll back up. he'd step back up and lose again.this is where the "fresh" money comes from. It is from the lower levels being shuttled up by the loser.I'd venture to guess if DN ever got stuck. he'd do the same. so someone would show a big profit for a night , but once DN built his roll back he'd show even.So there you have it. a Big winner, and all the rest equal.
.I think that you are mistaken i believe that phil said he had trouble with his switch to 400-800 and he would have to go down in limits to build back up and anyway phil and danny are WINNING PLAYERS in big game.I dont think so theres not jsut one big winner and the rest are equal
Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect Dan you have been playing limit and NL for years yet you post just a few months of limit play. Are these numbers representative of your overall results? Also, what is your standard deviation for limit and NL? It would be interesting to know what kind of bank roll swings you have been through. The impression one gets is that you win prety much all the time, you show a 70% win rate against the world's top players! If so, great!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...