[Hawt]

It's been a long night with no sleep. I'll try to rephrase it to make better sense.

I try to look at things in terms of "could I retire on this much money." In Dannenmann's case, since I am so young, I think if I won 4.5 million, I could retire on that. But he had to give 40% or so of that to taxes leaving him with 2.7 million, which would be harder to retire on, but would still be possible with some good investments.

I couldn't retire on 1.35 million though, which is what I am guessing he was left with. 1.35 million just isn't that much, which is why I wouldn't be able to give up the OTHER 1.35 million.

I think I just confused myself more trying to explain it, but hopefully you can sort of see where I am coming from.

I never really thought about it like that though and when you put it like that it makes sense.

I mean don't get me wrong 1.35 million is still a good deal of money, but it isn't as much as most people tend to think it is, which is why I was thinking about it in terms of "being able to retire". On a side note I guess it really isn't all that smart to be thinking of poker as a retirement plan, but when it gets into that much money, and I hear people on ESPN talking about how life changing the money these people are winning I can't help it.

Edit: You said you gave him 10% of your action. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. I think it means that he pays you a certain amount and then takes 10% of whatever you get, but that definition sounds like backing to me, could you explain the difference please?
Thanks,
-Tim