Where does their bankroll come from ? ? SBRUGBY, Durr etc.

The C Kid

Its pretty well known that Brian Townsend made the vast majority of his money in an underground pedigree dog importing business, which specialised in exotic breeds that would change hands on the black market for millions.

dannydiamond

The C Kid wrote: »

Its pretty well known that Brian Townsend made the vast majority of his money in an underground pedigree dog importing business, which specialised in exotic breeds that would change hands on the black market for millions.

Cool,I sold 4 boxer pups last week,watch your back Ivey.

corkie123

these guys are good players in there own right but they had huge luck factor in there favour when they started or they would not be here now .

i dont care wat people say but if u dont have luck u will not win no mater how good u are .

they now are playing with other peoples money and can take the downswings that happen .

i seen very good players play perfect and still lose to suckouts .now they must not had many big suckouts in there rise to the top levels or there bankrolls would not have help them .

thats my thoughts might be wrong but dont think so

AdMMM

Was just watching some Poker After Dark now and while I respect Durrs online play, I can't help but hate his immaturity on the show!

Hitman Actual

corkie123 wrote: »

i seen very good players play perfect and still lose to suckouts .now they must not had many big suckouts in there rise to the top levels or there bankrolls would not have help them .

If you exercise proper BR management, then the suck-outs don't matter (once you're good enough for the level, obviously). Townsend was rolled for 400NL when he played 25NL. He talks about having 8BI down-swings in one session, or 12 carried over from one session to the next. That seems like a fair share of "bad luck".

Anyone who spends 14-16 hours a day playing/learning poker (or anything else in life for that matter) deserves everything they get out of it. I don't know much about Durr, but I have huge respect for Townsend.

THEIRISHMOB

corkie123 wrote: »

these guys are good players in there own right but they had huge luck factor in there favour when they started or they would not be here now .

i dont care wat people say but if u dont have luck u will not win no mater how good u are .

they now are playing with other peoples money and can take the downswings that happen .

i seen very good players play perfect and still lose to suckouts .now they must not had many big suckouts in there rise to the top levels or there bankrolls would not have help them .

thats my thoughts might be wrong but dont think so

Luck don't come into cash games.
You might get unlucky 1-2-3 -20 times but this still has no impact when your after playing 50,000 hands?
Im sure you get lucky too.
Good cash players will make a profit every month because when your playing thousands of hands it balances itself out.
The way you get unlucky is tilting and Im sure its an "unlucky hand" that has got you to tilt. I think TILT is the biggest factor when people mention being unlucky.
These guys that play at the top cash levels all sat down and planned how to get there, they did'nt just sit down with $1000, play 5/10 and get lucky.
Poker is the same as any other sport or business, you get back what you put into it.
So don't expect to be successful playing poker if your playing 3 or 4 nights a week for 5 or 6 hours a night.
Any top player is playing 8-14hrs a day 6 days a week.

zuutroy

THEIRISHMOB wrote: »

Luck don't come into cash games.
You might get unlucky 1-2-3 -20 times but this still has no impact when your after playing 50,000 hands?

o rly?

THEIRISHMOB

zuutroy wrote: »

o rly?

Maybe your doing something wrong?

zuutroy

THEIRISHMOB wrote: »

Maybe your doing something wrong?

Its not my graph...I'm not sure if you're familiar with pokerEV, but the red line shows where he should be in terms of equity when getting the money in for pots that went to showdown, and the blue line shows where he actually is. so he's running like 78 buyins below expectation.

Here's how he's ran in all in luck:

Hitman Actual

One of the best players here (pok3rplaya*) mentioned on his blog about having 100K break-even hands. People don't really understand variance, imo.

*If I've taken pok3rplaya's name in vain, please correct me!

Bandara

zuutroy wrote: »

Its not my graph...I'm not sure if you're familiar with pokerEV, but the red line shows where he should be in terms of equity when getting the money in for pots that went to showdown, and the blue line shows where he actually is. so he's running like 78 buyins below expectation.

Here's how he's ran in all in luck:

His lotto numbers pls?

pocketdooz

Imposter wrote: »

Look at the maths of it:

If you can make 2 ptBB/100 at a level (that's 4BB's) - 2500 hands is 1 buy-in - so 50k hands is 20 buy-ins - let's assume your br is 20 buy-ins

So assume each level jump takes 50k hands.

50NL -> 100NL -> 200NL -> 400NL -> 600NL (I said assume) -> 1kNL -> 2kNL and we've only played 300k hands.

Yes of course you may run good or bad but if you put the work in (that includes extra study etc.) and you have the ability then it shouldn't take that long.

1) Is this math correct ?

2) Is this really realistic ?

3 ) Has anyone on here run like this ?

Thanks

Mellor

a) The math is pretty straight forward. And its right.
One thing is that for higher levels i'd rather have more than 20BIs

b)2BB/100 isn't a huge run, its normal enough for low-mid levels, not sustainable at the mid-high levels

c)I think a number of people beat the lower levels for greater than 4BB/100. A few mentioned it in wells

pok3rplaya

lenny_leonard wrote: »

One of the best players here (pok3rplaya*) mentioned on his blog about having 100K break-even hands. People don't really understand variance, imo.

*If I've taken pok3rplaya's name in vain, please correct me!

I suck. CTS would be a better example.

DaSilva

Deleted User wrote: »

Watching Durrrr play on the latest Poker After Dark and he made a really spewy play imo. Maybe I am just not good enough to see why he is so successful but some of his plays were just awful.

On the Cash game episodes I think he played pretty amazing.
In the SNG episodes the hand where Dwan has TT and Chan has JJ was lol, this hand I thought Dwan would lose some chips because he almost comes across spewy aggressive and then he proves me completely wrong and loses the absolute minimum that's possible to lose in the hand.

phantom_lord

yeah i thought he played really goot too.

marco101

DaSilva wrote: »

On the Cash game episodes I think he played pretty amazing.
In the SNG episodes the hand where Dwan has TT and Chan has JJ was lol, this hand I thought Dwan would lose some chips because he almost comes across spewy aggressive and then he proves me completely wrong and loses the absolute minimum that's possible to lose in the hand.

That is one of things I noticed about watching Dwan, especially in the cash game - he opens a ton of hands and looks really spewy and consistently looks as though he is pulling moves but seems to lose the minimum and more often than not, value bets very thin and very well.

Listening to Dwan, Townsend and Robl chatting away on PAD, they were analysisng hands and play, talking about utg opening ranges and spots to 3bet light etc and you could just see Doyle, Huck Seed and Chan were lost in the conversation. It is a different generation and a different way of thinking about the game.

With Townsend as well, I'm sure I remember reading that he was a decent or better than decent winner in live LHE before making the move to online NLHE - might be wrong, mind.