Does anyone know for certain what Dwan is doing now? Seems if you don't like him then he's broke and if you do, then he's crushing billionaire whales in Macau..

breakeven at table games, and losing after court costs imo.

I think it was (could be wrong) in a DC vid where they said people like the 'idea' of Durrrr. That there's this dude who's so good, that he's capable of playing awful hands, and still winning.

I don't know if Dwan was the best. I'm not really qualified to speak to that. I would guess if you are a winner over a good sample of hands at the biggest games offered online, you are probably in the top 0.0000001% of players. Ranking the top, say.... 100 people seems kind of difficult I would think.

I don't think it's correct/fair to say he would be a loser against nl1k guys now. Sure, if he didn't improve on his game, and only played like he did back then, with a bunch of rust, but that doesn't seem realistic. People improve. Jungle, Haxton, etc... aren't the same players they were in 2009, they're better. If Dwan was smart enough to win at the best games 5-6 years ago, I don't see why he couldn't learn new concepts, and apply them to win now. It's like people that say Wilt Chamberlain wouldn't be good in todays NBA.

Am I reading this wrong, or are you saying you folded AA from the BB? 0% 3bet, and didn't call OOP?

Some people improve, most don't. There's a reason the top names of today are different than the names of yesterday, and it's not because the previous people won so much money they quit. It's because they stopped being able to win like they once could.

Very few people are smart enough to adapt, change and survive over the years. Some of those people are ITT agreeing that Dwan would lose to the winning 5/10 regs of today. Unknowns are calling that statement delusional. Decide for yourself who knows better.

he may indeed not be able to beat 5/10hu nowadays on the net. but that doesnt mean the 5/10 players can beat him. he isnt going to drop down in stakes to play. if he is no longer good enough then the 5/10 crew should put up a stake and move up and play in the cash games he plays in and win a ton.

Can't remember ever seeing Dwan making a solid laydown in a televised cash game.

He's talking about two separate gameplans that he used at separate times.

Gameplan #1: call or fold from BB
Gameplan #2: 3bet or fold from BB

he stopped playing online to transition from losing there, to losing in macau

plenty of people would happily play him, no one has the opportunity

People love to hate on dwan but he made it to the top of the online nl ladder at the time where being the best was worth the most. I think people tend to discredit players who were the best in different eras of poker but they made it to the top w far less resources available.

After re-reading what he wrote, you are right, and I don't know why I didn't catch that, lol.

I don't really see much reason to believe he, or most, couldn't improve tbh. Like, what is the reasoning? Seems kind of like you are suggesting someone can only learn poker with the resources of their era, and once they've learned that 'way' of playing, they can't lean a new 'way' that is better in the future?

Lets say, for arguments sake, winning at poker is some combination of intelligence + learning from the resources available at that time, and then applying that knowledge at the table. Dwan was able to combine his intelligence + resources available in 2007-2008, as good, or better than, anyone else at the time. So, now that there is 'better' info on how to play/understand, the game of NLHU, why wouldn't he be one of the best at learning, and, applying this new info?

You're saying that the reason the top names are different than the past is because they stopped winning. And, while I agree that is true for a decent chunk of people, the reasoning behind it is where we seem to differ. I think a lot of the old players that could not win any more weren't unable to improve, and continue to win, but rather didn't put in the time to learn and understand new concepts, (for whatever reason, be it moving on to another career, laziness, etc...) which could have resulted in them continuing to win. Maybe not everyone could continue to improve, but some could.

I respect the opinions of people that currently play high stakes, looking at his game, and saying the way he use to play would not be profitable currently. Valid argument, no doubt.

But, just because someone plays high-stakes, I don't see how that would make them an authority on judging how much a person could improve if they put in the work to get caught back up on how the game has changed. To be clear, I'm by no means saying I know Dwan could freshen up his game to get back on top. I don't know. All I know is in the past he seemed to be one of the best at learning/applying the game of NLHE, and it makes me think he would be really good at learning/applying NLHE as it's played today.

Off course he was [one off the] best in his time his full tilt life earnings are still 2.2 million, but the difference with 98% of the other hs regulars was he was a gambler more then the guys that where bread players so to say[played exclusively for winning money] like ike and many others.

He and players like ivey, isildur, sahamies, where gamblers who played for the kicks just as[or even more]much as for the money.

And if 5/10 regulars would beat him now is totally bs, senseless and dumb talking because it will never happen[in the sense that i think he would never play that low anymore other then for fun or being bored], but i say if!!!! he would do the work and catch up in experience with today's play, he would be a winning player, just like he was in the years 2007-2010 no doubt, because he is! a talented poker-player IMO.

And for everyone that is going to bring up that winning, mentally ill, jungleman, i wouldn't pay him also, the site is changed owners, he never took a cent from jungleman, so no loan, no debt, just 18to20k hands with some numbers on a site.

And that baby jungleman i winning and moaning like he was robbed and/or stolen from, well f.ck him, he does not deserve that money anymore after all his bs and winning and threatening over the years, i would tell him in his face f.ck you i won't pay you a cent, just for being who he is, and all the bs talk he did.

It is simple money talks, and i bet 99,9% of people commenting here never ever even came close to the money he won and lost.

But like i said before assumption is often used by idiots and wanna bee's, and you can say or think or like him or not, but tom dwan was[and in times the best] one of the best and winning player in the years 2007-2010.

And all the bs and assuming going on here by some people is not going to change that.
BASTA!!! lol

I've been involved in poker since about 2003 and seen many "generations" of this game since. Each generation wants to believe they are something special, pioneers, and better than the previous. Now, no doubt the skill level has improved and each generation does get better, but to assume someone like dwan, who obviously had some skills and spent a lot of time studying the game and was intelligent enough to reach the level he did, isn't capable of doing the same in todays games is just silly. Even i, who was breaking into mid-stakes before BF, and after BF took about a year+ or so off, and when i came back struggled to even beat 25nl. I put in the time to study the game and update myself to the current games, am now nearly back to midstakes and exponentially better than i was before bf. Now sure, we're talking up to mid-stakes vs high stakes, but if i can get up to speed, i'm sure Dwan or any other fundamentally successful pro can too.

feel like i fell into a time machine seeing Ike and CaptZeebo posting, beautiful.

If you have 100 guys flip a quarter 10 times and each time call it heads or tails, one guy might call it correct all ten times.

Could Dwan just be the guy, out of thousands of poker players, that kept winning the key pots and flips all along the way? Could Dwan just have simply been in bed with variance the whole time?

No, he was the best from 05-09 until he played Isildur1. He is very very far from the best now and would have queues of current HS players waiting to play him if he was online.

Whether or not he could beat an average 5-10 hu reg or the best 5-10 hu regs (the battlers) is a matter of debate.

In other news the human race evolves and becomes better over time.

Why does all the discussion revolve around "HU"? I remember Dwan being as much a "ring" player as a "head-up" player. When he and others go to Macau, Bobby's Room, Ivey's Room, etc. they aren't playing "HU" but rather ring, sometimes full ring.

I've never actually looked at Dwan's PTR, but this thread kind of nudged me to.

Dwan lost over a million playing 2000/4000 limit holdem in 1500 hands. WTF was he doing playing limit at these stakes? Is he good at limit?

The major takeaway I got from his PTR, is the dude didn't seem to ever drop down in stakes to learn a new game. Seems like he would be like "I'm going to try PLO", or "I'm going to try HU limit", and just start in the highest games available in that game. Kind of sick.

Another takeaway is, while there's 191k hands (decent sample), he was only 1.1 BB/100 over it, which seems kind of low for the best in the world, no? Seems like the biggest reason he won overall is because he ran really hot in the biggest game available at that time, over a small sample. $5.9mm of his winning came while at 6 max NL100,000 where he ran at 13.2 BB/100 over a fairly small 22k hands.

Now, I imagine anyone that's played poker knows that you can run like God, or run like dog **** over 22k hands, right? If he would have lost, or even ran at like 3BB/100 (instead of 13.2BB/100) over those 22k hands in that huge game, he would have been a loser overall online, right? Maybe he picked a good time to run hot, winning 60 BI's in 22k hands of the biggest game?

In my experience poker is all about hard work and study. Who of todays highstakes players would still be considered one of the best if they stopped reviewing hands for a year? Maybe Jungle?

I mean durrrr played a completely different strategy back then and it worked out for him. Why would he need to play much GTO against Guy and other fish? People were overfolding back then and he was bluffing so much people probably didn't adjust well enough. Same would apply to guys like Krantz, isildur and others.

Maybe he felt bored after so many years and saw no reason to improve his game but rather started doing something else. What else do we know besides that he played in Macao anyway?

Or take a look at WCG, he has been around forever. Why was he playing micros for so long? Even I was playing way higher than him. Surely there must be a reason why at one point he started to move up so quickly. I don't think he found some talent through the years but more likely put in a **** ton of hours of study into the game. It is to simple to assume durrrr just ran hot. I ran hot in PLO for a long time but against strong players that not enough to win even over such a small sample. Especially in Holdem.

On the one hand the discussion is about how durrrr wouldn't beat any NL1k reg nowadays at the same time you assume that by running hot he could be a winner against WCG or Ike over a 20k hand sample.

+1

I'm not saying he just ran hot. He was a 1.1BB/100 winner over 192k hands. That's a winner, over a decent sample.

I am saying, he seemed to run good in games that are really nice to run good in (aka the biggest game he played). I mean, He ran 13.2 BB/100 in 22k hands of NL100,000 for $5.9mm dollars. He also ran at -5.5BB/100 of 16k hands of PLO 200/400 cap for a loss of $730k.

For arguments sake, what would happen to his total lifetime winnings if those 2 results abover were reveresed? Meaning he ran -5.5BB/100 over 22k hands at NL100,000, and ran 13.2BB/100 over 16k hands of PLO200/400 cap? He would have been -2.4mm at nl100k, and +1.6mm at PLO200/400 cap. Which would have been a -$6 million swing, just by running bad in a big game, and running good in a smaller game. We'd be looking at a losing lifetime graph if that was the case.

Of course luck can be a big factor over a small sample, even against strong players.

When the biggest game you play is high enough that the money you make in 22k hands is more than you made in the entire rest of your poker career combined, then we are talking about some stakes that are going to have a dramatic effect on your total winnings just by run good/bad. I see no reason someone couldn't run good vs. Ike/WCG for 20k hands.


Not taking anything away from him. He was a winner overall in some pretty high stakes games, which is impressive. Just saying that 5.9mm in 22k hands stands out as a pretty big part of his total winnings.

it's not really clear what point you're trying to make. is this "no longer needs to prove he is tops at anything" part of the motto for the Secret Society of Has-Beens™?

obviously nobody ever "has to" prove anything to anyone, but it seems like there's plenty of people who've made it past the first rung, including people who were tom's peers while he was at his peak and still among the elite players today, who question his ability.

I liked watching High Stakes Poker....I haven't played poker in too many years to say, but I was never really good at it..........However, insignificant as my opinion might be, I still want to say that, I don't know what has happened to Durr in recent times, but if he wasn't the Best back in the day when he played HSP, he had to be in the top 2 or 3 in the world......watching him play his hands the way he did, I just kinda wished I could play like he did, and I'm sure a lot of the jealous wannabes and haters do too....

-ptr displays 'BB' as in big bets afaik, with 1BB being 2 big blinds. or did you already convert that?

-if he played a lot of formats that he was new or bad at and had X winrate in total, then on average his winrate at the formats he was best at will be >X