It always annoys me when people incorrectly talk about "winnings" at poker. Or, for that matter, poker players pledging a percentage of their "income".
It is all turnover. Not "winnings" or "income".
It is no different to an addict putting £50 in a fruit machine, getting £20 back, and claiming he has "won" £20.
Which is why, of course, he is a former professional poker player. Happy to live the life of a high-roller when he was sponsored. Unable to make sufficient net profit afterwards.
It always annoys me when people incorrectly talk about "winnings" at poker. Or, for that matter, poker players pledging a percentage of their "income".
It is all turnover. Not "winnings" or "income".
It is no different to an addict putting £50 in a fruit machine, getting £20 back, and claiming he has "won" £20.
Which is why, of course, he is a former professional poker player. Happy to live the life of a high-roller when he was sponsored. Unable to make sufficient net profit afterwards.
Such utter ****. It is the New York Post, which is like the Sunday Sport.
Kurganov was one of the best, is well respected and has done an awful lot for charity. Sure I'd still hate him on my left if he still played.
Comments
It is all turnover. Not "winnings" or "income".
It is no different to an addict putting £50 in a fruit machine, getting £20 back, and claiming he has "won" £20.
Which is why, of course, he is a former professional poker player. Happy to live the life of a high-roller when he was sponsored. Unable to make sufficient net profit afterwards.
Kurganov was one of the best, is well respected and has done an awful lot for charity. Sure I'd still hate him on my left if he still played.
Anyway, here is a better take on his legacy.
[url]