Why?

Because the equivalent would be being a long term winner in tournaments.

For U.S. based recreational players for whom the main event is their biggest tournament of the year, who are going to pay tax in winning years but not be able to net off the losses in the years they don't cash, it is pretty much impossible to be a plus EV main event player if their schedule is that unbalanced.

It is possible to be a short term winner in cash games too.

By the way, I agree with your wider point that winners are the best advertisement. They need to abolish the VIP system and cut rake to spread the winners out among more different lifestyles, communities, day jobs though - because at the moment the winners' friends are often just other poker players, mostly winning ones.

This is a bit OT, but with Prime in the US, don't you get access to their e-book sharing program? So jelly, because I think it's only available with Prime in the US ... maybe the UK too? Definitely not Canada ... guess how worth the cost of a Prime membership it is would depend on the quality of books available though. Would be disappointing to sign up and see that the only poker books available for borrowing were by Howard Lederer, etc (And similar for every other category ...)

PS Shane - really, really liked your op ... gave it 5 stars way a long time ago ... wish I could have made it 10!

One reason he should maybe feel more concern about the direction online poker is taking than he seems to, is that online poker acts as a feeder system to live tourneys - and the more people there are playing online, especially when they're doing well, perhaps the more likely it is that people will take shots at satties to all the live big entry tourneys that he plays. If there's fewer winners online, then maybe that'll translate into fewer people willing to take a shot at trying to be a winner with a live tourney with an even higher buy-in - which might start to mean tougher fields, and smaller prize pools in the future ...

Found this funny old quote from Daniel - not sure if it's fair to dredge up this old quote of Daniel's if his thoughts on stuff have changed since 2009, now that the market has. But back in 2009, Daniel did notice that online satties act as a feeder system, and seemed to imply that they bring in softer fields, and that profitable cash play helped make that possible?:


Daniel Negreanu Breaks Down WPT Tournament Poker Statistics (it's an article about how hard it is for high-stakes tourney players to turn a profit)

12ffps clear b4 31 dec, self exclued from ftp 6 months not knowing same pokerstars (lose player never cash out)

ask if can clear it after exclued over, (a) noooooooo should clear 12ffps ul what waste time was grind 1488 ffps, dont owe me ought but poxy bit good will would go far.

Translation please

I`m not talking about being a "long term" winner in the WSOP vs cash/S`n`G/online MTTs whatever.

I am pointing out that it is my contention that the best advertisment for the game and for attracting NEW players to poker is for them to personally know someone who is "winning", no matter how small an amount that is. Therefore increasing the number of these "winners", both numerically (#s of winners) and percentage-wise (% of players who are "winning") is the most effective way to promote the game. Conversely, doing anything that REDUCES "winners" must, by definition, be bad for the game.

This doesn`t matter what form of poker we are talking about.

Daniel apparently agrees with me completely when it comes to the WSOP, something he has no personal financial stake in. How is it that this same argument is completely 100% wrong in his opinion when it comes to Amaya-Stars?

If this is not the definitive proof that his opinions can be bought, I don`t know what is.

Yolo