Thing is you only get to the top by taking a risk. and if you are "blessed" with that kind of sick mindset, you don't just stop and retire from poker all of a sudden when you are up 10 million or something like that.

Doubt he's broke, maybe "high stakes broke", but who knows.

Certified badass itt

What if I personally vouch for him, would you consider it then?

Can I get a loan?, I'm average at best, but I can tell you all day how awesome you are, clearly you need strange people to think that about you

Hate to see the beautiful leveling by limp-fold-pre wasted on you guys.

lmfao

Peters definitely not broke, that i can assure you.

Truth is we don't know about dwan. Macau is such a shroud of mystery that there's no way to really tell. What i do know is typically when a poker player quits playing a form of poker he was extremely profitable at and then gives a really lame vague excuse for not playing this form of poker (with dwan online poker), in my experiences the truth is it's because said player is bust , or in makeup and being told by his backers to only play the type of games they feel hes +ev in.

you know nothing hankypankyAA

I saw Dwan in Macau. Hes not broke. We chatted he has a few Milli and is in makeup w backers but far from broke. far from it. We were eating at Belon and I approached him . Hes very nice and cool. Dwan is awesome

hmm, running bad for 3 years, yet trying to convince either yourself or this forum that your a successful bettor on Hourse Racing is just lol

maybe Tom backers can back your horse racing bets. the -EV has to end soon, can't possibly go another three years, because "You're a successful bettor"

I never really understood the concept of staking and makeup. What happens if the guy being staked keeps losing? What's in it for the guy being staked if he's just breaking even or slightly in profit, all of which goes to the staker? I read Doug Polk's thread about staking and how he recommends changing a staking agreement to 20/80 if the stakee is deep in the red so that the stakee would have some incentive to still play and not just quit poker but that seems like a terrible spot to be in and a good way to get screwed. I also read an article about Jason Mercier's staking arrangements where he used to back 4-5 players but he's down to only 1 because 2 were pretty much break even for him and 2 quit poker altogether. Mercier said he's in profit lifetime from staking but I doubt anyone would admit they lost money overall staking so who knows if this is true.

I doubt Dwan has millions in the bank. If he had $ to play, he wouldn't be sitting at a poker machine in vegas, he'd be playing live poker, but I guess when you're a high profile player like Dwan it would be tough to sit in a 10/20 live game or similar stakes without it being pretty obvious you're broke, or at least broke in relation to the amount of $ you used to have to play with. All things considered, I bet Dwan wishes he didn't drop out of Boston University to play poker.

Exclusive clubs don't have lines, baller.

Thanks for your informed opinion!

Wtf does the poker machine have to do with anything? He's sitting there with Rui Cao, could it be any more obvious that it's either for fun or there are sidebets on the outcome?

@ Both of you: Firstly I never bet in running. All my bets are before the race.

I average about 6 bets per week and have had 986 bets in the last 3 years @ an average price of over 14/1. In that period my ratio of 2nd place finishers to 1st place finishers is 87% in favor of 2nd place finishers. Maybe even you bright sparks can decipher that the projected ratio is more like 50%. This has cost me a lot of money. In poker (especially online) this sort of volume would obviously run out it's variance a lot quicker than 3 years, but seeing as I only average 6 selections per week at the sort of odds I specialize in, then a 3 year spell like the one I have outlined is thoroughly possible and indeed has happened.

True, I guess I originally suggested that this was comparable to poker and that one could run just as bad for 3 years at poker. Maybe a live tourney players could run horrifically for 3 years but online is obviously different due to much higher volume.

Sorry if I mislead people but I can assure you I am not making up anything and yes, I have still shown a small profit in the last 3 years.

I have no problem PM'ing the names of all 986 selections and the date they ran, the meeting they ran at etcetc. I will also provide a link to the Racing Post UK website where all results can be checked. I would be pretty sad to go back through 3 years of results, pick out 986 selections @ above 14/1 and average of 6 such selections pw and then make it such as 87% of my top two finishers finished 2nd.

Just because you guys jump in before making any actual attempt to understand something, doesn't mean that something is impossible.

Nobody cares.

Maybe, just maybe, his life doesn't revolve around being a hard-earning pro poker player 24 hours a day. So maybe he puts $5000 into a poker machine just for fun. It could happen, you know.

Of course you are correct, but sometimes, just sometimes, some folk need telling.

Actually, something else I have not been clear about: I should also mention that the above 986 selections have shown a loss but overall I have still shown profit as I have different systems in play, the above just being a brief outline of one. It is my most profitable system over time but is subject to higher variance.

More consistent profits and less volatile swings have come from laying bad favorites as the volume is much higher (about 20 lays pw) & profit/loss smaller on each selection.

It's pretty amazing to me so many people can say the same stupid ****, while somehow failing to actually read. It explains a lot, actually.

Agree with the above apart from the bit where you say the % of seconds should be 50%.
I'm sure you can work out why.

If he is playing 10/20 limit machine he probably has at least 10k to his name to be properly rolled. While he no longer has crazy money I am sure he can grind it back up.

At an average price of over 14/1 you are rarely backing the favorite.
Is it surprising that if you usually back a horse that isn't the favorite in the race you get significantly more 2nds than 1sts? Maybe a bright spark like yourself can decipher that no it is not surprising.

How dumb are you guys? READ THE THREAD. It makes my blood boil how absolutely brain dead the people in this forum are.

Yeah it's almost like NVG is full of dumb people or something.