Crush Live Poker

[RegGaymer]

Are you trying to argue that his percentage numbers look fair?

Surely a math wiz such as yourself would know that 75/25 in favor of the horse is unheard of..

And btw; I have plenty of experience backing and being backed. When I used to play live I often sold on 4 marketplace.

No, I'm saying that you have no credentials and no fucking clue what you're talking about.

According to opr I have been in the top 1% of players for the past six years: three of those years I was top 0.15%, during which time I played for a living.

I don't play poker full time any more so I'm not claiming to be a baller, but don't talk about credentials when you're the one that is obv lacking them.

[anonamoose]

No, I'm saying that you have no credentials and no fucking clue what you're talking about.

According to opr I have been in the top 1% of players for the past six years: three of those years I was top 0.15%, during which time I played for a living.

I don't play poker full time any more so I'm not claiming to be a baller, but don't talk about credentials when you're the one that is obv lacking them.

So you've resorted to making 2 euro commission. Makes a lot of sense. Story checks out.

[garrett]

According to opr I have been in the top 1% of players for the past six years: three of those years I was top 0.15%, during which time I played for a living.

I don't play poker full time any more so I'm not claiming to be a baller, but don't talk about credentials when you're the one that is obv lacking them.

So you've resorted to making 2 euro commission. Makes a lot of sense. Story checks out.

lol you two

Should be settled on PFA poker obv and maybe we could get some side bet action going.

I kinda know which direction my money would be going.

You both are great.

[Belly Buster]

So you've resorted to making 2 euro commission. Makes a lot of sense. Story checks out.

lol you two

Should be settled on PFA poker obv and maybe we could get some side bet action going.

I kinda know which direction my money would be going.

You both are great.

You haven't got any money.

[RegGaymer]

So you've resorted to making 2 euro commission. Makes a lot of sense. Story checks out.

Poker aint what it used to be. I used to be a comfortable winner without using a HUD, but by 2013 the game caught up and it was all about mass multi-tabling while using a HUD at mid to high stakes and also game selecting. On top of all that it was just flat out grim as fuck sitting in an apartment staring at a screen all day clicking buttons and chain smoking joints to numb the monotony and pain of getting shafted in the end game. It's an unhealthy lifestyle plain and simple. Health > money any day.

[Daredevil]

So you think there's good implied odds when calling off 10% of your stack pre?

Better question, why does Druff let you co-host his radio when you made a thread asking this?

What are fair staking arrangements for an unknown player?

I mentioned on the radio show last night that I will be in Vegas this summer, and while I can't sell "pieces" of myself for the WSOP (since I'm not planning on playing any events), I would be open to people(s) staking me into one.

This got me thinking, for a one time stake, what would be a fair? I pretty much only play live cash (mostly 1/2, sometimes 2/5) so though I could tell you I'm a winning player, it wouldn't matter since I have no way of proving it.

So basically I'm some random player no one has ever seen play, and has no results to show. Given that fact, I have come up with what I would think is fair. I'd love to hear what you guys/gals think. Below are the buy-in levels, and percentages (first number would be mine, second would be yours) for a potential stake for a WSOP even this summer:

565-777: 75/25
1,000-1,500: 50/50
2,500-5,000: 40/60
10,000: 25/75

What do you think?

Clearly you're out of your depth when talking poker. It's funny, because I mentioned how 80/20 in the backers favor is about right if the horse is good, but you still tried to flip those numbers by insinuating that Ivey would be a good investment when it's 80/20 in his favour after you stake him the full buy-in.

Clearly you're a moron. I said backing Ivey at 20/80 is better than backing Garrett at 80/20. If you think I'm wrong about that, you're just dumb.

Also, lol if you think there's no scenario where you call 10% of your stack in position in a NL cash game.

I haven't revealed this yet on here, but I quit my job a few months ago to go back to grinding poker for a living. So, I play poker for a living (again), and you sell suntan lotion. Who in this forum is qualified to talk about poker?

[RegGaymer]

Ivey would need to have an roi of 500% for you to b/e on that investment, whereas Garrett would need to have a 25% roi. Call me dumb, but I prefer Garrett's side of the investment.

This is why I say you're out of your depth, trying to get ppl to stake you into a $777 mtt at 75/25 your favor when you'd need a 400% roi for them to b/e is a joke. I'd say it's an outright scam if I thought you knew any better.

And yes, there are spots when you can call 10% of your stack pre, but you need really good odds to do so. If someone makes it 5x and you're 50bb deep you can't call unless you're trapping, even if another player calls in front of you.

[BCR]

I was a subscriber to Duce Plays by Bart and fount it to be excellent, It was strictly audio and no video which i prefer. I wish i had time to watch crush live poker and i would subscribe for sure. he has a good voice (a bit like Druff's) and easy to listen to the info is gold. use to be you could get a one on one with him in L.A. for reasonable price but the Macau billionaire's have spoiled that one for us, but good for him he seems like a good guy too.

It's funny you mention Druff and Bart. When I was really sick, back when poker was huge, Live at the Bike ran multiple nights a week, and I went to sleep with the time difference watching LATB with Bart/Dave and later Nicole for years after I was done playing online.

I'm pretty sure I was the one who encouraged Druff to play on it, although that was much later.

Anyway, during that whole bad time, I was on multiple pain drugs, both prescribed and off the street. When I started listening to his podcasts on deuce plays later when I was healthy, it's like it triggered my brain again. It was better than 4mgs of xanax. So much so that I once sent him a pm from one of my throwaway twoplustwo accounts telling him how it takes me 4 or 5 listens to get through an hour podcast and he was basically a sleeping pill, not because it wasn't interesting, but almost on a chemical level.

I listen to Druff much the same. With Druff, the six and seven hour shows usually leave me a few weeks behind, but might take me 5 listens to get through as I'm nodding off.

As far as poker strategy, Bart is very good at how to think about poker, and explaining his thought process and decisions. It's certainly California-centric, as there simply isn't 20 5/10 NL and above games to choose from many places. He kills the recreational and amateur players that are affluent and plentiful in LA.

Like, his podcasts will describe a hand and I think there isn't a guy playing at that level who would call off $1200 with a hand like that within a 5 hour drive for me personally. I'd have to drive to Maryland Live or something to play in games like he describes.

He's great, because unlike all the internet players, his commentary isn't describing a live hand played using HUD stats and other general descriptive 2+2 terminology. I imagine much of his clintele is 35+, or strictly live players, as he would appeal to them like myself. He's my favorite strategy guy not because he's Jungleman, but he's a solid winning pro who is listenable.

But for me, it isnt worth it to subscribe because I can't find a game like he describes anywhere close. I used to be able to find fish filled 5/10 games every night locally, but those days are long gone. Now, maybe one table with the best players in the room playing it. if I lived in LA, I'd likely hire him personally to coach me just because of his insight into the player pool and which games to choose and his general knowledge of that scene. So it's certainly worth it if you have access to games. He'd say the same thing, that the smaller games are basically unbeatable with the rake and don't bother.

[Daredevil]

Ivey would need to have an roi of 500% for you to b/e on that investment, whereas Garrett would need to have a 25% roi. Call me dumb, but I prefer Garrett's side of the investment.

This is why I say you're out of your depth, trying to get ppl to stake you into a $777 mtt at 75/25 your favor when you'd need a 400% roi for them to b/e is a joke. I'd say it's an outright scam if I thought you knew any better.

And yes, there are spots when you can call 10% of your stack pre, but you need really good odds to do so. If someone makes it 5x and you're 50bb deep you can't call unless you're trapping, even if another player calls in front of you.

You really are dumb.

You need a 500% roi to be break-even at 20/80 in the players favor? I just don't know where to begin with such idiocy.

No wonder you failed at poker, you can't even do simple math.

[SrslySirius]

he was basically a sleeping pill, not because it wasn't interesting, but almost on a chemical level.

I wasn't gonna mention this, because it's kind of weird, but I used to listen to Bart's podcast for the same reason. Well, I was interested in getting better at cash games at the time, but it was also great for putting me to sleep. The guy has a soothing voice.

These days Hardcore History serves that function for me. It takes me like 10 days to get through a 4-hour episode.

[Krypt]

he was basically a sleeping pill, not because it wasn't interesting, but almost on a chemical level.

I wasn't gonna mention this, because it's kind of weird, but I used to listen to Bart's podcast for the same reason. Well, I was interested in getting better at cash games at the time, but it was also great for putting me to sleep. The guy has a soothing voice.

These days Hardcore History serves that function for me. It takes me like 10 days to get through a 4-hour episode.

Dan Carlin on my sonos system fuuuuuuucks me up

[SrslySirius]

I know what Dan Carlin looks like, but for some reason I always picture him as this guy

[RegGaymer]

Ivey would need to have an roi of 500% for you to b/e on that investment, whereas Garrett would need to have a 25% roi. Call me dumb, but I prefer Garrett's side of the investment.

This is why I say you're out of your depth, trying to get ppl to stake you into a $777 mtt at 75/25 your favor when you'd need a 400% roi for them to b/e is a joke. I'd say it's an outright scam if I thought you knew any better.

And yes, there are spots when you can call 10% of your stack pre, but you need really good odds to do so. If someone makes it 5x and you're 50bb deep you can't call unless you're trapping, even if another player calls in front of you.

You really are dumb.

You need a 500% roi to be break-even at 20/80 in the players favor? I just don't know where to begin with such idiocy.
No wonder you failed at poker, you can't even do simple math.

Lol, I had to recap on the math and there was a mistake. At 80/20 the player would need a 400% roi for the backer to b/e.

Think of it like this: you want to sell action for a $1k that will cover the buy-in and still leave you with 80%.

Mark-up @ 5.0 (400% ROI)* 1000 = $5000
Sell 20% = $1000
Leaving 80% for the player

If otoh the player wanted to keep 20%.

Mark-up @ 1.25 (25% ROI) * 1000 = $1250
Sell 80% = $1000
Leaving 20% for the player.

So in your 75/25 example you'd need at least 300% roi.

If you think these numbers are wrong then please show how so. If you agree they're correct then please explain your previous stance.

I'm beginning to think you're without doubt in the lower echelons of posters here on this site Daredevil.

Gl as a pro live grinder tho, making 3bb/hour at $1/2 sounds like lucrative business.

[Daredevil]

You really are dumb.

You need a 500% roi to be break-even at 20/80 in the players favor? I just don't know where to begin with such idiocy.
No wonder you failed at poker, you can't even do simple math.

Lol, I had to recap on the math and there was a mistake. At 80/20 the player would need a 400% roi for the backer to b/e.

Think of it like this: you want to sell action for a $1k that will cover the buy-in and still leave you with 80%.

Mark-up @ 5.0 (400% ROI)* 1000 = $5000
Sell 20% = $1000
Leaving 80% for the player

If otoh the player wanted to keep 20%.

Mark-up @ 1.25 (25% ROI) * 1000 = $1250
Sell 80% = $1000
Leaving 20% for the player.

So in your 75/25 example you'd need at least 300% roi.

If you think these numbers are wrong then please show how so. If you agree they're correct then please explain your previous stance.

I'm beginning to think you're without doubt in the lower echelons of posters here on this site Daredevil.

Gl as a pro live grinder tho, making 3bb/hour at $1/2 sounds like lucrative business.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you. We were talking about the Cmoney situation where he put up 100% of the buy-in, but wanted 80% of Garretts profit (after he was paid back the initial buy-in) I said, I'd rather have 20% of Ivey in that scenario. You said, Ivey would need to have 500% roi in mtts to make that a break even proposition.

I really don't know what it is you don't understand, if a player, on average, makes 5 dollars for every 1 dollar of tournament buy-ins, you could have 1% of that player in the above scenario and still be profitable. You're getting the buy-in back first, so a player only needs 101% roi to make it profitable for the backer no matter what the split.

Oh and lol at how this started as a cash game strategy discussion where you first said it's a push/fold scenario with 50bbs and a call of 10% of your stack in position. Then you backpedaled and said it is correct to call, but only if you're "trapping", LOL.

Also lol at calling me one of the lower echelon posters, when you have, in fact, been voted as the absolute lowest.

I'm not sure if they have English labels in whatever country you're in, but normally on a sunscreen bottle it reads: "Do not ingest".

[garrett]

Lol, I had to recap on the math and there was a mistake. At 80/20 the player would need a 400% roi for the backer to b/e.

Think of it like this: you want to sell action for a $1k that will cover the buy-in and still leave you with 80%.

Mark-up @ 5.0 (400% ROI)* 1000 = $5000
Sell 20% = $1000
Leaving 80% for the player

If otoh the player wanted to keep 20%.

Mark-up @ 1.25 (25% ROI) * 1000 = $1250
Sell 80% = $1000
Leaving 20% for the player.

So in your 75/25 example you'd need at least 300% roi.

If you think these numbers are wrong then please show how so. If you agree they're correct then please explain your previous stance.

I'm beginning to think you're without doubt in the lower echelons of posters here on this site Daredevil.

Gl as a pro live grinder tho, making 3bb/hour at $1/2 sounds like lucrative business.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you. We were talking about the Cmoney situation where he put up 100% of the buy-in, but wanted 80% of Garretts profit (after he was paid back the initial buy-in) I said, I'd rather have 20% of Ivey in that scenario. You said, Ivey would need to have 500% roi in mtts to make that a break even proposition.

I really don't know what it is you don't understand, if a player, on average, makes 5 dollars for every 1 dollar of tournament buy-ins, you could have 1% of that player in the above scenario and still be profitable. You're getting the buy-in back first, so a player only needs 101% roi to make it profitable for the backer no matter what the split.

Oh and lol at how this started as a cash game strategy discussion where you first said it's a push/fold scenario with 50bbs and a call of 10% of your stack in position. Then you backpedaled and said it is correct to call, but only if you're "trapping", LOL.

Also lol at calling me one of the lower echelon posters, when you have, in fact, been voted as the absolute lowest.

I'm not sure if they have English labels in whatever country you're in, but normally on a sunscreen bottle it reads: "Do not ingest".

Get your facts straight. He was getting 70% and cmoney is a very intelligent individual unlike you.

It's kind of disrespectful on your part, to imply you know more than a very successful person who is staking poker players. You really are out of your depths here, without being mean he made a great investment because I am hungry, willing to show up, I don't scam and I'll always play my best. It's all that I know.

So how is this, based off your wrong math, 'not a good investment'.

I also come with 0 markup because I am unproven, but don't think for a second I wont go back again, and can. I am a good horse and players like me exist, they just need a chance. Judging by your spew in this thread, you have no clue about how prevalent staking is in the poker world, let alone how intelligent the ones doing it are.

Shut it down, and lol so much more I want to say on you but wont here (yet)!

[Daredevil]

I can't believe I have to explain this to you. We were talking about the Cmoney situation where he put up 100% of the buy-in, but wanted 80% of Garretts profit (after he was paid back the initial buy-in) I said, I'd rather have 20% of Ivey in that scenario. You said, Ivey would need to have 500% roi in mtts to make that a break even proposition.

I really don't know what it is you don't understand, if a player, on average, makes 5 dollars for every 1 dollar of tournament buy-ins, you could have 1% of that player in the above scenario and still be profitable. You're getting the buy-in back first, so a player only needs 101% roi to make it profitable for the backer no matter what the split.

Oh and lol at how this started as a cash game strategy discussion where you first said it's a push/fold scenario with 50bbs and a call of 10% of your stack in position. Then you backpedaled and said it is correct to call, but only if you're "trapping", LOL.

Also lol at calling me one of the lower echelon posters, when you have, in fact, been voted as the absolute lowest.

I'm not sure if they have English labels in whatever country you're in, but normally on a sunscreen bottle it reads: "Do not ingest".

Get your facts straight. He was getting 70% and cmoney is a very intelligent individual unlike you.

It's kind of disrespectful on your part, to imply you know more than a very successful person who is staking poker players. You really are out of your depths here, without being mean he made a great investment because I am hungry, willing to show up, I don't scam and I'll always play my best. It's all that I know.

So how is this, based off your wrong math, 'not a good investment'.

I also come with 0 markup because I am unproven, but don't think for a second I wont go back again, and can. I am a good horse and players like me exist, they just need a chance. Judging by your spew in this thread, you have no clue about how prevalent staking is in the poker world, let alone how intelligent the ones doing it are.

Shut it down, and lol so much more I want to say on you but wont here (yet)!

Ok, 70% then. This may surprise you Garrett, but not everything is about you. This thread certainly is not.

I also never said it was a bad investment, only that my proposed Ivey investment was a better one. Maybe you're projecting a tad again?

[garrett]

Get your facts straight. He was getting 70% and cmoney is a very intelligent individual unlike you.

It's kind of disrespectful on your part, to imply you know more than a very successful person who is staking poker players. You really are out of your depths here, without being mean he made a great investment because I am hungry, willing to show up, I don't scam and I'll always play my best. It's all that I know.

So how is this, based off your wrong math, 'not a good investment'.

I also come with 0 markup because I am unproven, but don't think for a second I wont go back again, and can. I am a good horse and players like me exist, they just need a chance. Judging by your spew in this thread, you have no clue about how prevalent staking is in the poker world, let alone how intelligent the ones doing it are.

Shut it down, and lol so much more I want to say on you but wont here (yet)!

Ok, 70% then. This may surprise you Garrett, but not everything is about you. This thread certainly is not.

I also never said it was a bad investment, only that my proposed Ivey investment was a better one. Maybe you're projecting a tad again?

o.k and sorry for getting out of the context of the thread. So let's get back on track.

What makes you think 'Phil Ivey' ohhh, the great one, has any ability beyond anyone else who has put forth the years and effort into understand a 52 card deck, divided by 4 suits, 13 per.

He doesn't have some magical like, unimaginable (non human) abilities. He loses just like everyone else. Variance is built into a 52 deck of cards.

Until you understand just because someone brings a 'big name' to the table, that doesn't ever change the pure mathematics built into a 52 card deck.

I never talked some of this but you obviously need to hear it, fanboy.

[Daredevil]

Ok, 70% then. This may surprise you Garrett, but not everything is about you. This thread certainly is not.

I also never said it was a bad investment, only that my proposed Ivey investment was a better one. Maybe you're projecting a tad again?

o.k and sorry for getting out of the context of the thread. So let's get back on track.

What makes you think 'Phil Ivey' ohhh, the great one, has any ability beyond anyone else who has put forth the years and effort into understand a 52 card deck, divided by 4 suits, 13 per.

He doesn't have some magical like, unimaginable (non human) abilities. He loses just like everyone else. Variance is built into a 52 deck of cards.

Until you understand just because someone brings a 'big name' to the table, that doesn't ever change the pure mathematics built into a 52 card deck.

I never talked some of this but you obviously need to hear it, fanboy.

It's not magical ability Garrett, it's just ability. And I just used Ivey as an example since most consider him the greatest all around poker player in the world.

Or are you saying that there's no such thing as ability, just luck, in which case, you're as good as Ivey?

[handicapme]

Ok, 70% then. This may surprise you Garrett, but not everything is about you. This thread certainly is not.

I also never said it was a bad investment, only that my proposed Ivey investment was a better one. Maybe you're projecting a tad again?

o.k and sorry for getting out of the context of the thread. So let's get back on track.

What makes you think 'Phil Ivey' ohhh, the great one, has any ability beyond anyone else who has put forth the years and effort into understand a 52 card deck, divided by 4 suits, 13 per.

He doesn't have some magical like, unimaginable (non human) abilities. He loses just like everyone else. Variance is built into a 52 deck of cards.

Until you understand just because someone brings a 'big name' to the table, that doesn't ever change the pure mathematics built into a 52 card deck.

I never talked some of this but you obviously need to hear it, fanboy.

Real talk fuck face, I shit on you every chance I get but I'm going to honestly ask you a serious question here and hope you give a serious answer.

If you are so good "world class", why can't you save up a roll from shining the floors for a few months, try and get a job at the deli or something, then grind 1-2/2-5 nl/ohama on your free time? The 1/2-2/5nl games at borgata/parx/hardrock are beatable for even a casual play.

Also follow up question if you are so good at DFS, why can you not use winnings from this to fund your bankroll?

[RegGaymer]

I can't believe I have to explain this to you. We were talking about the Cmoney situation where he put up 100% of the buy-in, but wanted 80% of Garretts profit (after he was paid back the initial buy-in) I said, I'd rather have 20% of Ivey in that scenario. You said, Ivey would need to have 500% roi in mtts to make that a break even proposition.

I really don't know what it is you don't understand, if a player, on average, makes 5 dollars for every 1 dollar of tournament buy-ins, you could have 1% of that player in the above scenario and still be profitable. You're getting the buy-in back first, so a player only needs 101% roi to make it profitable for the backer no matter what the split.

Oh and lol at how this started as a cash game strategy discussion where you first said it's a push/fold scenario with 50bbs and a call of 10% of your stack in position. Then you backpedaled and said it is correct to call, but only if you're "trapping", LOL.

Also lol at calling me one of the lower echelon posters, when you have, in fact, been voted as the absolute lowest.

I'm not sure if they have English labels in whatever country you're in, but normally on a sunscreen bottle it reads: "Do not ingest".

The numbers I posted were related to deals without stakeback. There seems to be some confusion because I made that post after reading your other thread where you posted this:

I thought I made it clear in the first post but yes, you're right, they would pay 100% of my buy-in and take 25% of my winnings.

Part of that is as I said, I don't live in Vegas, and would be covering my own travel expenses.

Also I'm not saying these numbers are gospel. They were just my first thoughts as to what is fair. But that's why I wanted feedback. In the past I have only ever done one-shots where the backer paid 100% of my buy-in and we split whatever I made 50/50.

So when you were trying to get a stake on here you weren't talking about stakeback deals, you wanted a split on the winnings. This is how I calculated the 300% roi needed for a 75/25 deal in your favor.