How big is your bankroll...
This came off Negreanu's journal;
Ok so down $441k in two days, how much of a top pros bankroll is that?
I could see Brunson having Millions in the bank, Helmuth and Chan as well, considering they have been HIGH level pro's for 20+ years.
But Daniel is a relative newcomer - he has some TV deals etc, I think I remeber his WSOP winnings being in the 400k range, but to have 400K swings how big would your Bank roll have to be?
I ended up putting in an eight hour session once again and losing $190,000. Now for those of you shocked by that two day figure it's important to realize the stakes. In two days I'm down $441,000 which is nowhere near the biggest loser over that stretch. In fact, you can win half a million in an hour in that game, or lose it of course
Ok so down $441k in two days, how much of a top pros bankroll is that?
I could see Brunson having Millions in the bank, Helmuth and Chan as well, considering they have been HIGH level pro's for 20+ years.
But Daniel is a relative newcomer - he has some TV deals etc, I think I remeber his WSOP winnings being in the 400k range, but to have 400K swings how big would your Bank roll have to be?
Comments
His winnings there are something in the 3-4 million range.
He also has lots and reading his blogs i mean LOTS of other business deals going. he's really building a poker business.
They mentioned that he lost 250K to Alan Greenstein during the preliminary rounds of the tourney betting on what would come up on the flop...
Then he had a Q&A about Tourn poker, he said it was nothing to get worked up about as the cash games he plays his swings are up to a million a night, so, busting out of a 10000 buy in isn't anything to get worked up about.
You've got to wonder how close the marginal pros are to going broke. I think it would make for an interesting article.
"Then he had a Q&A about Tourn poker, he said it was nothing to get worked up about as the cash games he plays his swings are up to a million a night, so, busting out of a 10000 buy in isn't anything to get worked up about."
If busting out of an event for 10K is "nothing to get worked up about" then this player is able to make plays that someone who "10K is SOMETHING to get worked up about" would have a tougher time making. I know that this would be (IS) a distinct advantage for the Daniels and Phils. They are great players obviously, but I watched one event with one of the Dot com millionaires playing and he made some "this buy in is a joke to me" type of plays.
Many times these plays are going to payoff (4-1 dogs do hit) and then they look like they are poker savants.
I relate it to if a mid limit player went to micro limits on the internet. Are you going to try and gutshot someone for 10 cents, probably, because the money is insignificant, same as the above example, the amount of money (10 cents or $10 thousand) is only relevant to what your $$$$$$$ means to you.
Just a thought
btw negreanu is up there on many tournament total money lists.
If you can win/lose .5 mill in an hour, their bankrolls would be monstrous. they play these games as their bread and butter, and I am sure have the proper 300 bb bankroll. So Negreanu plays 15k-30k which is 9 million at the proper bankroll...also plays 30k-60k so do the math...18mill bankroll at least.
They wouldnt play in these games without this kind of bankroll. And Brunson was playing stuff like 15-30k limit in the 70s. inflation adjusted that is huge,
A number of the hot players today could very likely flame out. Their lifestyles will doom them to failure. I have read numerous posts about Daniel's problems with drinking and blowing all his dough at the tables. Don't know if they are true or not but for sure this sort of thing will destroy a top player. I've read a few things about TJ's problems with gambling outside of poker that have held him back. Food for thought.
I think Daniel is the type to push his limits releative to his bankroll from what I have read. I'm sure this trait doesn't leave a gambler whether he's playing 5/10 or 15K/30K.
It's funny how risk-adverse you can become after you've built something you consider to be substantial. You take a whole bunch of risks to get to that point, and then it abruptly turns on you: you want less risk so you can protect your reward. This kind of goes against the whole concept of a 'poker bankroll'; ie, money set aside to use specifically for poker, but that's how it is with me nonetheless.
I'm trying to work on that though. Enter a few more big buy-in tournaments, probably putting some of it back into the 'community', maybe taking some more of it home, but at least putting it into play.
My poker bankroll is tiny (mind you i have access to more funds but these are funds that less the odd treat i buy myself) are made entirely from poker, i'll bet it's only a few percent of yours. Still when it builds i push up my stakes rapidly and when it loses i push them down rapidly.
I still and will always view my poker play in a recreational fashion and so entering an event and blowing 10 or 15% of my bankroll doesn't seem to bother me. I'm trying to take the gamble out of it, but i have to admit that the second i become too cautious with it, i think my play will tighten up and i'll no longer enjoy either. For you the equivalent may be entering the WSOP by buying in for me it's local tournies.
Still i find poker is having the added benefit of me dropping huge sums on the blackjack and craps tables ... what can i say i'm a gambler
Daniel has since gotten his drinking under control, doesn't play drunk, a few beers here and there.
Apparently once he got hammered, and lost his whole bankroll without remembering anything, he woke up in his room and his money box was empty.
I just think that a player who talks about his losses as candidly as Daniel (ie loss 250k, 450k) this clearly means very little to him. His bankroll must be at least 20 times this to not care that much.
Notice in his posts online when he writes about playing in a ring game, he never writes how much he made, but he always mentions the losses....interesting. He does seem to be quite honest with himself (and others for that matter). I really feel he never writes with any hidden agenda, as a lot of other pros do...ie Hellmuth.
really good points
they can afford to be far more aggressive and reap the rewards
if they bust, jump on a plane and hit up the next huge tourny
Yes it's a 10K entry fee, which means very little to them BUT I think their is alot of added value to winning a main event or WSOP MVP (Daniel).
DN doesn't have a bracelet, BUT he is everywhere. His own online poker site, his TV appearances, interviews, argueably he is one of the most popular players, which has to translate into $$.
Think of the exposure that it would mean to a pro, Helmuth hasn't won jack for 15 years but he has 9 bracelets, which cash into DVD sales, Book sales, appearances, sponsorships.
Im sure that a pro realizes the value of the WSOP bracelet is not in the prize pool but in the 'added value'.
Josh Ariel comes to mind, Josh who? He finished third, so made an incredible return on his 10K, but it has to be considered a loss in terms of EV vs a week of playing 15K/30K no limit.
So sure the 10K may not be a tax to them at all, I would it is the EV of a championship that makes these top pros play for first rather then $$ which translates into some gutsy moves during the tourney.
That being said, is it plausible that Doyle, Chan or Negreanu have a $18 million bank roll?
The other thing to consider about the chances they'll take in the tourneys is they either want to win big or bust out early and get into the very lucrative side games. Sklansky touches on this in his tourney book in the area of 'other considerations' when you are looking at the hourly rates you target when playing poker.