High Stakes Poker
Thread Rating:
September 26th, 2010 at 7:44:45 PM
permalink
This is a slick show because theres really 3 long card games in each season. They edit out all the dead hands and people ordering food and getting up and down to use the john or whatever. Then Gabe Kaplan and his buddy do the voiceover commentary to make it sound like its happening right then. They've already reviewed the 43min of what goes on the air and they make notes and make it into an entertaining show.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 28th, 2010 at 1:10:33 AM
permalink
There are many rumors that HSP is a fraud. The players get their money back after the show is over. I have wondered myself why the best players would play each other for so much money. The real profit comes from the businessmen suckers who think they're pro's, not taking it from each other. This article is a real eye opener.
http://www.richardmarcusbooks.com/downloads/HighStakes28.pdf
http://www.richardmarcusbooks.com/downloads/HighStakes28.pdf
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 28th, 2010 at 8:54:59 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
October 28th, 2010 at 9:33:57 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThis is a slick show because theres really 3 long card games in each season. They edit out all the dead hands and people ordering food and getting up and down to use the john or whatever. Then Gabe Kaplan and his buddy do the voiceover commentary to make it sound like its happening right then. They've already reviewed the 43min of what goes on the air and they make notes and make it into an entertaining show.
Makes me wonder how much the announcers have to pay to get to show everyone how smart they are!
October 28th, 2010 at 10:20:25 AM
permalink
For what it's worth, I do NOT believe the rumors. I truly think the players ARE playing with their own money. Why play with their friends rather than trying to fleece the players that can be found in the poker room? Because you still want to see if you can beat the best.
I remember reading a few years ago that they get $1,250 per hour (it's probably gone up since then), but that doesn't even cover the ante.
Gabe Kaplan plays, and plays very well. As a result, his commentary isn't too bad. Then he goes and ruins it by trying to remind everyone that he's a commedian.
AJ sucked. I can't figure out how he ever got the job, unless they were looking for someone that people with no poker experience could relate to. But even then, he still sucked. I am SO glad the got rid of him.
AJ's replacement, Kara Scott, is a million times better. And, as a bonus, she doesn't interact with Gabe.
Personally, I wish they'd get rid of Gabe too, and not have ANY commentary. Have Kara do her occasional interview and the opening and closing remarks. Other than that, let's just listen to the action. We want to hear what the guys are discussing.
I remember reading a few years ago that they get $1,250 per hour (it's probably gone up since then), but that doesn't even cover the ante.
Gabe Kaplan plays, and plays very well. As a result, his commentary isn't too bad. Then he goes and ruins it by trying to remind everyone that he's a commedian.
AJ sucked. I can't figure out how he ever got the job, unless they were looking for someone that people with no poker experience could relate to. But even then, he still sucked. I am SO glad the got rid of him.
AJ's replacement, Kara Scott, is a million times better. And, as a bonus, she doesn't interact with Gabe.
Personally, I wish they'd get rid of Gabe too, and not have ANY commentary. Have Kara do her occasional interview and the opening and closing remarks. Other than that, let's just listen to the action. We want to hear what the guys are discussing.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
October 28th, 2010 at 8:22:55 PM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearPersonally, I wish they'd get rid of Gabe too, and not have ANY commentary.
Without Gabe, I would be in the dark about whats going on. He tells us how much they bet, why a hand is good or bad, he translates the table chatter. It would by totally confusing without him. I absolutely believe they aren't playing for real, it fits with what goes on sometimes. Calling somebody with a 9 high when there's 100K in the pot? Who would do that in a real game? Not even Tom Dwan.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 28th, 2010 at 9:51:49 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThere are many rumors that HSP is a fraud. The players get their money back after the show is over. I have wondered myself why the best players would play each other for so much money. The real profit comes from the businessmen suckers who think they're pro's, not taking it from each other. This article is a real eye opener.
http://www.richardmarcusbooks.com/downloads/HighStakes28.pdf
I never heard of the ten million dollar game that was supposed to go on. I highly doubt that story has any credit.
However, Im sure cash games are real. It does not make sense why the top pros would play each other but they do. The top pros guys on full tilt are constantly battling each other at 200/400 and 500/1000 heads up matches. for example on poker table ratings you can see that Tom Dwan is up 4 million on Antonius 3.5 mil on Ilari Sahamies he is down 4.5 mil to Isildur1 and down 1.5 Mil to Benyamine. My only guess why they challenge each other is they really like to gamble.
October 28th, 2010 at 10:06:33 PM
permalink
Quote: jpprovanceI never heard of the ten million dollar game that was supposed to go on. I highly doubt that story has any credit.
However, Im sure cash games are real. It does not make sense why the top pros would play each other but they do. The top pros guys on full tilt are constantly battling each other at 200/400 and 500/1000 heads up matches. for example on poker table ratings you can see that Tom Dwan is up 4 million on Antonius 3.5 mil on Ilari Sahamies he is down 4.5 mil to Isildur1 and down 1.5 Mil to Benyamine. My only guess why they challenge each other is they really like to gamble.
Marcus makes a good point in the article. Pro players in any game only play for big bucks when they have the edge. When you're playing a bunch of equally skilled players, like on HST, you have no edge so why play. Why take a chance on losing a lot of money. Even in the big tournaments, all they stand to lose is the buy in, big deal. They're betting millions in fake money. And don't believe half the crap you read at online casinos, its all hype to get you to play. This whole poker phenom stinks worse than pro wrestling, its all smoke and mirrors. Its all about keeping the well known players names in the news so they can fleece the rich businessmen who come to play them in Vegas. Thats where the real money is made.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 29th, 2010 at 5:25:34 AM
permalink
But some episodes featured rich businessmen who did not play well at all. Are you saying they were playing with fake money too?Quote: EvenBob...Its all about keeping the well known players names in the news so they can fleece the rich businessmen who come to play them in Vegas.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
October 29th, 2010 at 11:16:36 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearBut some episodes featured rich businessmen who did not play well at all. Are you saying they were playing with fake money too?
It's actually impossible to tell just where the money is coming from. It's obvious that the whole TV-poker-celebrity thing is based on building up personality cults. Whether any or all of the players are participating because simply because they like the publicity, or they have a master plan that involves using their celebrity to attract weak opponents in cash games, or for some other reason altogether, one can only speculate.
It seems, however, that the vast majority of these "professional" poker players are terrible businessmen, don't plan their lives very well, and don't think even in the medium term, let alone the long term. It also doesn't seem, even from the heavily edited TV shows, that these guys are playing particularly brilliantly. There's always one player at the table (Dwan comes to mind) who has a hyper-aggressive style, bets at every pot, and is winning (today). The fawning announcers extol this guy's "fearless" style and the fact that he raises preflop on 64 offsuit as some kind of measure of studly poker worth. The fact of the matter is that for every celebrity Mr. Shove, there are ten thousand wannabes who have found out that playing any two cards and shoving your entire stack into the center at every opportunity only works when you have a rich and dumb backer.
One thing I find to be an absolute certainty---not even these "pros" would be making twenty-thousand dollar bets and raises with their OWN money. You'd have to be a multimillionaire many times over before you could fade that kind of action. Sure, there are and have been many players who do play over their heads, but anyone who has survived for any length of time has a healthy respect for his own bankroll. An "action" player can certainly get lucky--even over an extended period of time--but what kills that player is that when he is successful, he ramps up his action even more. He only gets the thrill when the possibilty of going busted exists at all times--but when you invite disaster, disaster has a way of accepting the invitation. Any true pro understands this, from bitter experience, if nothing else.
So the TV shows are nothing but heavily edited fiction, IMHO.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
October 29th, 2010 at 2:12:49 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321
So the TV shows are nothing but heavily edited fiction, IMHO.
I have to agree with MKL. The big question everybody who knows pro poker players asks, is why would somebody like Mike the Mouth play Phil Helmuth or Phil Ivey with his own money? Nobody has an edge, it would be all luck, what would be the point? And like MKL says, these dudes don't slide out 50K bets unless they KNOW they have an edge. Its all about making them look like big time players, so the dentist from Chicago will want to play one of them with his 75K bankroll. And the suckers will play at the online poker sites they endorse. Remember how huge pro wrestling was 20 years ago? This is the newest version of that.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 29th, 2010 at 3:15:18 PM
permalink
Changing the subject a bit, but there were (credible - I believe) rumors that some players in the WSOP main event were able to intercept the video signals - in real time - transmitted by the pocket cams. This is the reason that in past events, some players refused to show their cards to the camera.
This year, nobody seems to be worried about the pocket cam signals. Does anybody have any real information on this?
This year, nobody seems to be worried about the pocket cam signals. Does anybody have any real information on this?
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. - Niels Bohr
October 29th, 2010 at 6:28:59 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobRemember how huge pro wrestling was 20 years ago? This is the newest version of that.
Agreed. But I wonder, who actually ever though it is real? As entertainment, it will do just as well as repeats of Cops, or Cash Cab, absolutely. But Mike Matisow walking in with $400,000 in big bricks? Come on. The competition I believe is real, but only in the sense that a family game of hearts is played to win; you do it because it is fun to win.
On a side note, I read somewhere that many of these guys are absurdly skewed gamblers; one week they have 3/4 of a million dollars, a month later they're borrowing rent money. My dad saw Phil Ivey going nuts at a craps table in the wee hours of the morning.
And lastly: There are what, 100 golf pros on the tour, with a couple dozen or so finishing in the money. But there are thousands quietly making a living under the radar at skins, playing as the boss' brother in law, stuff like that. I would think it would be the same for poker pros. It's a hustle, it depends on a lot of social factors to work. It's one thing to win; it's another to win in such a way that you are invited back next week to win again.
A falling knife has no handle.
October 29th, 2010 at 6:46:04 PM
permalink
Quote: Mosca
On a side note, I read somewhere that many of these guys are absurdly skewed gamblers; one week they have 3/4 of a million dollars, a month later they're borrowing rent money. My dad saw Phil Ivey going nuts at a craps table in the wee hours of the morning.
Thats another thing that looks fake, they never run out of money on the show. Thats because they aren't really playing. One thing that is real is all the 'prop' bets they make on the side. Those bets are real and are the only real gambling thats going on. Look at the commercials. They're trying to make the players look like Old West poker bad asses, or biker tough guys. Its all about hyping the image of pro poker, so dumbo newbies see it as a macho thing to do. Keep the money rolling in is the object.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 29th, 2010 at 10:13:18 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThats another thing that looks fake, they never run out of money on the show. Thats because they aren't really playing. One thing that is real is all the 'prop' bets they make on the side. Those bets are real and are the only real gambling thats going on. Look at the commercials. They're trying to make the players look like Old West poker bad asses, or biker tough guys. Its all about hyping the image of pro poker, so dumbo newbies see it as a macho thing to do. Keep the money rolling in is the object.
The side bets I'd actually believe.
The rest though I agree with most people here in that a professional poker player does not play that type of money without an edge. They simply didn't become a pro by doing anything else.
It is still entertaining, but if they are truly putting up 100k+ then they are making a lot more off their books/tv shows than I expected.
October 31st, 2010 at 10:44:47 PM
permalink
any chance we can get the wizards opinion on this. i think on a poker forum we would have the complete opposite argument. i have no cred but i believe the cash is 100% real. these guys really do like to gamble that much that they would play the top pros just for action. you guys stated they wouldn't put up this kind of cash wit out an edge. Phil Ivey plays High stakes craps therefore he is also a sick gambler and would even play a negative edge game. I think anyone who frequents TV poker Cash games other than the Hellmuth would flip a coin for 100k just to do it, any time, any day, any place. They really do have that much of a disregard for money. I also think that is is easy proof looking at highstakesdb or ptr or just watching some heads up matches that are going on all the time on full tilt.
October 31st, 2010 at 11:45:22 PM
permalink
Quote: jpprovanceThey really do have that much of a disregard for money.
I sure have no problem with the idea that money seems more like "units" after awhile when you play a lot. I'm not tossing around 100K like these guys, but I can relate on a smaller scale. So, at least on the idea that these folks can be cavalier about stacks of cash seems at least more probable (than perhaps it does to people who don't play a lot.).
Now if someone has the data on recorded TV wins and losses of these high-profile players for all their appearances, we might have some good hard evidence of something or other, either way.
I'm happy to go with, "it's all fake" but I like to see some actual stats.
Sanitized for Your Protection
November 1st, 2010 at 7:08:00 AM
permalink
I see a false bifurcation in many posts in this thread. People seem to argue that the players are either playing for huge amounts of their own cash or it's all fake. Consider a different possiblity - that the players have backers that invest in them, so that they are playing for their own cash, but not 100%. Online poker is a lucrative business, and I think it's reasonable to assume that the players are sponsored by poker sites in exchange for endorsing that site.
Somone wrote that "professional gamblers" would not put huge amounts at risk. Playing poker for high stakes requires a personality that revels in raking risks rather that shying from them. There are many tales of winning poker players losing big on the table games, for instance TJ Cloutier is legendary for losing his poker winnings at the craps table (source). I'd say high stakes poker playes are in general action junkies, and the culture among them is one of encouraging risk taking. For an example, look at another cash game show, The Big Game, game 9, part 5. Just look at the abuse Andrew Robl gets for not straddling, putting in $800 in the pot blind.
Also consider that in the last eposides of High Stakes Poker season 4, the stakes were doubled and there was a minimum buy-in of $500,000. If the show was a fake, this could be done every time for even more impressive stakes. Instead the higher stakes noticably affected the play. For instance, a pot was run four times, i.e. split into four parts with four turn and river cards each for one quarter of the pot. You see pots run multiple times a lot on poker shows, which is done to reduce variance. It would make no sense to reduce variance this way unless the stakes mattered to the players, as multiple board runs are bad TV; they are confusing to the common viewer and far less dramatic than the decisive fall of one card.
Somone wrote that "professional gamblers" would not put huge amounts at risk. Playing poker for high stakes requires a personality that revels in raking risks rather that shying from them. There are many tales of winning poker players losing big on the table games, for instance TJ Cloutier is legendary for losing his poker winnings at the craps table (source). I'd say high stakes poker playes are in general action junkies, and the culture among them is one of encouraging risk taking. For an example, look at another cash game show, The Big Game, game 9, part 5. Just look at the abuse Andrew Robl gets for not straddling, putting in $800 in the pot blind.
Also consider that in the last eposides of High Stakes Poker season 4, the stakes were doubled and there was a minimum buy-in of $500,000. If the show was a fake, this could be done every time for even more impressive stakes. Instead the higher stakes noticably affected the play. For instance, a pot was run four times, i.e. split into four parts with four turn and river cards each for one quarter of the pot. You see pots run multiple times a lot on poker shows, which is done to reduce variance. It would make no sense to reduce variance this way unless the stakes mattered to the players, as multiple board runs are bad TV; they are confusing to the common viewer and far less dramatic than the decisive fall of one card.
November 1st, 2010 at 8:08:49 AM
permalink
How about this possibility? They are playing for real money, but they all are ALSO being paid for being on the show. Thus it is a net positive for all of them. Any individual may lose, but overall, they are winning. I do not believe that any one of them thinks that they are at a disadvantage compared to the others.
November 1st, 2010 at 9:09:09 AM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOHow about this possibility? They are playing for real money, but they all are ALSO being paid for being on the show. Thus it is a net positive for all of them. Any individual may lose, but overall, they are winning. I do not believe that any one of them thinks that they are at a disadvantage compared to the others.
I don't think there is any doubt that they receive some kind of appearance fee for being on the show. They also are receiving sponsorship money and that is why they wear the sites logos. Depending on the players sponsorship agreement that money may be show specific or part of an overall contract. Daniel Negraneau's 'PokerStars' contract is reported to be in the $5 million per year range.
Accepting all that I believe when a player looses several hundred thousand dollars on the show a significant portion of that is their own money. They do it because they truly love to gamble, like all of us who gamble they go into a new session thinking this could be their turn, and they all need to keep up their TV exposure in order to ensure they continue to get good sponsorship deals.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
November 1st, 2010 at 10:14:16 AM
permalink
At one time I read that every player's loss on a single pot was capped at 100k. So, if you see 2 players go all-in for 200k, the loser will get 100k back after the show ends. No idea as to the validity of that, but I do recall reading it.
Personally, I think the play and the money is real. As has been stated, these players are action junkies. They will bet on anything. Plus, if it was staged, don't you think we would be seeing a lot more of Jennifer Harmon, Annie Duke, Vanessa Russo, or Jennifer Tilley ? I know it is sexist, but you put any of those women on the table for a few shows, ratings will go up. The fact they are not there tells me it is the player's money at risk.
Personally, I think the play and the money is real. As has been stated, these players are action junkies. They will bet on anything. Plus, if it was staged, don't you think we would be seeing a lot more of Jennifer Harmon, Annie Duke, Vanessa Russo, or Jennifer Tilley ? I know it is sexist, but you put any of those women on the table for a few shows, ratings will go up. The fact they are not there tells me it is the player's money at risk.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
November 1st, 2010 at 10:30:24 AM
permalink
VERY good point!Quote: RaleighCrapsPlus, if it was staged, don't you think we would be seeing a lot more of Jennifer Harmon, Annie Duke, Vanessa Russo, or Jennifer Tilley ? I know it is sexist, but you put any of those women on the table for a few shows, ratings will go up. The fact they are not there tells me it is the player's money at risk.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
November 1st, 2010 at 10:37:38 AM
permalink
Quote: RaleighCrapsAt one time I read that every player's loss on a single pot was capped at 100k. So, if you see 2 players go all-in for 200k, the loser will get 100k back after the show ends. No idea as to the validity of that, but I do recall reading it.
You must be confusing this with some report about the big game in Bobby's Room in the Bellagio. That game is a mix of several poker games where most games are played fixed limit. In that game, the no-limit and pot-limit games are capped. This is because you may have very deep stacks since most games are fixed limit, and the risk of losing a whole stack in one of the few big bet games in the mix would skew the game. There has to my knowledge never been such a cap on any televised no-limit hold'em game.
November 1st, 2010 at 10:53:51 AM
permalink
Quote: ParadroidYou must be confusing this with some report about the big game in Bobby's Room in the Bellagio. That game is a mix of several poker games where most games are played fixed limit. In that game, the no-limit and pot-limit games are capped. This is because you may have very deep stacks since most games are fixed limit, and the risk of losing a whole stack in one of the few big bet games in the mix would skew the game. There has to my knowledge never been such a cap on any televised no-limit hold'em game.
No, it was definitely written about the HSP game. The point of the article was that even though you may see someone push all in with 200k, they are really only putting 100k at risk, since as soon as the cameras are off, they will get anything over 100k back. It is sort of like watching some of the WPT events, and then finding out later that the top 3 finishers all agreed to chop the winnings 3 ways at the end. I know for a fact that used to happen. I don't know if it is still allowed in the WPT or not though.
Having written all that, I'm not sure I buy the 100k loss limit in the HSP game. The logistics of how they would determine who got their money back, and how much, would be a nightmare.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
November 1st, 2010 at 3:59:50 PM
permalink
You are all missing the point. Sure they like to gamble, but more than that, they like to WIN. They only make big bets when they think they have the 'best of it', when they think they have the edge. The only time they have an edge is when they play people less talented then they are. A table full of pro's is a wash, talent wise. They have no reason to play each other for real money, it would be suicidal. Its all fake.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 1st, 2010 at 5:45:11 PM
permalink
Quote: RaleighCrapsI'm not sure I buy the 100k loss limit in the HSP game. The logistics of how they would determine who got their money back, and how much, would be a nightmare.
I think if I was going to run such a thing like that, I'd probably assign paychecks based on placement, rather than let them keep cash totals. The biggest winner at whatever specified point (or 1st) would get the largest payoff but it would be an unchanging specific amount, or bonus, and so on, on down. There would still be more money for someone doing well to keep it competitive -- but the actual cash they win or lose wouldn't matter. Let's pretend for a moment it was a six player Monopoly game. No matter how many hotels and properties you have at the end -- everyone agrees that first prize is always the same. But on TV they pretend they they are actually buying hotels and properties. Not quite fake wrestling, as there would still be a point to playing. (although I think possibly wrestlers who get a big following, most likely end up getting bigger paychecks eventually, so even there, there is something to achieve -- just not what the audience thinks)
Sanitized for Your Protection
November 1st, 2010 at 5:45:46 PM
permalink
It may be fake, but suicidal? I promise you if two pros are going against each other, one of them will win.... and with the endorsements, appearance fees, it is a positive EV game for BOTH of them if they are of similar ability.
November 1st, 2010 at 5:50:08 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOIt may be fake, but suicidal?
Suicidal like playing Russian Roulette. When everybody has equal talent, the loaded gun moves around the table. They do play each other in private games, but not really. In a private game, there may be 2 or 3 pro's, but there is always a couple of fish, and the pro's are there to takes the fishes money, not each others.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 1st, 2010 at 5:53:50 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineI think if I was going to run such a thing like that, I'd probably assign paychecks based on placement, rather than let them keep cash totals. The biggest winner at whatever specified point (or 1st) would get the largest payoff but it would be an unchanging specific amount, or bonus, and so on, on down. There would still be more money for someone doing well to keep it competitive -- but the actual cash they win or lose wouldn't matter. Let's pretend for a moment it was a six player Monopoly game. No matter how many hotels and properties you have at the end -- everyone agrees that first prize is always the same. But on TV they pretend they they are actually buying hotels and properties. Not quite fake wrestling, as there would still be a point to playing. (although I think possibly wrestlers who get a big following, most likely end up getting bigger paychecks eventually, so even there, there is something to achieve -- just not what the audience thinks)
i think I've read they get paid 1,500 / hour. and since i think the $ is real + profit in the cash game
on another topic. I browse here a lot but not enough to know personalities except maybe 3 people here. Even bob are you an advantage player?
on another topic. If you look at the amounts of money compared to the big games online. 100k is not that big of a deal.
I kinda think you guys are jut trying to get a rise out of me and any other poker fans.
November 1st, 2010 at 8:02:33 PM
permalink
Quote: jpprovance
If you look at the amounts of money compared to the big games online. 100k
And what makes you think thats real? Are you aware of even half the fakery and deception that goes on at the poker sites?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 1st, 2010 at 8:07:13 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOIt may be fake, but suicidal? I promise you if two pros are going against each other, one of them will win.... and with the endorsements, appearance fees, it is a positive EV game for BOTH of them if they are of similar ability.
Another possibility that I think no one has mentioned, is that they are ostensibly playing for $100,000 buyins, but when they settle up, it's actually for say, one-tenth that amount.
I think it's probably true, that the real source of their income from these shows is not the money they win from each other, but the endorsements, etc. I also think that they couldn't be as casual about those huge sums they toss around on the show unless those sums didn't actually count, because most of those pros are six months away from being broke (past and future).
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
November 1st, 2010 at 8:19:25 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321Another possibility that I think no one has mentioned, is that they are ostensibly playing for $100,000 buyins, but when they settle up, it's actually for say, one-tenth that amount.
I think it's probably true, that the real source of their income from these shows is not the money they win from each other, but the endorsements, etc. I also think that they couldn't be as casual about those huge sums they toss around on the show unless those sums didn't actually count, because most of those pros are six months away from being broke (past and future).
Wow, MKL hits a home run. Something is definitely going on, and its not Mike the Mouth playing Tom Dwan for $500,000 pots. Thats what they want us to think, so their cred in the badass poker world goes up and up. So every poker dumbass who hits Vegas with a wad of cash is 'gunning' for one of them. Its all about facetime on the tube, its translates into big bucks.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 2nd, 2010 at 12:42:05 AM
permalink
editing
November 2nd, 2010 at 12:43:05 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobAnd what makes you think thats real? Are you aware of even half the fakery and deception that goes on at the poker sites?
this post may be a little out of line but anyways.
i think you conspiracy guys are either trying to screw with me. Or Dale Gribble insane conspiracy theory type folks.
I made a poll to hopefully put you guys in your place. please fill it out if you read this.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/poker/3250-high-stakers-poker-the-big-game-poker-after-dark-cash-game/#post35297
November 3rd, 2010 at 3:12:30 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobWow, MKL hits a home run. Something is definitely going on, and its not Mike the Mouth playing Tom Dwan for $500,000 pots. Thats what they want us to think, so their cred in the badass poker world goes up and up. So every poker dumbass who hits Vegas with a wad of cash is 'gunning' for one of them. Its all about facetime on the tube, its translates into big bucks.
I'm not sure I buy the position that something is going on. The last time Mike the Mouth was on, he hardly played any pots. He even laid down a couple of good drawing hands. There is NO WAY he would have done that, other than he was afraid of losing HIS money. As hard as it is for most of us to understand, the money is NOT the counter the pros use. The money is the tools, and the barter, of their trade. If you want to make money, you have to risk money. If you want to make a million, risk a million. Besides, they all have proven they can make a million playing cards, so if they ended up losing it, they can just do it all over again. They know they can, because they have done it before.
How many times did Bob Stupak go broke? I think I read that Scotty Nguyen has gone broke twice, yet he still plays at high levels.
Why would they risk playing against each other? EGO
What better way to prove you are the best, other than by playing against a group of the most recognized poker pros? And,as noted, they will get plenty of action from the fish coming into town looking to play against one of them.
So yes, I do believe that Negreanu was down about $750K of his own money, in HSP a couple of years back. If you watch the reruns of those shows, you can see the sickness in his face at times. They are just passing moments, because he knows there are times he will run bad, and he knows he will get it back, maybe on the next hand.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
November 3rd, 2010 at 9:13:35 PM
permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps
Why would they risk playing against each other? EGO
Sorry, ego doesn't translate into an edge. These are pro players, they know how to
keep their ego's in check when real money is on the table. Which in HSP it isn't.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 10th, 2010 at 1:07:27 AM
permalink
High Stakes Poker is a cash game poker television program broadcast by the cable television network GSN in the United States. The poker variant played on the show is no limit Texas hold'em. The 6th season of the show aired between Feb. 14 and May 9, 2010, and a 7th season is due to begin filming in Dec. 2010. High Stakes Poker was unique among televised poker series because it did not take place in a tournament setting.
November 10th, 2010 at 4:29:58 AM
permalink
stinsonsmart -
We all knew that. What's your point?
We all knew that. What's your point?
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
November 10th, 2010 at 7:52:33 AM
permalink
It's like stinsonsmart isn't actually a person. His previous posts all look like excerpts from wikipedia. Weird.
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
November 15th, 2010 at 12:16:32 AM
permalink
From what I'm reading, the money you see on HST belongs to the producers, not the players. The chips are meaningless and the bound paper money has real bills on top and bottom, the stuff in the middle is fake. They play for real, but get paid by the hour. No actual money changes hands.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
