Where does their bankroll come from ? ? SBRUGBY, Durr etc.

pocketdooz

A quick question for anyone out there who may be able to shed some light on this for me . . .

I've been watching some poker videos recently (aussie millions cash game , poker after dark etc.) and I've seen players like SBrugby, Durr and a few others buying in for mad amounts. Do you think they practice proper bankroll management of their buy-ins ?

And more importantly, really what I'm wondering and it may apply to some of the regular posters here too . . .

Did they really grind that bankroll up from a small amount. I mean, these lads are only 21 and around that age - how are they making $40,000 prop bets and buying into games for over $100,000 etc.etc.

They must have had some crazy spin-ups. Also, are there any players on here - ( you don't have to be specific ) . . . who have turned an initial bankroll of say €1000 up to €100,000 and if so over what time period / how many hands etc. (besides Donal Norton and other obvious examples)

Thanks - I know this post isn't worded the best but you get where I'm coming from . . .

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

pocketdooz wrote: »

A quick question for anyone out there who may be able to shed some light on this for me . . .

I've been watching some poker videos recently (aussie millions cash game , poker after dark etc.) and I've seen players like SBrugby, Durr and a few others buying in for mad amounts. Do you think they practice proper bankroll management of their buy-ins ?

And more importantly, really what I'm wondering and it may apply to some of the regular posters here too . . .

Did they really grind that bankroll up from a small amount. I mean, these lads are only 21 and around that age - how are they making $40,000 prop bets and buying into games for over $100,000 etc.etc.

They must have had some crazy spin-ups. Also, are there any players on here - ( you don't have to be specific ) . . . who have turned an initial bankroll of say €1000 up to €100,000 and if so over what time period / how many hands etc. (besides Donal Norton and other obvious examples)

Thanks - I know this post isn't worded the best but you get where I'm coming from . . .

As far as i know both took shots early on at higher levels and now play 200/400 plo and similiar holdem levels and have just built their bankrolls from there. These guys play 100k pots daily so it would not take long to rack up a few million $$$ along the way.

zuutroy

Yeah I dunno about Durrrr, but Townsend started at 50nl and made it to nosebleeds within 18 months..something else.

zuutroy

zuutroy wrote: »

Yeah I dunno about Durrrr, but Townsend started at 50nl and made it to nosebleeds within 18 months..something else.

Watching Durrrr play on the latest Poker After Dark and he made a really spewy play imo. Maybe I am just not good enough to see why he is so successful but some of his plays were just awful.

pocketdooz

zuutroy wrote: »

Yeah I dunno about Durrrr, but Townsend started at 50nl and made it to nosebleeds within 18 months..something else.

Serious - that's hard to believe . . . must have been some run of cards / luck / skill ????

digiman

These guys undoubtedly ran very good when they were moving between levels. And the played tons of hands which helps a lot and with their natural ability, they moved up to nosebleeds in a very short space of time. There is a good post on 2+2 where sbrugby is talking about a 50nl hand, its only from about 2 years ago. Some people on 2+2 drag it up every now and again.

Glowingmind

Haven't you guys figured it out yet?

Poker's easy.


oh wait.......

Ste05

Here's sbrugby's 50NL thread...

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=2966868&an=&page=0&vc=1


You could have a read of his Well where he talks about it IIRC:

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=6969514

thedini

like a few people said mainly just from taking shots at higher levels. Read Ben Grundys(milkybar kid) blog sick stuff!!! up about $2 million for the year

Ste05

It's not all about them taking shots and getting lucky, they put in tonnes of hands, worked their balls off learning the game and are REALLLLLY good too.

Ste05

Ste05 wrote: »

It's not all about them taking shots and getting lucky, they put in tonnes of hands, worked their balls off learning the game and are REALLLLLY good too.

See I am not so sure about this. I accept I am speaking without all the info but Durrrr in particular seems prone to some awfully spewy moves.

pocketdooz

Ste05 wrote: »

Here's sbrugby's 50NL thread...

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=2966868&an=&page=0&vc=1


You could have a read of his Well where he talks about it IIRC:

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=6969514

Just read it - that's unreal. Basically three years ago today and he was playing 50 NL

thedini

Ste05 wrote: »

It's not all about them taking shots and getting lucky, they put in tonnes of hands, worked their balls off learning the game and are REALLLLLY good too.

i didnt mean taking shots and getting lucky, i meant that the majority have to take shots because they are underrolled.

Ste05

Deleted User wrote: »

See I am not so sure about this. I accept I am speaking without all the info but Durrrr in particular seems prone to some awfully spewy moves.

I haven't watched it all (right in the middle of the first epidode now), but in the first 2 segments I thought he was playing pretty perfectly. Although I'll hold judgement until I see it all.

pocketdooz

thedini wrote: »

i didnt mean taking shots and getting lucky, i meant that the majority have to take shots because they are underrolled.

Yeah, that's sort of what I was getting at - surely, these lads weren't rolled at one level and then waiting to get to the appropriate roll for the next level and then repeating the whole way up to nosebleed level ? Otherwise it would take much longer ?

That leads into the fact that variance went their way alot (and against their respective opponents) in these different levels. So, luck must have had a disproportionate amount of influence on their results vs. others 'OR' they really are that much better than everyone else and over the 100,000s of hands they played their skill came through.

On that point, did anyone see Episode 1 of WSOP 2008 - kind of good to see all the big pros at the table - pretty much dispels the myth of luck that non-players go on about with Antonius, Laak, Bloch, Sexton etc.etc. all at the final table ??

pocketdooz

Ste05 wrote: »

I haven't watched it all (right in the middle of the first epidode now), but in the first 2 segments I thought he was playing pretty perfectly. Although I'll hold judgement until I see it all.

The $8500 bet into Chan on the river with the 6 3 hand was strange I thought but in fairness he got the result he wanted with Chan calling and he won a hefty pot then.

Ste05

Ste05 wrote: »

I haven't watched it all (right in the middle of the first epidode now), but in the first 2 segments I thought he was playing pretty perfectly. Although I'll hold judgement until I see it all.

He kind of annoyed me a bit tbh. There is a hand between Durrrr and Doyle in a SB v BB situation. They both check flop, turn and Doyle checks the river after the board paired and filled a 4-flush on the river. The pairing card was an Ace. Durrrr is last to act and bets his 8 high flush. This just seemed really really odd to me unless he just really didn't want to show his 8c 3h hand.

Ste05

Haven't seen that hand yet, but if you notice he bets really thinly (as do most of the top guys), it makes their range completely unpolarised (is that even a word??) I presume it was along those lines...

I'd imagine it's probably something like that. In isolation it might have seemed spewy I suppose.

tylerdurden94

I will have to chip in aswell comparing Brian Townsend and Tom Dwan i think Brian plays a better game seems really disiplined compare to Tom i just take he makes crazy and spewy moves.

But hey thats just my opinion im not the one playing 6 billion/12 billion online!

cooker3

pocketdooz wrote: »

On that point, did anyone see Episode 1 of WSOP 2008 - kind of good to see all the big pros at the table - pretty much dispels the myth of luck that non-players go on about with Antonius, Laak, Bloch, Sexton etc.etc. all at the final table ??

No it doesn't

pocketdooz

cooker3 wrote: »

No it doesn't

I think the fact that so many big name pros and bracelet holders made the final table dispels the myth that poker is all luck.

I also think it's good for the game that so many pros won bracelets this year.

Anyway - back on topic.

About how these guys can get such a huge bankroll together in such a short period of time.

Hawk Eye

Deleted User wrote: »

He kind of annoyed me a bit tbh. There is a hand between Durrrr and Doyle in a SB v BB situation. They both check flop, turn and Doyle checks the river after the board paired and filled a 4-flush on the river. The pairing card was an Ace. Durrrr is last to act and bets his 8 high flush. This just seemed really really odd to me unless he just really didn't want to show his 8c 3h hand.

Nothing got to do with throwing over 83o. He was value betting, he can easily get called by worse and I think Doyle even contemplated a call with 3rd pair. I do agree though he is a bit annoying at times.

Headspace

Ya Durrr is quite annoying, twat springs to mind. these guys climbed the levels so quickly because of natural talent and hard work. I read on a forum some where that Durrr collected pages of notes on his opponents and Sbrugby played 100k hands a month, thats a whole lot of practice and dedication

pocketdooz

Headspace wrote: »

Ya Durrr is quite annoying, twat springs to mind. these guys climbed the levels so quickly because of natural talent and hard work. I read on a forum some where that Durrr collected pages of notes on his opponents and Sbrugby played 100k hands a month, thats a whole lot of practice and dedication

True - that's serious dedication alright

valor

that bet on the river is redic standard

jbravado

Deleted User wrote: »

Watching Durrrr play on the latest Poker After Dark and he made a really spewy play imo. Maybe I am just not good enough to see why he is so successful but some of his plays were just awful.

I think Durr has been immense so far from any clips I have seen. This despite the fact I think he is a genuine creep and muncher. The 8 high flush river bet was quality I thought-squeezing every last drop of value from the hand and totally aware of how he is percieved by Doyle and how light he may get looked up.
The 6 3 two pair hand I felt was really intresting-couldnt believe that he bet the river against Chan.
Regarding the op it seems unbelievable to imagine they ran up so much money so quickly but it is conceivable. At this stage they are probably set what with tv endorsments etc etc and would have to work pretty hard to put themselves in a position where they couldnt make millions from the game.

pocketdooz

valor wrote: »

that bet on the river is redic standard

Think so ?

Fair enough

pocketdooz

Quote from SB rugby on 2+2

" I always aggressively move up in limits as I play my best when it hurts to lose (Soemthing phil ivey said). Once you get complacent at the level you are at it is very easy to fall into a rut and not play your A game. If you have 20BI for the next level I woudl defenitly take a shot. I would probably have taken a 3 BI shot once I had 15 buyins for the next level. Somtimes when moving up you dont' make it the fist time. "

bohsman

Havent seen the hand but if all streets have been checked you would be throwing away money by checking the virtual nuts on the river.

Glad to see Gavin is keeping up the high word count.

I guess I am totally wrong about that hand so. I accept this. However he remains the ultimate creep imo.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

pocketdooz

The result of said skill and dedication, from Brian Townsend's story on 2+2

" I began at .25/.5 no limit in the middle of December. It was very easy for me and I moved up very quickly.

I was playing 1/2 no limit by the end of December. 2/4 in January and part of Febuary.

3/6 in Feb. 5/10 in march 10/20 in April

25/50 and 50/100 in May and June "

Flushdraw

Speaking of Durrrr and SBRUGBY, they're at a few $200/400 tables on FT now with Gus Hansen, John Juanda, Richard Ashby...Some deep stacks

BIGMICKG

pocketdooz wrote: »

A quick question for anyone out there who may be able to shed some light on this for me . . .

I've been watching some poker videos recently (aussie millions cash game , poker after dark etc.) and I've seen players like SBrugby, Durr and a few others buying in for mad amounts. Do you think they practice proper bankroll management of their buy-ins ?

And more importantly, really what I'm wondering and it may apply to some of the regular posters here too . . .

Did they really grind that bankroll up from a small amount. I mean, these lads are only 21 and around that age - how are they making $40,000 prop bets and buying into games for over $100,000 etc.etc.

They must have had some crazy spin-ups. Also, are there any players on here - ( you don't have to be specific ) . . . who have turned an initial bankroll of say €1000 up to €100,000 and if so over what time period / how many hands etc. (besides Donal Norton and other obvious examples)

Thanks - I know this post isn't worded the best but you get where I'm coming from . . .

i turned a $50 bankroll into over $100k in less than 3 years without having a big cash!

Hectorjelly

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd imagine it's probably something like that. In isolation it might have seemed spewy I suppose.

are you kidding?

edit: just saw other people got there first.

Conbro

Kayroo is this a "HU 4 ROLLZ plea" to Durr. Wonder which of you would strangle the other one first.

Ste05

I finally saw the hand last night (EDIT: Pokertube is sooooo slow for me ATM), I'd hardly say that anything that goes, SB limp, check, check, check, check, check, check, bet 3/4 pot (with a hand that is almost always good) spewy??

I thought Durrr played really well, and I don't find him as creepy as most others seem to, although I do think good2cu (Robl) is such an annoying little child and Johnny Chan is just an ars3hole (and playing pretty wierdly)...

hotspur

You can console yourself with the knowledge that Durr is down $1.6m from playing live in the past week. He does look a bit like Eddie Munster though.

pocketdooz

BIGMICKG wrote: »

i turned a $50 bankroll into over $100k in less than 3 years without having a big cash!

Good work.

More info please ?

By PM if you want. With regard, levels / site / rakeback / br mgt. etc.etc.

Thanks

Daithi McGee

I wish he would stop saying "Nice hand Sir"

bops

durr = lucky & good = winnar

he took my entire 5/10 roll in 3 hours one day....kids eh?!?

(little luxbox fagmonkey)

/vent /funny sorta brag

ZZR1100

pocketdooz wrote: »

Good work.

More info please ?

By PM if you want. With regard, levels / site / rakeback / br mgt. etc.etc.

Thanks

bigmickg is a stt player on stars

Imposter

Look at the maths of it:

If you can make 2 ptBB/100 at a level (that's 4BB's) - 2500 hands is 1 buy-in - so 50k hands is 20 buy-ins - let's assume your br is 20 buy-ins

So assume each level jump takes 50k hands.

50NL -> 100NL -> 200NL -> 400NL -> 600NL (I said assume) -> 1kNL -> 2kNL and we've only played 300k hands.

Yes of course you may run good or bad but if you put the work in (that includes extra study etc.) and you have the ability then it shouldn't take that long.

thedini

Imposter wrote: »

Look at the maths of it:

If you can make 2 ptBB/100 at a level (that's 4BB's) - 2500 hands is 1 buy-in - so 50k hands is 20 buy-ins - let's assume your br is 20 buy-ins

So assume each level jump takes 50k hands.

50NL -> 100NL -> 200NL -> 400NL -> 600NL (I said assume) -> 1kNL -> 2kNL and we've only played 300k hands.

Yes of course you may run good or bad but if you put the work in (that includes extra study etc.) and you have the ability then it shouldn't take that long.

u make it sound so easy. must get cracking!!:)

pocketdooz

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You can sit around and console yourself with the idea that the difference between them and you is that they are blessed with a greater rub of the green; that they were lucky to take the game up when it was easier; that they ran good when they took their shots to move up levels. "Shur Durrr just runs like God".

Or you can accept that the difference is the unfathomably greater amount of time and effort they invested into their game and the fact that they are streets ahead of you in terms of their understanding and ability to analyze any given situation. And then work harder yourself.

No, wasn't saying that at all

That's the plan

mormank

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You can sit around and console yourself with the idea that the difference between them and you is that they are blessed with a greater rub of the green; that they were lucky to take the game up when it was easier; that they ran good when they took their shots to move up levels. "Shur Durrr just runs like God".

Or you can accept that the difference is the unfathomably greater amount of time and effort they invested into their game and the fact that they are streets ahead of you in terms of their understanding and ability to analyze any given situation. And then work harder yourself.

well said lloyd! you're right, they are lucky mongs!!!

Doc Farrell

bops wrote: »

durr = lucky & good = winnar

he took my entire 5/10 roll in 3 hours one day....kids eh?!?

(little luxbox fagmonkey)

/vent /funny sorta brag

how much are we talking about here, come on, i can take it.... :eek:

(and do you have multiple rolls?)

TommyGunne

These guys are ridiculously smart and have a huge amount of dedication. Thats all it takes.

dannydiamond

TommyGunne wrote: »

These guys are ridiculously smart and have a huge amount of dedication. Thats all it takes.

I don't agree you've got to be 'ridiculously' smart Tommy.
You can be smart and dedicated and never prosper in the game,but if you're smart,dedicated and have a certain 'knack' for poker,or cards in general this will help one be successful.

Edit:I've some further thoughts on this that maybe worthy of a new thread,you can let me know if this is the case if i get around to it later;)

TommyGunne

I didn't say you have to be. Those guys mentioned are though.

There are plenty of really top players who are just ordinarily smart.

The "knack" as you call it is important as well, some people just think in hand ranges.