So many of your posts consist of trying to diminish the accomplishments of successful players and speculating, usually incorrectly, on various aspects with an unhealthy obsession on how these players get bought into these tournaments. You might want to examine why you do that. Like professionally.

Yup. This thread is a disgrace. I know NVG is supposed to be 2+2's cesspool, but allowing self-promotion for a bet that has 0 chance of taking place is too much even for us.

So..

"the most elite problem solvers and deductive logic reasoners in the world" thinks playing in a game with "very little edge" is a good idea?

Okay, thank you for at least providing a coherent answer, but I still don't really agree with you.

Let's say there's a publically available pick up basketball game with a $1,000,000 prize fund. Do you seriously think that Lebron James wouldn't come in and scoop that money? Okay, maybe Lebron wouldn't bother, but it's laughable to assume that such an event wouldn't attract NBA-calibre talent.

If online players had such a huge edge over live tournament players, they would play tournaments and crush them. Maybe the best online cash players make enough money that they don't bother, but some of the lower tier online players certainly would find it worth their while if their edge was large enough. Many have tried, some have succeeded, but Negreanu and a few other live pros have continued to stay at the top. They're simply elite poker players.

If online players were so much better, they would play MTTs and crush them. In fact many of the top online players do play live MTTs and they haven't unseated Negreanu from the top level (like they have in fact done to quite a few other old-school live pros).

It's the same fundamental game using the same set of skills - an elite player in one could adapt and become elite in the other. Your football analogy is totally absurd. A more apt analogy would be a top player at one position switching to another - almost certainly any elite level player could switch positions and still play at a high level, since almost all the skills are directly transferrable.

Nobody agrees with you. I urge you to stop posting. What more evidence did you need that your posts are AIDS than Kanu coming in to shoot you down? I'd say he's a pretty reliable source on this matter...

Please folks do not feed the troll any more.

It's not about prizemoney, it's about edge. Say the online player has 100% ROI in a 10K tournament. (I have no idea what it actually is, but just say 100%.) That means they are earning on average 10K every time they play. Now subtract from that the airplane cost/travel cost. Subtract from that the average time it'll take from leaving home to returning (maybe 3/4 days assuming the tournament is a 6/7hour plane trip away--how much would they make online over those 4 days instead). Now add to that the boredom for these online players of playing at a super slow pace. Add to that, that due to variance, it could be decades before they'll actually see the actual ROI compared to what they should be getting. You can see that it's not an attractive proposition for many of them.

Fish think about these things in terms of the prizemoney, professionals consider the actual return on their money/time.

Also, consider that many of these online poker players have only moved up to these stakes in the last few years (And they wouldn't have reached these stakes if they'd spent most of their time playing the live tournament circuit.) Daniel has had 20 years to build up a reputation as a great live player, how are these online players expected to match that in 6 months even if they decided to concentrate on live tournaments. Plus, as Kanu pointed out, many online players have done very successfully at live tournaments when they have decided to play them.

Even after all his bull**** i cant help but like Daniel.

Sure all of this makes sense. But it seems to rather support what I've been arguing:
1. Online pros' edge (in terms of theoretically correct play) over top live tournament pros isn't really that large.
2. Live pros' experience at the specifics of live play (reads, coping with boredom, etc.) helps them.

There's no reason I can see why someone who had put the intense amount of work in to become a top live MTT pro couldn't succeed if he applied the same intensity to becoming a top online pro. That's all I'm saying. Don't see why people find it controversial.

No simply no : the ratio of bad players vs elite players on live big MTTs is way higher than it is online.
Simply because some businessmen and other not good players (for example qualified in sats) come here to have a vacation and play poker.


So because of that it's so easier to have a chance of beating (term doesn't make really sense since no one, especially casual, yet serious in their approach of poker, live players, don't play much volume) live tournaments than beating online high stakes.

Online, at HS, weak players are really rare because it isn't as fun (at least for some recreative players) to play online poker than to travel abroad in nice cities to play in a big live tournament where you might (with lot of luck) win couple hundreds k or even a million, while having the chance of playing vs players you admire.

So basically a player that understands poker (whether he is a pro or not), no matter if he has the skills to beat 200NL (or even just 50NL online) can do decent in live tournaments whereas online they wouldn't have any chance (the 200NL online pro wouldn't get crushed, but has no chance of winning on big samples IMO even if he plays almost everytime with 1 big fish at the table)


A 200NL online pro would be "a favorite" (or let's say would be really +ev, it's hard to define favorite on a really heterogene fields of 7k players with sickos like Galfond on it and rich uber fishes that have 10k to burn) on soft big tournaments (ME WSOP) and wouldn't be outclassed on tough EPTs like London or Copenhagen (scandi style, i don't know if there still is an EPT in Denmark).

Do you actually play cash and tournaments? These so-called top online pros you talk about may well be able to play faultlessly in a live tournament, or 50 live tournaments or a 100 live tournaments...doesn't mean they're going to crush them though. It's VARIANCE FFS.

No different than the top online tournament players going on a 500 or 1000 game downswing in the space of a week.

Why would the top online players play tournaments when they beat the games they're playing with less variance? The edge that you talk of that these guys supposedly have is nullified in live tournaments where results are heavily luck-driven over a small sample.

You're just fixated on the fact that you might win $1mil by luckboxing one tournament and you think this is attractive to top online cash players which it isn't to the extent that you think it is.

Ikasigh has to be a level, nobody can be this dumb after having been given real responses that explains it this much.

Fully agree; iputnutsontable's posts make me cringe hard.

Online you can't read someone's posture, breathing, hand movements, etc.

To shed a little more light on the whole top online players vs live tournaments thing-- several guys have done quite well. Kanu already mentioned Jake Cody, Jason Mercier, and Doug Polk. I can throw a few other names into the ring: Tom Marchese, Tony Gregg, and Greg Merson.

I can also give some reasons why not everyone chooses to chase the big scores in live tournaments.
1) travel is very expensive (ie, EPTs are in 5 star hotels) and stressful for some (I personally can't stand long flights)
2) have to spend all day in a casino surrounded by degens
3) constantly on the move, which makes it much harder to get into good routines (eating healthy, being active, working out)
4) slow/boring live play vs. fast experience of multi-tabling
5) can't take breaks when you feel like it; have to abide by tournament schedule
6) there really is no "long run" since you would need thousands of tournaments (less true if you're playing high roller and super high rollers with smaller fields, of course)

Note, I'm largely ignoring the financial side of things. For the reasons above, live tournaments make me feel miserable so I rarely play them.

/derail

I'm not talking about guys who are just slightly +EV - I'm talking about the guys like Negreanu and Ivey who are at the top year in and year and year out playing against the toughest fields.

Okay, there are some great online players who don't care to play live. I get that. There are some online guys who switched to live MTTs and had great results. I get it.

I'm just saying that if you list off the top live MTT players, Negreanu is in the mix, he hasn't been displaced by the new crop of "online superstars" (the way he would have been if every online $200NL grinder had a massive edge over him). Maybe Mercier or Polk or one of the other guys you mentioned is "better" - at that level it's not really meaningful - they are all top tier players.

It's ridiculous to assume that someone who developed skills to become top tier in one discipline of poker couldn't become a top tier player in another discipline. We're not talking about limit 5-draw or super-hyper double-or-nothing SNGs where the skill differential is basically capped, they're both incredibly high skill-intensive formats of poker and the skill sets needed to beat them are almost completely overlapping.

Anyway, I'm tired of repeating myself. If you disagree, you're entitled to your opinion. Peace.

^^ Pretty big difference between doing it, and doing it in 2 weeks

If he can do it, it would take a lot longer.

Gus Hansen also does pretty well live.

Daniel what is up with the whole "I don't want to leave my home in Vegas for 2-3 months to do the bet" excuse? You are constantly flying around the world to play in tournaments. They're not using a body double for you in all those EPT and APPT events I watch you playing right?

he gets paid to do those events most likely.

Nah just not a big fan of publicity stunts. If Daniel actually bets $1,000,000 on himself then i'll be wrong, but since he's already admitted he didn't issue a challenge and doesn't intend on playing online HS except under extremely limited circumstances it's just not going to happen.

Also, 10+ years ago Daniel used to be a gambler but what he does now really isn't gambling. If he loses a tournament, what is he really losing? Is he losing his buy in? No, it's not his money used to buy in. Is he upping his reputation/career money total by playing 40-50 live events a year? Yes. It's win win for him, regardless of his results. He's probably played an average of 50 live MTT's a year for the last 15 years. If any decent player had 750 chances in MTT's, especially small fields of 80-400 players, how many tournaments could he/she win? In '06, he rebought 48 times in a single 1k event. This year, he rebought 5 times in the super high roller aussie tournament. It seems to me he's playing as much for the publicity of being at the final table and getting TV time as he is for the prize $.

You can call him a professional poker player but at this point, he's not a gambler. He even said for this "challenge" it would have to be on Pokerstars once poker is legal in the US. Again, it just seems like a Pokerstars promotion more than real gambling. If Pokerstars is ever fully legal across the US they may want to have some sort of high profile challenge like this for the headlines "Negreanu risks $1,000,000 in the MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE!" even though like live tournaments, he probably wouldn't be risking anything since Stars would value the publicity greater than the bet and fully back him.

Without his Stars deal, would Negreanu be considered a successful poker player right now or broke? Would he have played in the One Drop twice if he had to put up $1,000,000 of his own money, or would have not played or been heavily staked like everyone else? The truth is no one truly knows how successful any poker player really is since there are tons of staking deals and even some people who are deep in debt continue to play. Brad Booth bought in to HSP for $1,000,000, then a few years later is crying on a youtube video about how he's deep him debt, scamming and struggling to repay people. TJ Cloutier's won 6 bracelets and is broke. Chino Reem won the EPL tourney for $1,000,000 which probably didn't even bring him close to $0 net worth. Erik Lindgren $10,000,000 in winnings and he's filing bankruptcy? The list goes on and on. Success in poker is all about making money, but money winning lists often tell you nothing about how successful someone has been.

What have you won?

It seems obvious that this bet should be done strictly at zoom tables, that way daniel can invite whoever he wants to come play but the more fish he brings in the more regs will join the pool and mitigate the edge he gains from the fish. Zoom would also make it easier to complete the hand requirement in a (relatively) short time frame.

If it's done at normal tables it would either end up with Daniel being a big favorite due to being able to build far better games than what normally run, or be a huge dog constantly playing against 5 of the top players in the world.

After reading a lot of posts about this issue, I agree that if this were to take place, doing it at Zoom would make the most sense.

I never really liked Zoom style poker much myself and I could imagine Daniel, who is used to playing live, not caring for it, .... or maybe he would like it; I do not know him. But either way, this would seem to solve the problems that came up and as a bonus would reduce the amount of the time the bet would take.

If you bothered to watch that video interview that you yourself posted in this thread, and followed the conversation on twitter you would... correction... a person with reasonable cognitive abilities would realize that it's highly unlikely that this was all planned out the way it all went down. Here's how it all started in case you need a refresher. https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/sta...62217963069440

That was the big plan huh? They arranged to have some rando on twitter trash talk Negreanu about playing online high stakes so that he would say he'd bet all this dudes money in the hopes that someone would read this and post it on two plus two so the high stakes stars regs would get in an uproar... then some other people, not involved in the initial twitter conversation, would actually try and take him up on the bet, which was clearly just trash talking back at the rando trash talker and less rando person that chimed in.

As for the rest of the crazy stuff you said in your reply.... seriously. Get help.