You were being sarcastic but the fact is that most eventually won't. To reiterate what I said earlier, they almost all overplay their bankroll (or overspend it to the point where it is insufficient) and overestimate their edge. They get into games where their opponents are close to equal to them except for one live one once or twice a week. And they don't realize that the one live one accounts for the lion's share of their EV. Once those live ones are gone even the best of them usually shouldn't be playing as high as they do when they could step down to a lower level with easier pickings. So they go broke.

They do if they refuse to keep playing on the stake but continue playing poker.

for the sake of adding to a thread, people can pretend. or they can quit the steak

the point is there's way too much speculation by random tards who are inserting their own feelings and opinions to the mix in lieu of facts

That being said David,
Doesnt a poker player need only a slight edge over their opponents to win long term? The highest level of competition of any sort will have a hierarchy.
Or does this just apply to online poker where you can play many more hands in a lifetime?

Even if you have an edge you need a huge sample size to guarantee your edge will actually materialize as profits. Bankroll requirements and risk of ruin are based on your expected winrate in a game, so if you grossly overestimate your winrate you could easily go busto even with a decent edge in a game. Most landlords do not accept Sklansky bucks as payment.

So true!

LOL, I guess reading comprehension isn't your thing. It is a scam because Daniel said he will never see a penny of it again. That means it is outright theft. It is very different if that guy is working to pay Daniel off and DN just says 'I will very likely never get 100% of the money back but he is paying me back as much as he can'. He very clearly said he expects to get 0, and that means the guy is a scamming thief.

[/QUOTE]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

brilliant!

Heh...

the definition of "scam" and "scammer" has been played out in semantics wars a million times over on this forum, and i'm not about to start it all over again.

that said, i feel bad for you if you are only capable of such short sighted, first level thinking in other areas of life.

[/QUOTE]

+1 for me too... c8meplactons is a top notch post for his 9th all time post especially

+1

Can i grunch in and get cliffs on the last... 4 or 5 pages??

Erick Lindgren Owes Over $100,000 for Fantasy League, Won't Pay

Almost perfect, the only thing missing is her holding an infant.

Is he wearing a skirt, towel, or tablecloth?

I haven't even been following this thread but have seen DN go after Erick for his issues. That being said, calling him a hypocrite if he choose not to go off about him is a little absurd.

Just because people like hearing what DN has to say doesn't mean he needs to turn on friends for the entertainment value of it. If you were best friends with someone through thick and thin are you telling me because other people have had issues with him that you would drag him through the mud in front of your audience? Of course not and it doesn't hurt DN credibility or integrity one bit from that perspective.

DN has approached this whole thing with absolute perfection if he was going to confront it at all.

you mean E-vorce.

A broke, rapidly balding has-been with pink skin and a horrible reputation.

...followed by alimon-E

Nice photoshop ^^

Is that Erica in the window ? She looks different for some reason in that picture. Her hair maybe ?

I don't wanna look like a freak, I'll take the muumuu.