Does this now confirm Ivey as the no1 player in the world.

[badblood44]

Andy Beal is actually a brilliant man. Do a search on google for the "Beal Conjecture" and you'll see he has a background in mathematics. Trust me, he's not just a rich guy who likes to throw money around at a card table.

[jimmym]

This point you make is not contested by me at all, but does his brillance automatically qualify him to assume he is a brillant pro poker player..?.

As for a rich man throwing his money around a poker table. $16.5 million, says to me NO, hes not that brillant after all.

[MAYHEM45]

I wish I could lose 0.05% of my money playing against the best players in the world headsup.

[melioris]

Are you kidding? He was up a shitload against "the corporation" after a series of matches that, although the conditions were mutually agreed to, were definitely skewed in favor of the pros. At the stakes they are playing, IMO, the amount he was up and now the amount he was down are all well within the expected "swings" of HU. So mathematically it is still a draw.

Look, I hate the rich more than most, but Andy Beal is a self-made billionaire and he solved a 450 year old mathematical problem in his spare time, hence the "Beal Conjecture". He puts his money into getting kids into math and science. He took on a group of the best poker players in the world and until Ivey came and kicked his ass he was up. Give the man the props he deserves.

[jimmym]

I assume the poker pros "the corporation" and the organisers of this event were all in favor of it not being televised due to the impact it could have on the growing popularity of poker.

The common person sitting at home who watch poker on television always seem to select and root for the player who has come from nowere, the guy who won a place for a few dollars and then takes home a few $100,000.

This is was makes poker so popular, the thought that one day it could be you. Now noway am I saying that Andy Beal shouldnt play against these people, but it shows that money can buy you anything wether it be a game against the best or going into space.

and I suppose paying 16million to play against Phil Ivey is acceptable to some I think I may wait until I win a $3 satalite, hey it happened to C Moneymaker.

We have this kind of buying into success over in the UK at the moment in other sports, were very rich Russian billionairs are buying football teams and the best players for huge amounts of cash.

It just seems wrong to me that this happens, but I have to accept and sometimes applaud the cost of what trying to by success is costing some then only to find out that the $3 players or low finance clubs have got the required skill they never could afford to buy.

Mr Beal may be a great man in his own field he may help deprived kids and have solved mathamatical problems, but I am really glad he was beaten even if the amount is so small to him that it wont affect his life but it will affect his ego and help in the promotion of poker which when all said and done is a great game that everyone can play but only a small percentage are truley great my hat goes off to Phil Ivey well done.

[melioris]

Now if you want to start an Abramovich bashing thread, I am all in favor I don't care how much I love Lampard and Makelele, screw Roman!

And good luck against Uruguay.

[Talking Poker]

I'm having trouble following some of the points being made in this thread, mostly by jimmym. What's the problem with ome guy challenging some top pros to some high stakes poker? If he was only worth 1 million, would it be ok for him to play $%0/$100 with them and lose $16,000? I don't understand where all the hate comes from just because the stakes were higher.

As for it being televised, I don't get that at all. Yes, these were big stakes so I'm sure a lot of people would like to have watched, but what does this have to do with television? That's like saying it's a shame Zybomb's game wasn't on tv the other night or why isn't the big game always televised? Um....... maybe because they are just a couple of the millions of cash games that go on all the time...?

I understand this story being newsworthy because of the amount of money in play, but I don't understand anyone's objections to the game.

[jimmym]

I just find the amount abit too much, I like the idea of a player winning millions in a tournament were he has won through a field of players, but a game were a player stands to lose $20 million to me is excesive greed.
If he wanted to prove he was the best player then there is the WSOP but I personally think this guy tried to buy the poker title of " best player ".