The Best In The Business

[Woodsey]

Warren Buffett bet $1m that the S&P 500 would beat a portfolio of hedge funds over ten years, he collected earlier this year after, the hedge funds did so badly that the bet was easily lost with half a year to go.

S&P was up 7.7% on average over ten years, the hedge funds 2.2% a year. http://www.aei.org/publication/warren-buffett-wins-1m-bet-made-a-decade-ago-that-the-sp-500-stock-index-would-outperform-hedge-funds/

I have no idea where you get 18% from.

Many funds have done very well over the last 5 years if you have the ability to move your money around, my own investments are not far from the number mike has suggested. It’s the 5 years previous to that, that were a problem  

You can’t just switch between hedge funds willy nilly though.  They have redemption windows.  On top of that if they make heavy losses they can “gate” investors to prevent a fire sale.

Yes, you can with some companies.....I do it all the time although I’m limited to the few hundred funds the company invest in. I’m  yet to make a ‘heavy loss’

I don’t think these are hedge funds in the traditional sense.  More just multiple long only investment funds with different strategies?  You are unlikely to make a heavy loss because they don’t have leverage and you can switch easily due to liquid underlyings.

I honestly don’t know what the difference is, but yes they are different funds with different strategies that focus on certain sectors/countries. I have my pension spread across about 10 of them of varying risks, I just monitor then and if any are starting to perform poorly switch away from it to a better performing fund. That switch of money will happen within 2 days once I request it and there is no fee for switching, just the annual fee they take.

[TightEnd]

Warren Buffett bet $1m that the S&P 500 would beat a portfolio of hedge funds over ten years, he collected earlier this year after, the hedge funds did so badly that the bet was easily lost with half a year to go.

S&P was up 7.7% on average over ten years, the hedge funds 2.2% a year. http://www.aei.org/publication/warren-buffett-wins-1m-bet-made-a-decade-ago-that-the-sp-500-stock-index-would-outperform-hedge-funds/

I have no idea where you get 18% from.

Many funds have done very well over the last 5 years if you have the ability to move your money around, my own investments are not far from the number mike has suggested. It’s the 5 years previous to that, that were a problem   

You can’t just switch between hedge funds willy nilly though.  They have redemption windows.  On top of that if they make heavy losses they can “gate” investors to prevent a fire sale.

Yes, you can with some companies.....I do it all the time although I’m limited to the few hundred funds the company invest in. I’m  yet to make a ‘heavy loss’

I don’t think these are hedge funds in the traditional sense.  More just multiple long only investment funds with different strategies?  You are unlikely to make a heavy loss because they don’t have leverage and you can switch easily due to liquid underlyings.

I honestly don’t know what the difference is, but yes they are different funds with different strategies that focus on certain sectors/countries. I have my pension spread across about 10 of them of varying risks, I just monitor then and if any are starting to perform poorly switch away from it to a better performing fund. That switch of money will happen within 2 days once I request it and there is no fee for switching, just the annual fee they take.

Not hedge funds, they are long only managed funds where you can pick and choose your asset allocation

Hedge funds will charge you up front, plus 1.5pc a year, plus early withdrawal penalties and most definitely not in your interests to trade in and out.

[Woodsey]

Warren Buffett bet $1m that the S&P 500 would beat a portfolio of hedge funds over ten years, he collected earlier this year after, the hedge funds did so badly that the bet was easily lost with half a year to go.

S&P was up 7.7% on average over ten years, the hedge funds 2.2% a year. http://www.aei.org/publication/warren-buffett-wins-1m-bet-made-a-decade-ago-that-the-sp-500-stock-index-would-outperform-hedge-funds/

I have no idea where you get 18% from.

Many funds have done very well over the last 5 years if you have the ability to move your money around, my own investments are not far from the number mike has suggested. It’s the 5 years previous to that, that were a problem   

You can’t just switch between hedge funds willy nilly though.  They have redemption windows.  On top of that if they make heavy losses they can “gate” investors to prevent a fire sale.

Yes, you can with some companies.....I do it all the time although I’m limited to the few hundred funds the company invest in. I’m  yet to make a ‘heavy loss’

I don’t think these are hedge funds in the traditional sense.  More just multiple long only investment funds with different strategies?  You are unlikely to make a heavy loss because they don’t have leverage and you can switch easily due to liquid underlyings.

I honestly don’t know what the difference is, but yes they are different funds with different strategies that focus on certain sectors/countries. I have my pension spread across about 10 of them of varying risks, I just monitor then and if any are starting to perform poorly switch away from it to a better performing fund. That switch of money will happen within 2 days once I request it and there is no fee for switching, just the annual fee they take.

Not hedge funds, they are long only managed funds where you can pick and choose your asset allocation

Hedge funds will charge you up front, plus 1.5pc a year, plus early withdrawal penalties and most definitely not in your interests to trade in and out.

Ok, I pay between 0.6 and 1.30% flat fee depending on the fund and that’s it....

[pleno1]

Thanks for the posts guys! Been reading silently the last few days. Took bits and bobs from everybody

However, if the house money is spare, then I think it's better put in a house, than into a bar or restaurant or some other industry where you have no experience and are basically just punting, even if smart people are involved in the project.

I actually disagree with this, but maybe have just been insanely lucky. My strategy regarding investing in industries I don't understand is relatively simple. I invest in people rather than the idea. I think in last 5 years I have around 600% roi in non poker investments, obviously running over ev, but the people I invest in are friends that are working in industries they don't enjoy for pretty low wages. It still amazes me how low the average salary is for the average 28 year old is that is very smart, very hard working and very creative. I think a lot of people just need a chance, there is probably hundreds of thousands of people that would be millionaires if given that first injection of cash, but for many people sourcing investment is just really tough.

I've also been blown away about the incompetence in almost every industry I've observed. Take the apprentice for example, obviously its a tv show, real geniuses won't go on it etc, but generally the people jn these shows have "good jobs" with "good wages" etc and it seems that 90% for the time they are really big idiots. Same for poker, so much incompetence its crazy.

Starting a restaurant yourself or a bar is definitely terrible idea though I agree, starting a business for the sake for it or because it feels cool seems to happy often, a lot of poker guys do it and it very rarely goes well.

[pleno1]

I think btw, if it is a good or bad investment it doesn't matter that much, actually buying house as a poker player is a really brave and confident thing to do, so have tonnes of respect to Alex for taking that step.

[Tractor]

As someone mentioned earlier AI may be the way forward..

Interesting a couple of guys i have worked with in the past are doing this now https://www.aigaming.com/

Ironically one of their projects is something to do with poker bots.. might be worth a look, i know they are working closely with Oxford University.

[pleno1]

I have been watching the live at the bike games the last few days, mostly because my friends Dan and Jason were playing and fun watching them knowing what they think about the other guys etc.

Anyway on the third day there was supposed to be a big game, some people didn't show and then on twitter people kind of gave the benefit of the doubt to a couple of the guys because they are fishy or whatever but Matt Berkey didn't escape criticism and lot of people were giving him ****. Doug made a fb live post about the situation and a lot of people took their frustrations out on Berkey.

Doug Polk was live.
10 November at 22:17 ·
Today's game has changed at the Bike, this is a problem that is becoming worse and worse in poker and I want to talk about it

Previously in situations like this I used to love watching things unravel in a very evil way. Seeing somebody being bullied or targeted is something a lot of people love to get off of in a sick way. But I completely get it. When people post on 2p2, or go on twitter rampages or comment on Facebook or even tell friends etc these things stick, people like being in the "cool gang" picking on the guy who's generally left to himself to defend himself, but they don't really think about the big picture and the damage they can create.

Lets profile Berkey

Live cash game player who gets invites and opportunities to play invery good/big games

Lets see what he's being accused of

Not turning up because the game was too tough

Lets look at the facts
- Berkey played in a bigger and tougher game at PAD
- Berkey contributes to poker community immensely, has a youtube channel, does commentary on WSOP
- Berkey owns a training academy
- Berkey gets invited to play in big games regularly with amateur players mainly because he "gives action"

So what are the consequences?

- His reputation immediately gets damaged, even if general consensus later is that he didn't do anything wrong, it still suffers from some angles
- It puts a black mark against his training academy
- It puts a black mark against his opportunities to contribute to poker community in media spots etc
- It could in theory even make amateur players think oh this guy is the pro who didn't show up because the game was tough, now he wants to play? nahhhh

Now I used to always love this kind of drama, I was on NVG all the time, not trying to rail big pots but in a saddistic way, trying to look at who has ****ed up this week in poker. Now it really doesn't interest me, it is very toxic way to go about life and the kind of people who post there or about this on twitter/fb etc will very likely be toxic and have a bad influence on you too.

In these kind of cases I think its absolutely imperative we give people the benefit of the doubt. If somebody is being accused of something our first impulse should always be to try and hear their side rather than just initially believing the hype and telling others about it. I suffered very similar stuff with the barca angleshoot thing. Party ambassador, biggest stable in the world, high stakes reg live/online there is lot of stuff I put into jeopardy because I didn't protect myself at the time and that was 100% my fault and should have handle it way way way better, I immediately got reactive, tried to cause more battles etc, Berkey handled this really well imo. He said his peace, defended himself but was respectful about it. For me with the barca stuff I learned a few things, firstly that I put myself into situations before thinking and should always take extra time to think before impulsively opening my mouth and secondly that people will jump on you and they are looking for a chance to hate on you and relish the hate others show towards you. I think almost every poker NVG type thing previously I've always looked at with somewhat saddistic eyes, but it actually felt really nice this time that my first reaction was to take the side of the accused and think from his point of view before making my mind up about the situation. How many people were loving watching the action in the blatch thread? How many people love gossiping about which famous blondes are now broke etc.


Once you actually start giving people the benefit of the doubt and looking at things from their POV I think it makes you a much happier person.

#HatingIsNotHealthy

[cambridgealex]

I'm generally a big Doug fan but I think he came across really badly in his FB live video having a go at the recreational players & MB for not showing up.

What was the PAD story where Berkey didn't get a seat he was promised or something?

[pleno1]

I'm generally a big Doug fan but I think he came across really badly in his FB live video having a go at the recreational players & MB for not showing up.

What was the PAD story where Berkey didn't get a seat he was promised or something?

Doug is very funny guy but usually at other peoples expense. His rise to fame came strongly from talking bad about people. Calling people like Mercier a bad reg, he loves any opportunity for speaking negatively about people as it drives drama/discussion and thus more traffic to him.

Berkey PaD story was basically like you said he was promised seat in the game (it was amazing) then at last minute gave his seat up to somebody else (opposite of the LATB story) he then got a seat and played the worst he's ever played. He made a vlog about it, there's lot of disaster hands but he said his mind WA sin bad place

[lucky_scrote]

I think the reason why you see "older" posters suggesting to buy a house because it gives security is just because they have probably been stung and or broke at some point of their life and regretted their past actions. I am definitely in this boat as I sent myself broke in 2010 and it hurt fkin bad, these things stick with you forever and they make you more risk averse. Generally, when people go broke and have to learn a hard lesson it stops their aggressive behaviour and they make decisions on life EV as apposed to what is going to make them the most amount of money.

I think very rarely people go through life with an aggressive attitude towards success and don't end up on their arse at some point but I think there is a decent chance that you will be just fine since you're constantly aware of what's going on with your life/people around you/your finances etc. Incompetence is definitely the biggest weakness of any successful person.

Regarding being more organised for live stuff, are you just lazy in these regards? I seem to get a buzz out of booking live stuff in advance and getting the best hotel/airbnb for half the price. Flights cost £100 instead of £200 too. Problem with all of this is you have to be really organised with your time and if that doesn't come natural to you, then it will be a lot of work.

As for the live stuff approaching, MCOP Amsterdam is great. The main is kind of mixed and IIRC the high roller is ok. Pretty hard to make money there though, many many distractions and the casino is right in the middle of it!

[Woodsey]

I think the reason why you see "older" posters suggesting to buy a house because it gives security is just because they have probably been stung and or broke at some point of their life and regretted their past actions. I am definitely in this boat as I sent myself broke in 2010 and it hurt fkin bad, these things stick with you forever and they make you more risk averse. Generally, when people go broke and have to learn a hard lesson it stops their aggressive behaviour and they make decisions on life EV as apposed to what is going to make them the most amount of money.

I think very rarely people go through life with an aggressive attitude towards success and don't end up on their arse at some point but I think there is a decent chance that you will be just fine since you're constantly aware of what's going on with your life/people around you/your finances etc. Incompetence is definitely the biggest weakness of any successful person.

Regarding being more organised for live stuff, are you just lazy in these regards? I seem to get a buzz out of booking live stuff in advance and getting the best hotel/airbnb for half the price. Flights cost £100 instead of £200 too. Problem with all of this is you have to be really organised with your time and if that doesn't come natural to you, then it will be a lot of work.

As for the live stuff approaching, MCOP Amsterdam is great. The main is kind of mixed and IIRC the high roller is ok. Pretty hard to make money there though, many many distractions and the casino is right in the middle of it!

Yes and no, yes it is the ultimate security from properly being broke, and no in the sense I would say most have never actually been broke, they are just responsible enough to take the actions to ensure that won’t happen,

[SuuPRlim]

going broke isn't irresponsible, if you take a risk, happy to accept the consequences if it doesn't work out and you go on and get back to work somewhere or how afterwards.

Being wreckless, not understanding the risks you take and not having a clue what to do is very irresponsible and often it's those people who force themselves to rely on the good graces of others to survive. Not cool.

[Woodsey]

going broke isn't irresponsible, if you take a risk, happy to accept the consequences if it doesn't work out and you go on and get back to work somewhere or how afterwards.

Being wreckless, not understanding the risks you take and not having a clue what to do is very irresponsible and often it's those people who force themselves to rely on the good graces of others to survive. Not cool.

It is at my stage of life.....

[lucky_scrote]

Yes and no, yes it is the ultimate security from properly being broke, and no in the sense I would say most have never actually been broke, they are just responsible enough to take the actions to ensure that won’t happen,

If you start life slowly and in an orthadox manner such as going to uni, getting in to debt then ending up eventually with a job that pays well then most of the time you end up kind of cushy without any chance of being broke (Can't go broke if you're already broke!). Same with people who have to work pittance as an apprentice, then work as a joey and end up years down the line working for themselves. However, a lot of people on this forum are not risk averse people and don't have orthadox lifestyles. They push boundaries and the ending result is many people going broke as well as some very wealthy and successful individuals.

If I were now in a 9-5 job that paid £25k a year with a cushy £30k in savings and were to be offered a once in a life time flip- Heads I win £40k, tails I lose £25k I would turn it down. It is utterly stupid to take on that massive +EV opportunity in your life. However, everyone's circumstances are different. If I were a 20 year old I would take it, but I'm 30 now. I've been through being broke and it was really horrible. Life EV decisions come before making decisions about how much profit I am making in any given scenario. Unfortunately for me I am a professional poker player so I am always trying to find the right balance.

[mikeymike]

As an old person (57) as I stated before I have made it and lost it on several occasions – life is a punt and you only live it once.

Age does not necessarily make you less risk adverse – it also does not necessarily make you any wiser.

Success or failure, it does not matter in the big picture of life it should be whether you made the right decisions for you –

Also sometimes it pays to do things completely outside your comfort zone or to do things you don’t think you would be capable of doing.

I am about to go into a chapter of my life (nightmare for the Mrs) my current thoughts are:

Fish and Chip shops – which I know nothing about (they generate good cash flow)
Pig Farming – which I know absolutely nothing about (I like pigs)
Importing fine wine – which I know a little about

Whatever I choose – I know it’s going to be a roller coaster of a ride but it will be fun.

There is still life in the old dog and if all goes belly up well we will just start again.