Hi Wilbury Twist:

Much earlier in my career, going way back to 1991, I was able to work with a top notch editor, Lynne Loomis. The first thing she told me was to get rid of the exclamtion points, and to this day you don't see exclamation points in 2+2 books.

Best wishes,
Mason

He's not good. Only a few delusional fanboys think he is actually good. Like others have said, this must be why he was very vocal about Pokerstars VIP cuts - because he isn't a winner without rakeback.

Maybe they werent scared but did it out of pity?!
I never played HU at 200NL either bc i was doing fine and didnt want to take teh rent money of a guy from belarus who has family to feed...

Yeah I agree that this is good evidence. He wouldn't get to hold the tables if he didn't have the respect of the regs. How long ago was this?

wtf is this? Dani Stern has a very good poker mind. There is no question about that. I can't believe guys think stern isn't a good poker player... LOL. The dude was playing high stakes NL, then later HS PLO, he also grinded small and mid stakes NL for a long time, and he's crushed MTTs for a good clip as well. More than what any rando poker player can say for themselves.

but it still doesn't excuse playing 2017 nosebleeds in nonexistent games against other brilliant poker players. to me that's some straight up degen ****. but it's not news worthy or even NVG worthy imo.

Yeh, I know he is a really good player and has probably built a big bankroll. It is possible though that he was playing for rakeback at high stakes recently. Also possible, he blew $$$s playing HU against top PLO players.

Weren't you low stakes fullring grinder? In the end, when it was really decent KoTH, I doubt you would've stood a chance against anyone at 200NL unless you were secretly HU specialist.

A few points:

1. A good poker player doesn't just have a good poker mind, he has good game selection skills and strong mental skills to withstand losing runs. It is clear he has neither of the latter, and it is debatable whether he even has the former.

2. But all his highstakesdb graphs are losing, including from pre-bf. Unless he made a bunch on untracked euro sites, which is doubtful.

3. "Crushed MTTs for a good clip" Not really, after buy ins and expenses are accounted for. MTT cashes =/= MTT profits. Do you understand the difference between cashes and profits?

You can have a crazy good poker mind, but yet be a horrible professional poker player. You can have a crazy good poker mind, and yet still be dead beat degenerate gambler. How don't you understand this?

Dani clearly knows how to play poker. Did you grind up small and mid stakes to HS NL? What about grind up to HS PLO? What about having a ****ing TV show about your life? What about being invited on HS cashgame TV shows? Have you cashed over 3 million dollars in MTTs? Have you ever had a networth over to 1M? Have you ever made over 1M through poker? Dude you're just a clueless railbird. Dani is a very good poker player. I will say it again- very good poker player =/= responsible adult/ responsible professional poker player.

HSDB hands are untracked below 10-20, correct? So why are you basing your wild claims that he's a losing/bad poker player when you have incomplete information?

MTTs: You're right- the hendon mob doesn't account for losses, and a ton of hendon mob crushers are in makeup/ debt etc. As far as I know- and all the railbirds know- poker has been his main source of income- and he's been able to afford high buy in tournaments and he's had some relatively recent, good success. again, more than what any random, broke, railbird on 2p2 has ever done on or off the felt.

you and other people are just shaming/ hating on a guy for no apparent reason. like if the dude was a total jackass/ arrogant *******, scumbag/ criminal/ scammer etc then i get it- shame away and gloat. But as far as i know- stern a pretty solid dude who doesn't deserve this kind of ****.

It seems like poor game section by DS. If you are not beating high stakes online, move down rather than move up. He is a really strong player, but not at the level of those he was playing HU.

Seems like really poor editing by the publication, allowing the headline and not fixing the various punctuation and so on errors. The author actually wrote an interesting article. It was more the fault of the publication that the various errors were not fixed.

Very occasionally? You must not be doing a very good job.

After all the informing posts in this thread, how can you still be so ignorant?

Aren't you the guy who goes around implying everybody, but yourself, is terrible? Get a clue. Nobody is saying Dani Stern is crushing souls, but he's obviously good.

Yea...that's why you never played hu 200nl .

^

At hu no less.

Compare this thread with the famous thread about russian guy who won sunday million and then lost it all in matter of days playing some super high stakes games. The graph was crazy to look at. It was super bad and painful to watch. It was the kind of graph that will make some people contemplate suicide....yet there was a huge thread where people talked about it, had fun with it, made fun of him...etc. that guy was a noname rec, this is a well known pro player whos results are no secret....

its almost as if a lot of poker players are huge hypocrites...

Posted a similar post before but it got lost in the back-and-forths/trolling...

I have a quick question for the math wizzes about variance. It's not clear to me how many hands make up the 40BI diff between Dani and Berri Sweet, but it looks like Dani's played abt 10k hands this year. If 30-40 buyins is acceptable PLO variance between two heads-up beasts over this volume, is the same true for NLHE?

I remembered this quote from Dwan about the variance in his Jungleman match:

I get that the prevailing view (eg, from Polk and others) is that Dwan was getting outclassed in the challenge.... but I'm wondering whether 30/40 BI is still a broadly acceptable swing for NLHE, over 20k hands?

Any takers?

It's something that will happen occasionally even if you are a slight winner. Somewhere between 5% and 10% of the time would be my guess for a break even player.

I'm not sure who Polk is but I'd guess part of his reasoning is that jungleman has been playing high-level online poker and studying hard a lot more than Dwan has been over recent years. I'm not sure what Dwan's win rate was at the time but it would surprise me if it was worse than -5bb/100, let alone <-15bb/100

Almost anyone would get crushed playing HU against those guys. Only a really strong player would attempt it and have the bankroll for it. It seems unlikely either that DS is not a strong player or that it was just variance.

If you haven't watched their game and are top level pro yourself, it's impossible to say if he is getting outclassed or not. For example, my worst PLO HU single session! I ran 36 buy-ins below EV:

wat

Looks like you actually got lucky over that sample unless you think your edge is >74bb/100. Pretty sick thanks for sharing

wow how bad was this guy?

Yeah probably, just an example to show how sick PLO variance can be. If this had happened at $200/$400 table, at hand 933 NVG logic would've been 'wow, this Codecci guy must be biggest fish of all time, he lost $1 million in 933 hands'. And this was played with a huge edge, unlike Ansky/Berri game where edges are close (although we both played like lunatics, so standard deviation was way bigger).
Wouldn't mind playing him again

Meanwhile, back at the Empire headquarters, "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror..."

Lol. What the **** are you talking about? There has been no rakeback at high stakes for a while. And "possible", what has been shown to be blatantly true. -_-

Your subsequent post was also obviously already all said before as well.

Lol i seen that tweet wondered if he seen this thread was just jesting at the lose a few more houses ha!

30 buy ins in hu plo isnt huge . Can be two good sessions