Why are (almost) all FTP Pros such down so much $?

[economist89]

I don't mean to be insensitive, just a question/observation.

Phil Ivey: -$90k
Chris Ferguson: -$30k
Howard Lederer: -$28k
Jennifer Harman: -$7k
Mike Matusow: -$28k
....(along w/ almost all of the rest of the team and other "FTP pros." A few nights in a row I found some spare time and did the research, looked every FTP team and FTP pro up, and came to this conclusion).

I watched a Daniel Negreanu interview on youtube and he said that those who go from live play to online are generally not successful, was that what he was referring to?

Thoughts?

[dew12109]

Originally Posted by economist89 I don't mean to be insensitive, just a question/observation. Phil Ivey: -$90k Chris Ferguson: -$30k Howard Lederer: -$28k Jennifer Harman: -$7k Mike Matusow: -$28k ....(along w/ almost all of the rest of the team and other "FTP pros." A few nights in a row I found some spare time and did the research, looked every FTP team and FTP pro up, and came to this conclusion). I watched a Daniel Negreanu interview on youtube and he said that those who go from live play to online are generally not successful, was that what he was referring to? Thoughts?

I'm not looking up the rest... but just from your first quote of Phil Ivey, you didn't research enough. He's up $4 million or so. Search for high stakes cash game information about Phil Ivey and you'll see that he is nowhere near negative money at all.

[economist89]

Tournament wise, he (along w/ almost all of the FTP team and FTP pros) are down.

Where specifically can I find cash game results?

[dew12109]

Check your private messages

[chiudidier]

Hi,

For high stakes cash games results, there's always : http://www.highstakesdb.com/ (sorry if this is misinterpreted as advertising)

[economist89]

Thanks guys. Though still strange why their online tournaments haven't been a great success.

[Dekanter]

I think Lindgren has good tourney results though.

For the other guys you have to think if they only play the special events (like 25k HU twice a year + high buy - in FTOPS events) that such amounts equal to nearly NOTHING.

Also it is quite normal that the variance in big field tournaments is much bigger than lets say in a 90 players entry field.

For some players (like Martin Klaeser for example) it comes down to just suck in tournament play so big time while others do care to less for even the highest buy-ins.

[economist89]

I counted a total of 10 FTP pros out the lengthy list on their site that have made a decent chunk of cash and from memory there's not more than 2-4 FTP team members (Lindgren, Antonius, and maybe 1-2 more) that have made a great amount.

True, large fields have a lot variance, however, if you're following the same db I'm following, just click on any tournament, and it'll show you everyone who finished in a given tournament. And then notice how many "ace ratings" there are, where the majority of the "ace ratings" are generally over $30k, if not at an average around $100k (click on the profile for one of these guys and you'll know what I mean). Point being that there are a tremendous amount of people that have made large winnings as you can confirm, yet FTP has selected "pros" who all but 10, are all losing players. Even w/ high variance, there are players that consistently cash in the long run, but the FTP pros for most part aren't any of these players.

edit: And as for big buyins, they usually play $100-$200 buyins, and given that they're down $30k-$100k, that's still a lot of buyins!

[travz21]

Originally Posted by economist89 yet FTP has selected "pros" who are huge winners in real life and promote the game better than anyone in the business, yet are down a miniscule amount in online MTTs.

For your pleasure.

[dew12109]

Originally Posted by economist89 I counted a total of 10 FTP pros out the lengthy list on their site that have made a decent chunk of cash and from memory there's not more than 2-4 FTP team members (Lindgren, Antonius, and maybe 1-2 more) that have made a great amount. True, large fields have a lot variance, however, if you're following the same db I'm following, just click on any tournament, and it'll show you everyone who finished in a given tournament. And then notice how many "ace ratings" there are, where the majority of the "ace ratings" are generally over $30k, if not at an average around $100k (click on the profile for one of these guys and you'll know what I mean). Point being that there are a tremendous amount of people that have made large winnings as you can confirm, yet FTP has selected "pros" who all but 10, are all losing players. Even w/ high variance, there are players that consistently cash in the long run, but the FTP pros for most part aren't any of these players. edit: And as for big buyins, they usually play $100-$200 buyins, and given that they're down $30k-$100k, that's still a lot of buyins!

You are still ignoring cash games. If I had made millions in winnings in cash, I don't think a $200 buy-in game would really mean that much to me. Especially when I play $500/$1000 blinds. Lol... in relation this would be like my playing a buy-in for $0.02 except with a relatively tough field. I'm not going to really try that hard.

[alw4ysontilt]

well, a pro might become one after one good tourny or famous like Mike Matesow, he's surely not a great player and ofc they can lose money, its gambling, i think there are some winning and some losing, and ofc u probably research only one aspect of there winning/losing sessions, Tourny or SNG, cash game u know what i mean..

[travz21]

Originally Posted by alw4ysontilt well, a pro might become one after one good tourny or famous like Mike Matesow, he's surely not a great player and ofc they can lose money, its gambling, i think there are some winning and some losing, and ofc u probably research only one aspect of there winning/losing sessions, Tourny or SNG, cash game u know what i mean..

I don't know what you mean.

[specunder]

Players like Phil Ivey and Gus Hanson dont have to win money by playing poker because they allready make too much money with all the sponsors and mergandizing (didnt spelled that correct but Im sure you guys know what I mean.) Ones you get famous you stay famous.

[economist89]

Originally Posted by dew12109 You are still ignoring cash games. If I had made millions in winnings in cash, I don't think a $200 buy-in game would really mean that much to me. Especially when I play $500/$1000 blinds. Lol... in relation this would be like my playing a buy-in for $0.02 except with a relatively tough field. I'm not going to really try that hard.

The most reasonable explanation, but still unsatisfactory. If they didn't care, why would they play? They can allocate the time and cash in bigger games elsewhere. Even as a low stakes player, I wouldn't play $0.02 tournaments at all if they existed, b/c even first place in a large field wouldn't pay more than $5.

Btw, for clarification for everyone, when I say pros, I mean that long list: the one that starts off w/ Brandon Adams and ending w/ Steve Zolotov. I can see Phil Ivey not caring about a $1k buyin and just playing b/c he's bored or he's trying to promote the site, but I'm pretty sure many people on that long list who's bankroll is a fraction of Ivey's would be a little more sensitive to the buy in and potential money to be won.

[ProtekYoNuts]

Originally Posted by specunder Players like Phil Ivey and Gus Hanson dont have to win money by playing poker because they allready make too much money with all the sponsors and mergandizing (didnt spelled that correct but Im sure you guys know what I mean.) Ones you get famous you stay famous.

Im sure what ever Gus makes through sponsors he loses it playing poker.

[kimlovo]

yes you are right but most cash they make on the rake at FTP since they all are partner/owners of the website