Dan Shak threatning to boycott future High Roller Events

[ftpjesus]

This story came out on ESPN nearly a week ago and hadnt seen it posted over here but its interesting the point Shak makes. He more or less feels like the High Roller tourneys are getting out of hand due to the rebuys that are allowed endlessly. Think back to Negreanu who bought in 6 times recently in one tourney and ultimately cashed but the ROI was very slim. Here's the gist of what the article says

Dan Shak, a regular in high roller events (he played the AU$100,000 Challenge and then left town) took to Twitter to vent his concerns about what it all meant:

"I'm sorry to say this about a game I love so much but whether you can or can't afford it a 100k and 250k both unlimited for whole first day running around the floor looking for another 250k it just doesn't seem right that these events overshadow the main events where people have put their heart and soul on the line where skill is at least more than 50 percent of the game. And these massive turbo unlimited [re-entry] get so much press because of how much money is on the line. Seriously considering boycotting playing them till the re-entry is only one."

His additional point is he feels like the HR events are overshadowing and taking away from the "Main Event" tourneys at the same stops. He's probably right in the end..

Heres the article if anybody cares the read to

http://espn.go.com/poker/story/_/id/...-roller-system

[chinamaniac]

I think he is wrong and it seems most of the "top pros" do too.

If there is a market for a game then why not offer it? I know if I were a casino and it was going to draw in high profile players and rich businessmen and high stakes pit degens I would be offering it.

Whats next a boycott of high stakes cash games because it plays too high?

[nunbeater]

I thought he was wealthy outside of poker? Him boycotting HR is probably gonna make the other players sad more than the casinos.

[bukowski72]

I hope this fucktard self bans himself from the high limit tournaments that are the main place he seems to make some money.

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=29384

I love this super piece of shit Dan Shak. He put his clients and his delusional self in one position and it didn't workout.

Dan Shak Fined, Banned from Trading
Nov 26, 2013
Jing Chen

The U.S. futures market regulator has penalized hedge fund manager-turned-professional poker player Dan Shak for attempting to manipulate oil markets in 2008.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission said in a statement Monday that Shak, the founder of the now-defunct SHK Asset Management, must pay a total of $400,000 in civil penalties. The CFTC also permanently banned Shak and SHK from trading in any crude oil markets, and imposed a two-year ban from trading “outrights,” in which a position is not put on as a hedge against risk during the close.

Shak was accused of “banging the close,” which meaning he built up a substantial position toward the end of the trading day and then offset it, during two trading days in 2008.

Shak most recently made news when he hosted an annual charity poker event he co-founded, which was filmed for national television as part of a future World Poker Tour broadcast.

https://www.evestment.com/news-event...d-from-trading

[BeerAndPoker]

Dan Shak has played in a ton of these and for him to say he's upset that the high roller takes over focus of the Main Event is laughable when he's only pissed that players went crazy with the re-entries at the Aussie Millions, which is the only place that currently has allowed that for high rollers.

[lvpkr1009]

I think he is wrong and it seems most of the "top pros" do too.

If there is a market for a game then why not offer it? I know if I were a casino and it was going to draw in high profile players and rich businessmen and high stakes pit degens I would be offering it.

Whats next a boycott of high stakes cash games because it plays too high?

I think he's got a decent point with firing unlimited bullets in HR tourney or being able to fire the second day with a limited number of BB. I'm a little biased because I like the idea of making every decision matter in a tourney and if you want to shove or call off with your draw then there should be some kind of consequence in your tournament life instead of just being able to fire again if you miss. It seems to happen a lot where a guy like DN rebuys and loses his first hand afterwards and then rebuys again. Sure it can be plus ev if you're on the winning end of that but it sucks if your playing good poker and end up getting shit showed by someone who is just firing away to luckbox a stack

[chinamaniac]

I think he is wrong and it seems most of the "top pros" do too.

If there is a market for a game then why not offer it? I know if I were a casino and it was going to draw in high profile players and rich businessmen and high stakes pit degens I would be offering it.

Whats next a boycott of high stakes cash games because it plays too high?

I think he's got a decent point with firing unlimited bullets in HR tourney or being able to fire the second day with a limited number of BB. I'm a little biased because I like the idea of making every decision matter in a tourney and if you want to shove or call off with your draw then there should be some kind of consequence in your tournament life instead of just being able to fire again if you miss. It seems to happen a lot where a guy like DN rebuys and loses his first hand afterwards and then rebuys again. Sure it can be plus ev if you're on the winning end of that but it sucks if your playing good poker and end up getting shit showed by someone who is just firing away to luckbox a stack

More rebuys just adds more prize money. If I were playing I would love if guys were coming back in on day 2 with a tiny stack. That said I want them to keep running these so we see a bunch of these guys bleed their bankrolls.

[bukowski72]

I think he's got a decent point with firing unlimited bullets in HR tourney or being able to fire the second day with a limited number of BB. I'm a little biased because I like the idea of making every decision matter in a tourney and if you want to shove or call off with your draw then there should be some kind of consequence in your tournament life instead of just being able to fire again if you miss. It seems to happen a lot where a guy like DN rebuys and loses his first hand afterwards and then rebuys again. Sure it can be plus ev if you're on the winning end of that but it sucks if your playing good poker and end up getting shit showed by someone who is just firing away to luckbox a stack

It SEEMS to happen a lot if you happen to be the player Dan N doubles though on you with a draw on Dan's sixth bullet. The other 5 times and more from other high roller tournament where Shak sucked in the money like pacman Shak didn't have shit to say. Also, none of the pros give a crap it Shak quits because he is a skilled player who pretends to be a high limit fish. Shak is just crying to get best position for his game -- one bullet while pretending to be a businessman fish. Great for Shak if someone playing a $100,000 + tournament believes him. If Shak doesn't get his way in these tournaments, Shak could always go back to managing money NOT. I bet all of the other platers in these tourney's are aware of Shak's situation and don't give much of a fuck what Shak thinks.

[lvpkr1009]

I think he's got a decent point with firing unlimited bullets in HR tourney or being able to fire the second day with a limited number of BB. I'm a little biased because I like the idea of making every decision matter in a tourney and if you want to shove or call off with your draw then there should be some kind of consequence in your tournament life instead of just being able to fire again if you miss. It seems to happen a lot where a guy like DN rebuys and loses his first hand afterwards and then rebuys again. Sure it can be plus ev if you're on the winning end of that but it sucks if your playing good poker and end up getting shit showed by someone who is just firing away to luckbox a stack

More rebuys just adds more prize money. If I were playing I would love if guys were coming back in on day 2 with a tiny stack. That said I want them to keep running these so we see a bunch of these guys bleed their bankrolls.

The ones it sucks for are they guys who stone bubble the event on 1 buyin because they never had to reload and a guy who's fired 6 bullets gets a cash and should have been out of the tourney. Not that I feel it's all that important but it also takes away from POY race because there are guys who end up getting big points when they shouldn't.

[bukowski72]

lvpkr1009,

I find your whole argument weird. Following your logic, couldn't I question the fairness of Daniel Neg POY status when Dan plays so many tournaments that are are $10,000 plus and almost all of the WSOP events because he is sponsored by PokerStars? Most poker pros cannot afford or risk playing so many WSOP events.

[lvpkr1009]

Other than the following professional players that I can think of off the top of my head (excluding the Germans) who's bankrolls could support unlimited re entries on their own without at least 50 percent backing?

Daniel
Timex
Ike
Ivey
Mercier (at least at 100k level)

The rest of these guys are only playing for minimum money if they cash. The likes of Scott siever, justin bonomo, even probably Matt glantz isn't playing a big percentage of his own cash at 100k or 250k levels.

I'd be more in favor of turning these events into 1r 1a tournies instead of unlimited re entries

[chinamaniac]

Other than the following professional players that I can think of off the top of my head (excluding the Germans) who's bankrolls could support unlimited re entries on their own without at least 50 percent backing?

Daniel
Timex
Ike
Ivey
Mercier (at least at 100k level)

The rest of these guys are only playing for minimum money if they cash. The likes of Scott siever, justin bonomo, even probably Matt glantz isn't playing a big percentage of his own cash at 100k or 250k levels.

I'd be more in favor of turning these events into 1r 1a tournies instead of unlimited re entries

What does it matter who can and cant afford them and what does it matter if some guys are being backed?

[lvpkr1009]

lvpkr1009,

I find your whole argument weird. Following your logic, couldn't I question the fairness of Daniel Neg POY status when Dan plays so many tournaments that are are $10,000 plus and almost all of the WSOP events because he is sponsored by PokerStars? Most poker pros cannot afford or risk playing so many WSOP events.

Using Daniel might be a bad example because he does playing in so many WSOP events to add to his POY status. But let's say it's a close race like last year and Daniel has points from an event that he wouldn't have had if the buy ins are limited but he fired 6 shots at it and found a way to cash instead of being knocked out, that's a little disingenuous to say he's amassed the most points when he only did so buy firing so many bullets in these rebuys.

I realize he plays a ton of events at the series but these other scores help him along the way

[BCR]

I don't know what exactly I believe about these high-roller events, but I certainly think they are mostly full of shit. I don't know whether the sites are buying them in, or there is an agreement amongst the pros to play for a much smaller amount and split up and collude against the wealthy amateurs, but I just don't believe there are many poker pros fading multiple buy-ins for $1 million for a turbo donkament. Everyone knows who the best players are, so who is staking the other guys?

Makes no fucking sense to me, and just feels like it's full of shit on some level. Simply playing in those events really raises a players profile, and I can see that poker player management company setting this shit up for exposure with the casinos and PS/FT because it keeps the low stakes grinders dreams alive chasing the fantasy. If China and Druff agreed to play heads up limit for a million, it makes them both look like they must be killing the games somewhere, and who the fuck is any wiser as to the real stakes? When you see these scandals unravel every year, and how incestuous the relationships are in the high-stakes world, it's not inconceivable to me that most could be in an arrangement with these small fields. And working together, you could almost guarantee the rich amateur never wins.

I watched Daniel drop a little less than a million on HSP and it looked like he wanted to jump off the Stratosphere. and that was when poker endorsement money and poker was a honeypot with 20 companies throwing money at everyone. I don't see him doing $1.5 in buy-ins like it's no big deal. I don't pay close enough attention to try and figure it out, but even amongst degens, no one is putting up like 50% of their networth to play a sit-n-go, and there aren't enough backers for a lot of these guys. Something is just off imo. I don't think these guys have that much money, and I don't think that many are getting staked outside the consensus top 5 players who would be a good risk.

I believe the onedrop and the Vegas charity tournies where 75% of the field are wall street guys, and I can see the $100k with 1 buy-in, but I'm not buying these multi-entry for a million turbos. It's possible I'm in the tin-foil camp on this, but they don't feel right in this present environment. I could see a bunch of cash game pros straight off a Macau windfall playing a mixed game for these stakes, but not some tourney.

[chinamaniac]

lvpkr1009,

I find your whole argument weird. Following your logic, couldn't I question the fairness of Daniel Neg POY status when Dan plays so many tournaments that are are $10,000 plus and almost all of the WSOP events because he is sponsored by PokerStars? Most poker pros cannot afford or risk playing so many WSOP events.

Using Daniel might be a bad example because he does playing in so many WSOP events to add to his POY status. But let's say it's a close race like last year and Daniel has points from an event that he wouldn't have had if the buy ins are limited but he fired 6 shots at it and found a way to cash instead of being knocked out, that's a little disingenuous to say he's amassed the most points when he only did so buy firing so many bullets in these rebuys.

I realize he plays a ton of events at the series but these other scores help him along the way

What does one win for winning the player of the year or getting the highest in the GPI?

[lvpkr1009]

Other than the following professional players that I can think of off the top of my head (excluding the Germans) who's bankrolls could support unlimited re entries on their own without at least 50 percent backing?

Daniel
Timex
Ike
Ivey
Mercier (at least at 100k level)

The rest of these guys are only playing for minimum money if they cash. The likes of Scott siever, justin bonomo, even probably Matt glantz isn't playing a big percentage of his own cash at 100k or 250k levels.

I'd be more in favor of turning these events into 1r 1a tournies instead of unlimited re entries

What does it matter who can and cant afford them and what does it matter if some guys are being backed?

I think it just turns these events into shit shows where nobody is buying into them except for a few players and the only people making any money are the Germans and the rake

[chinamaniac]

. Simply playing in those events really raises a players profile, and I can see that poker player management company setting this shit up for exposure with the casinos and PS/FT because it keeps the low stakes grinders dreams alive chasing the fantasy. If China and Druff agreed to play heads up limit for a million, it makes them both look like they must be killing the games somewhere, and who the fuck is any wiser as to the real stakes?

While it certainly does raise ones profile so does playing cash games and a fair amount of the guys playing nose bleeds are playing on shared bankrolls or selling up to 80 % of their action just to get them into position to play fish etc

[chinamaniac]

What does it matter who can and cant afford them and what does it matter if some guys are being backed?

I think it just turns these events into shit shows where nobody is buying into them except for a few players and the only people making any money are the Germans and the rake

Then that's fine. Let the Germans win and the casinos win and watch everyone else lose. If there is a demand for these then anyone can play.

[lvpkr1009]

Using Daniel might be a bad example because he does playing in so many WSOP events to add to his POY status. But let's say it's a close race like last year and Daniel has points from an event that he wouldn't have had if the buy ins are limited but he fired 6 shots at it and found a way to cash instead of being knocked out, that's a little disingenuous to say he's amassed the most points when he only did so buy firing so many bullets in these rebuys.

I realize he plays a ton of events at the series but these other scores help him along the way

What does one win for winning the player of the year or getting the highest in the GPI?

I guess that depends on what you consider winning? Can you cash in on it still...sure I think 888 would love to sponsor and be able to say the have the reigning player of the year just like pokerstars used to cash in on signing every main event champ. You can bet that most people couldn't tell you right now who came In Second place in the POY last year but they know who won it

I just think that if you're going to have such things and make them a big deal (which they still do) then you need to make it a truer representation of who the best players are

[chinamaniac]

What does one win for winning the player of the year or getting the highest in the GPI?

I guess that depends on what you consider winning? Can you cash in on it still...sure I think 888 would love to sponsor and be able to say the have the reigning player of the year just like pokerstars used to cash in on signing every main event champ. You can bet that most people couldn't tell you right now who came In Second place in the POY last year but they know who won it

I just think that if you're going to have such things and make them a big deal (which they still do) then you need to make it a truer representation of who the best players are

You can cash in on playing nosebleed cash online too and as I mentioned above, guys are sharing rolls and selling action in a lot of these things and noone has said a word about this for years and you see players bagging sponsorships and increasing notoriety as well.