cameo at my 20/40 7 game for ~1hr. wb steve, godspeed.

For some talents it may not matter as much as playing higher when one has money. Maybe he gets some money from others and just build back up, that he is going to do anyway though, being the nuts he is. And that was his decision and many have made such before, and then they will just have to live with it. It's not all about putting more or less money in savings, there being more to it.

I liked how Steve was very honest in his interview, but I found Eric and Brett almost impossible to listen to throughout the interview. The questions they asked and the commentary they provided was very tough for me to deal with... especially the comments about how they would kill themselves if they lost that much money, things like that.

I like MPR, and have up to now, enjoyed every interview i've listened to. This one got on my nerves a lot. (not for Steve Sung though, i thought he was very insightful... especially about the cost of playing tournaments etc.)

My buddy was Steve Sung's roommate at UCSD before that guy dropped out. Says that he would constantly go to local Indian casinos and win/lose 10K a night, and lost all of his financial aid money his first year. At one point during his freshman year, he was almost 100K in debt. Sick life, but seems like a nice guy.

LOL

<3 stevesung

Sick life, what a degen.

seems like a cool guy, hope is luck gets better online.

was really funny to listen to the cts one right before this one.

on playing 200/400 more or less

cts: "...i don't know if i see a good spot and i'm in a good mindset i'll definitely sit... the swings don't really get to me... it's just new numbers and new players..."

steve sung: "...i've never done crack or heroine but i'd imagine it's the same feeling..."

either way i thought it was a good interview besides the announcers being kinda fishy and pushy and making it pretty damn awkward at points. dude's definitely got some heart though and i bet he'll make another run.

because that wouldn't be 'balla'... hell i don't know.

not if you really think about it. Players like steve and phil ivey never had money growing up ... they grinded their way to get to where they were. It wasn't as if they had some company or a .com and had millions before playing.

Therefore to them , getting 5 million is nothing and everything after is a free roll. basically what i'm saying is.. if they lose it, they're still where they were when they started. So thats why i think there is no regard for money. Because to them they never technically had it. it was all "free" money.

WoW - quite sad really but very refreshing.

Totally agree with the comments about the interviewers...some of the questions were pointless or repetitive.

"what people don't understand is, that i say "what people don't understand is" much too often.

Arggh, the $1k I lost in the WSOP event was blown off in flipping...

i dunno where you got the assumption that steve came from nothin' or was from a poor family.

i knew steve since he was in junior high. i dated his older sister in high school and he went to high school with a buncha my homies.

he lived in a nice townhouse in torrance, ca. same complex as my aunt so i'd see him often.

his dad is a pretty damn good poker player. they'd always be playin' stud or draw games outside and all his dad's friends would find any way to win, but he'd always come out on top.

i dunno their status now, but he did not grow up poor.

and he just got caught up in the lifestyle...i don't think his sister and his mom support it, but he did buy his mom a nice pad and got himself a range rover with his winnings.

i still see him around whenever he's down in 310 area.

he's pretty damn talented, but does have a temper

It seems absurd looking from the outisde, but if you've made that much money playing it must be really easy to become delusional about your real level as a player, especially if you don't keep up with the advances in poker theory/concepts, generational tendencies, etc...

Look at Mercier's interview about his hand with Ivey shipping 99 when he's repping AA (lol). Mercier's a great tourney player but it's easy to see that he's completely delusional about his skills as a cash game player.

I think when you have that much success over a short period of time, make some sick calls/soul reads, sick bluffs, etc...and are legitimately a really good player, it becomes increasingly and incredibly hard to accurately rate your skill level.

Always looks stupid looking in from the outside, but that's really underestimating the kind of introspection level and objectivity it takes not to lose your **** completely when you score like that.
And we're clearly already talking about exceptionally-willed people in the first place, which is all the scarier...

@Land
Its OP, but Im curious about the 99Hand, I also heard Merciers Thoughts on it, but Im not sure why you disagree with that?It seemed at least not wrong to me at the time I saw it.
Editbv im NL fish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MZH9Fkz8z4

I really dont think "ivey outplayed" mercier or anything in this hand, mercier raises to 22.1k in attempt to squeeze, ivey calls with 99... mercier leads flop for only 28k, ivey has to raise here, does so to 78k. mercier then ships on him, making it 100k more to ivey.
ivey clearly feels like he is prob beat, as you can see from watching him from 3:00 on...he even kind of places the bet in near jasons stacks, as if to say, "i gotta call,i put in this much, here you go merry christmas". he even swears twice, which is not normal for ivey if he thinks hes ahead....once mercier says he has A high tho, ivey has no mercy, runs it once. LOL

This isn't checkers with his 6yo niece who's going to be traumatized for life if she loses. Ivey didn't make an exception for Mercier, he never runs it more than once.
It'd be -EV to do so. People play more aggressively against you and push hands more if they know you run it several times since it decreases variance, so running it only once adds even more pressure on those who can't handle pressure the way Ivey does, i.e everyone in the world.

Also, I never said Ivey outplayed Mercier in the hand (reading comprehension ftw) or did anything amazing reads wise.
If you watch the interview, Mercier makes it sound as though Ivey made a mistake by calling and that's what makes him delusional.

That a successful tourney player can get bloated enough to question the play of the best cash game player in the world in a super standard spot is completely absurd imo and again, shows that he's completely delusional about his skill level and understanding of the game relative to those of someone like Ivey, who would rape him so brutally at any game in any format that I wouldn't even know where to start...

Both links are dead for me, I would like to listen aswell.

Honestly, the fact that you call the Ivey/Mercier a 'super standard spot' tells me you're not ready.

It must be a cool thing to do, labelling unusual or creative hands as 'super standard' because it seems to be done here all the time. Getting in 200k with 99 is not super standard and never will be.

I'm sure Mercier was pissed that Ivey called him, because a majority of the other players in HSP history would have folded that hand. Clearly, Ivey was convinced it was a light squeeze until the rest went in on the flop, after which it is unclear why he called, but it obviously wasn't a bad call. Losing 210k hurts enough to want to complain, I suppose. Still, it's ridiculous to call the hand super standard.

The fact that you manage to lower the average of reading comprehension skills in NVG tells me you likely haven't graduated from high-school.

I didn't say it was a super standard hand, I said it was a super standard spot, as in calling with these odds in that speciffic spot on that specific board against the range of a tourney player as aggro as Mercier is super standard.

Ivey knew this and his hesitation doesn't have to do with deciding whether or not to call, it just has to do with realizing that he's crushed a high enough % of the time not to be happy with having to call, emphasis on "having to".

Or are you saying that Ivey is bad enough to turn 99 into a bluff on that flop without even thinking about what to do if he gets shoved on?

Every time I see the ivey mercier video, I can't help but lol at the end when mercier ask if he can keep the 5's. What a bitch.

im not arguing anything, and you need to quit trying so hard "reading comprehension" and ftw type ****. Chill its just the internet.

But talking about the hand still, obviously it turns into a "has to call" cause of how much ivey had put in already ect. I kinda feel as tho mercier should have just bet more on the flop, that 28k just looked like he was trying to be to tricky or else a weak Cbet and really didn't have an overpair. So ivey has to raise there. Then mercier makes what would be a really good play if it was deep in a MTT, but not in a deep stack cash game vs ivey.

I think if mercier just put up a better cbet on flop, he would get flatted by ivey, ivey check the turn, then mercier ship, he has a better chance of getting ivey to give it up possibly.

both links aren't working for me...
i download podcast and it doesn't play in iTunes..