Paul Phillips

I had a small piece of the corporation for the May battle when they were playing 100-200. Unless someone generously flipped a sign bit for me along the Howard->Chris->AndyBk chain, he got beat. I got +70% return on my BR, and I'm sure there was some juice given up as the shares slid down to me. He was up for a little while(mostly when they had Gus in the box), but when Howard got in, the tables swung. Mr. Beal's claim that he beat them for 10M those days may have been true, but that's like saying Germany was doing really well in 1940. He left looking like Dresden, c.1945.

(Reply) (Thread)

Sounds like a guy with a gambling problem.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I risk a greater percentage of |my net worth| every time I play a $200 sit'n'go then Mr. Beal does playing at the Bellagio. For the record, the analogy was meant to be conceptual rather than physical. I in no way meant to imply he has some problem. He's a big boy and handles himself with decorum win or lose.

The irony is that this is framed as some sort of appeal to their ego(hence the use of individuals' names) when in fact on one side is professionalism, the other ego. Funnily, it's not that hard to play this one very small subset of poker(headsup holdem) very well. I would definitely take someone like bricktop(edogn) or bobcards against any members of the corporation, though there are a couple against whom it would probably be a push.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I didn't mean to suggest that you were implying he's a problem gambler. But it does look like a possibility. Just because the amounts he's betting are, for him, relatively small doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't have a problem, it might just be a testament to how extraordinarily rich he is. He certainly sounds coherent, but many problem gamblers have been able to put on a rational face until their whole lives fall apart.

It's entirely possible that, as Paul suggests, Beal's trying to play double-or-nothing enough times that he gets lucky one time and wipes everybody out. That would certainly be rational if he values a good chance of a massive ego boost over positive expectations, which given that he has more money than he knows what to do with is entirely possible. The only way to tell for sure would be for him to lose repeatedly until the amount of money involved starts getting high enough to be a serious threat to his real bank balance. At that point he'd either be mature and admit that the jig was up, or reveal himself as a problem gambler and keep raising the stakes. I'd like to see things get to that point, just to see what he'd do.

The simplicity of the game chosen probably isn't a coincidence. Beal wouldn't have so much bravado at a game where the best could wipe the floor with him at virtually every session.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

This may be private and not want to be discussed, but how much of the corporation do you have to "own" to get in the box or does the corporation give you a number of votes for who is going to play for a certain amount of time?

I am really hoping the answer to this is something as trivial as "6 of us play Spin The Bottle to decide."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

My understanding is that the corporation provides a list of member in town who are able to play and Mr Beal picks from it.

It is also rumored that their are a few people that are always on the list who have been chosen before, but will never be chosen again.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Forget Trump and Mark Cuban, that guy should have his own reality tv show! What a great letter, issuing a challenge to anyone who's got the guts. Nice. Reminds me of Doyle Brunson's definition of a true gambler, "someone who has to bet enough that it hurts when they lose." Well, an open letter is one way to get people's attention.

(Reply) (Thread)

...or is Poker not illegal in Texas?

I know Doyle has stated that he moved to Vegas because he was looking at serious federal time for running poker games.

Or has Beal got enough cash cause he can cause a "law enforcement singularity"?

(Reply) (Thread)

Poker is legal in Texas if there is no profit other than playing in the game. I.e., no rake or other charge for playing.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Paul,

This was a very interesting letter from Mr Beal. I would also love to see wat the corporation's response to this will be and if they accept this would continue to be very intriguing to follow...

(Reply) (Thread)

The bankroll will have to be quite large. Wheras I think it can be raised, I am not sure the likely return (essentially the EV), will be worth the risk of ruin of what will be more than a risk of ruin of a session bankroll.
Think about how many times you have lost 10BB in a session? 100BB? I would say a 50BB loss, although unusual for a good player, is far from unheard of. Given that I think you have to have close to 500BB to contemplate the offer.

500BB is 100M. Some may think you need 1000BB, others may say 250. Either way this is between 50M and 200M. Whereas I am sure the corp can raise the money, I think the pain of the whole BR loss will be too great to stomach for the major contributors.

OTH, if one could IPO the opportunity, or float some type of convertible bond, people could participate for $100 or $1000--they could pay fair return on a high risk investment, or conversly charge a management fee, and return all of the profits. Then perhaps they could raise a suitable BR without any real risk of personal ruin.

The downside of course is paying a return on more money then you actually needed in order to avoid ruin. hence the problem with Risk return here.

It seems as if cash would have to be ready if needed (ie a credit line), but not drawn unless needed.

If you could get the money for 1% committment fee, and 12-18% for anything actually used, would the edge be big enough to justfity the interest? I dont know.



I think the corporation should counter with a proposal where the corporation decides who plays. With the caveat that no one player will play more than 25% of the time.

(Reply) (Thread)

OTH, if one could IPO the opportunity, or float some type of convertible bond, people could participate for $100 or $1000--they could pay fair return on a high risk investment, or conversly charge a management fee, and return all of the profits. Then perhaps they could raise a suitable BR without any real risk of personal ruin.

If they did that it would be one of the greatest things I'd ever seen.

Shoot, there have been much more speculative IPOs than THAT in the last five years...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

That's kind of similar to what Fossilman had going. His RGP post "looking for backers" several years back proposed investing in $500 increments.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Don't miss this comment from sklansky.

(Reply) (Thread)

for the specifics of the agreement. how much of the profits do the players get? I think this will greatly effect how they play.

Also, I don't think this corporation would have any trouble raising enough money to match Beal, regardless of stakes.

(Reply) (Thread)