106 replies to this topic

[chantro]

deviper said:

DanielNegreanu said:

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.

[semaj550]

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.

[mark33f]

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...

[deviper]

mark33f said:

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.

[semaj550]

deviper said:

mark33f said:

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).

[MDBLakers]

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.

[semaj550]

I would really expect them to either. That doesn't mean I'm not curious though.

[deviper]

semaj550 said:

deviper said:

mark33f said:

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.

[semaj550]

deviper said:

semaj550 said:

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.

[deviper]

good point. mabey there just glad to finally get to the big game. I really dont no. :think:

[semaj550]

How about we just say that they're egos are too big for anything smaller and leave it at that? That's the only logical reason I can think of at this point.

[btlee]

mark33f said:

"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.

[deviper]

Anonymous said:

mark33f said:

"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

[Mark1808]

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!

[DanielNegreanu]

Those results are ONLY for 2005. Those are the only sessions I've played this year. I've never won 70% of my sessions in a year- ever.

[ct2582]

I have a question.I recall somewhere you wrote that in these big games, guys don't carry around that kind of cash, so you guys use $1 chips in place of $1,000 chips or something along those lines?How does it all work?Like, since you guys don't carry that kind of cash around, how do you guys buy-in, and if you guys do use $1 chips, how do you guys cash out?I've been wondering for awhile now.. :oops:

[squirrelyfox]

ct2582 said:

I have a question.I recall somewhere you wrote that in these big games, guys don't carry around that kind of cash, so you guys use $1 chips in place of $1,000 chips or something along those lines?How does it all work?Like, since you guys don't carry that kind of cash around, how do you guys buy-in, and if you guys do use $1 chips, how do you guys cash out?I've been wondering for awhile now.. :oops:

I think he mentioned that this is only when they're out of town, when they're at the Bellagio they actually use 1-for-1 value chips.

[Stylistic]

casinos also have safe deposits. You actually think Tuan Le carried out 2.8 million in cash to his car? And carried it into his house with a trash bag?

[doublesuited]

DanielNegreanu said:

Oh I'd say right around 1.5...

so if you lose 3 straight of your heads up challenges, you are in trouble? not very good bankroll management if you ask me unless you are getting backed.