Well, he did what he set out to do. I'd say that counts as a win.

(Even though in the end he was dependent on Deeb going out early...though one could equally argue that he not so much won it because of Deeb but Deeb lost it)

So, congrats to him.

If you don't know what you're talking about it's ok not to post, did you know that?

Yes, cashing is easier in a $1k 10,000 player field than a $10k 100 player field. A min cash in the 100 player 10k should pay more than a min cash in a 10,000 player 1k.

Low roller package was losing this year so clearly negative EV?

Not if low roller events are given the same attention a hi roller event is afforded.

However, if you do things like shoving blind and leave your seat for hours to go and play a different, higher buy in event...

I tried to buy a piece for the summer, but knew not to go anywhere near the low roller package. I wasn't alone.
I'm pretty sure it was mentioned at the time that it was the medium package that sold out first and was more over subscribed.
Why do you think that would be?

Didn’t follow the detailed exploits of Danny N this summer but yeah shoving blind and then leaving for hours is negative EV. That’s a much more compelling argument than he simply lost and offering that up as the proof fact. Even had he won in lower package you could still make your argument

I assumed people would be able to read between the lines.
Guess I was wrong.

Uh you only had one line so nothing to read in between. And not everyone follows the hour to hour exploits of Danny N.

I don't invest in players so I don't know the terms and conditions. Did he explain to investors that he would focus less on profit and more on POY points?

Even if he did, what do the lawyers around here have to say about the liability poker players have when they seek investments? Does the law treat this as casually as the poker community, or is there potential for securities laws to apply to such simple deals?

These types of laws can be very broad. One man was successfully prosecuted for avoiding >$10k deposits from his deli in order to save the bank paperwork (he wasn't laundering money, he simply kept his nightly deposits below the reporting limit even when the deli made more money, and shifted the extra to a slow night). The government DID NOT CARE that he wasn't laundering money, and that he could account for the money he deposited. Another example of the government's refusal to consider circumstances where they think the letter of the law was violated.

Given that, how safe are poker players seeking investments from prosecution for securities fraud when they seek investors and then, for lack of a better phrase, 'throw caution to the wind'?

Seeing as he had made it clear in his vlogs that he wouldn’t normally play 1500s with the great unwashed, but was going to push for POY, I think it was quite clear.

Securities laws; are you serious? And "focus less on profits and more on POY points"; you do understand that POY points (much like the money in tournaments) are mostly "up top." POY requires results and volume; both are required to have a chance at POY. Contrary to what many seem to believe on here; it is very possible to chase both profits and POY points at the same time; you know, since greater profits actually facilitate more POY points.

fire unlimited bullets

play crazy aggro

build stack to have better shot at deep run or re-enter



builds POY points, but not profitable.

Well no question that Dnegs cut his EV in a lot of events just because of POY
If it was enough for them to become -EV to play is hard to tell. I'd guess especially some of the PLO events with the hectic schedule added he should have negative ROI

(Some comedians said "he lost money on lowstakes package, therefore it must be -EV hahah)

His thinking in the last event was akin to the NFL 'prevent' defense, but I it may have been slightly flawed. He could've 'played +EV' on his first bullet of the day until he got his min-cash locked up ... presumably in one of the first 2-3 flights. THEN he could go into crazy man mode and try to run up a stack for Day 2. The 2nd bullet needs a little leeway since it depends on how many BB the rebuy has when he gets back into action.

Once you have the min-cash points locked up, then play a little crazy and try to run up a stack UNTIL one of your opponents locks into Day 2 and forces you to play 'correctly' in order to keep up with their possibility of bigger points.

As far as shoving blind, which I assume was in PLO. 'Most' random hands in PLO are around 30% to win HU or 3 ways. So even if you are HU with anyone other than the BB there's enough chips in the middle to call it a flip. With his concerted effort in the larger BI event he needed to maximize his time at the PLO table and got lucky.

I wouldn't have even looked at the low stakes package based on his previous vlog attitudes about those events. He's essentially playing them just because there's nothing else to play in order to chase points for POY or the team draft contest. It is a credit (maybe) that he can adjust his play based on what level of poker he's playing. I think he gets frustrated playing with amateurs quite often since they are certainly less predicable than Pros for the most part. GL

Building a stack to have a better shot at a deep run doesn't build points: an actual deep run builds points. In your example; one is neither collecting points or profits. This might be news to you, but a player does not earn points for merely entering an event.

jal300,

Are you a talk radio presenter?

you are correct. building a short stack is the key to deep runs.

I sensed responding to any of your posts was futile.

Should have gone with my instinct.

I think this is more or less what he did. He got his first mincash on Day 1C or 1D of the event, and once he cashed, he played aggressively on that bullet and busted it just before the end of the day. He got second mincash on the last possible flight (I think Day 1J), and played more conservatively with that to ladder up POY points.

There were definitely events where Daniel was playing -EV, because a few events he late regged, played a few hands, and then blinded out into the money while playing another event. But the success and failure of the package he sold did not turn on this. It turned completely on the fact that he didn't cash in the one $100k event, which obviously dwarfs however he played his 10 buy-ins to the $500 Colossus.

Don't forget the poker sites got shut down for 'bank fraud' because they misrepresented the product they were selling "jewelry and golf clubs" iirc.

The government likes headlines at any cost, and if this piece taking isn't an investment, and it isn't gambling, what is it? Betting between friends? No these are strangers. No rake? Okay, that helps. Buuuut, he's taking bets on the internet. Hmm. I wouldn't do it.

It doesn't matter what you think it is; it doesn't even matter what I think it is. The question that matters is; does it fit into the legal definition of "securities." And "taking bets" on the internet doesn't make something a financial security/securities. Moreover; who cares about some supposed poker site getting shut down for "bank fraud": bank fraud is not securities laws. And purely from a legal perspective; selling pieces of yourself into a poker tourney, is more like selling a lottery ticket: so long as the person selling his/her action is not setting any expectations to the buying public as to what type of returns are "expected" or "anticipated" - there is really nothing wrong going on.

this whole discussion is what wrong with POY.
Playing -EV, blasting rebuys into events, double dipping just to min cash for POY points. Max late regging and easily sneak in to the money to grab up some points etc..

They either need to change the POY point system or they need to adjust the tournaments. But probably nobody cares. Tournaments will not be adjusted as the current set-up makes more money and changing POY point system is just a waste of time as there is nothing significant behind it aside from the banner with your face hanging in the Rio.

I'm not the only one thinks staking is something that could attract interest from government.

https://www.burr.com/blogs/securitie...king-security/

Yeah poker players largely self regulate those securities at this point. They aren't doing it very well of course, and tons of people get ****ed. Not only are people selling and buying securities (tournament equity) but there are tons of derivatives as well, so it's possible that a large multiple of the asset value is being bet. If you replace "tournament" with "stock" then almost nothing changes and SEC would be all over it.

i think if they do make changes to restructure POY, they should definitely have it so it rewards doing well at different versions, ie if you had 4x mtts of identical field size and buyin and 2 were NLH and 2 were PLO then someone would get more more points for winning a NLH and a PLO than for winning both NLH or both PLO

this would also give points from mixed games an obvious bonus as well