negraneu challenge

i have never heard about this before and i recently came across it in a post. could somebody explain to me what it is.

http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/player...ge-035708.html Check it out this should give you the info your looking for.

he is jealous of chris!

Real original ! Although, I like that pooper pokerstars is gonna track and show progress statistics. I may follow that.

Sarcasm? or do you have a link to the progress statistics? I looked around for it but couldn't find anything. Would be interesting to see how he is doing. That link was posted in 2009.

I just can't see why he'd want to do it in the first place.

I always assumed Chris Ferguson mostly did his $0-$10,000 challenge for marketing purposes. Prove that it's possible to go from zero to five figures, give some simple rules to follow for doing so and boom, you should have yourself a whole bunch of new Full Tilt players. Take into account that most of them will get frustrated trying to emulate the challenge and just deposit rather than continuing to play in freerolls and mission accomplished.

Negreanu's wasn't really set up that way because his rules are very pro-centric, starting with $0 is infinitely more impressive than starting with $10 and it was never really promoted outside the first few weeks. He obviously isn't doing it for the money and I doubt he needs to prove to himself or anyone else that he can beat microstakes ring games so I'm left wondering what the real point was?

I see things differently most of the time. It frustrates some CC members, but that's their problem ... lol. I think those $0 or $10 to 5 figures was or is a complete disaster. Chris Ferguson, one of the best players around arguably, could only make 10K in what ... 8 or 10 months!? That's poverty level in the US. The big disappointment for me is how shockingly unimpressive that is! As a marketing tool? After he did this I was much LESS likely to invest in poker because I was able to see what a monumental task it is to make money online. In other words, if CF could only manage 10K, what could the rest of us regular slobs expect!?

you clearly dont grasp what chris's challenge was about NCFoldem. ya 10k isnt alot of money but people arent meant to live off of this. this is more for building a bankroll and having the means to play high stakes. if you had followed his progress at all you would know that it took him something like 4 months to reach $100. the wonderful thing about poker is that earnings grow exponentially. it may take 10 months to build a bankroll of 10k but once its there you could make 100k in less than half the time.

You made my point for me. Four months to make $100 - I rest my case.

Fergueson's point is that anyone can build a bankroll from absolutely nothing, without ever depositing a cent. The hardest part for him was getting the first 5 bucks because the FT freerolls have so many players. If he had been a Cardschat member, he would have done it in a fraction of the time!

+1, I think he would have dominated the CC freeroll... all the way up to 10K :O

My point is that Ferguson failed. If his point was to prove that anyone can do it, his incredible difficulty showed just the opposite. One of the best players could barely do it, proving that for all the rest of us it is highly unlikely. He proved just the opposite of his original intention, according to you. If he had done it easily, his point would have been made.

where is he currently at in the challange. Still only 15 bucks ? I might have seen a dated page.

I'm not sure any of you grasped Ferguson's intent. His challenge was an exercise in Bankroll Management. It wasn't as much about how much money you can make, but rather how to manage your bankroll and play games that are within your bankroll.

I think this one from Daniel's a little aggressive:
"2. Buy-in to each session will be 1/5th of current bankroll."

Gotta agree with you guys. Does it matter how long it took? If the biggest hurdle for people to join is that they don't have the bankroll, and he shows that it IS possible for anyone with a computer and internet access to do it, that introduces so many more player into poker. Eventually, if they get frustrated, maybe they deposit. And isn't that what we all want?

What is telling here is that if I disagree, than you think that I must not understand. Is there ever genuine disagreement? Online poker players are often in denial about how much many can be made playing poker. I realize that some do make money, but the odds, (even if you're good) at making serious dough is slim. It's amazing how many people panic when you challenge this concept. I guess it "kills their dream" just a little tiny bit. For every long shot Olympic Gold medalist, there's about 10,000 quality athletes who fall short of their dream, and not through lack of effort either. Poker is not much different in this regard. Now if a regular schmuck, not a pro, and not a known amateur, were to start with nothing and turn it into 10K, that would make a worthwhile point.

Actually there have been several people in the 2+2 forum that have completed the Ferguson Challenge, in much shorter time. Also, I do believe there are one or two CC'er that have also completed the Ferguson Challenge.

No I'm not saying that at all. You cannot agree/disagree with someone's intent. What I am saying that you didn't understand was Ferguson's intent.

There are a lot of people who spew opinion about his challenge without ever reading anything Chris himself wrote about his challenge.

Quote from Chris' 2007 article:

"For me, this experiment isn't about the money. It's about showing how, with proper bankroll management, you can start from nothing and move up to the point where you're playing in some pretty big games. "

For those who want some information from the source, here's a link to what Chris wrote about his challenge in 2007:

100 - Starting From Zero

I think it was more about br management then the money or for saying that he was the best. Some players just enjoy the challenge and nothing more. I am sure that he is not just playing the online game and is using it as a side game.

I know I've rambled below, so Cliff Notes: there were way too many marketing benefits for the Ferguson Challenge to have just been a BRM demonstration. Stars never got the marketing right for Negreanu's challenge and, therefore, I suspect that nobody was getting anything out of it and that's why it died in the water.

In poker terms sure, it was a demonstration of the importance of proper bankroll management.

If you honestly think that was its only goal though then I think you're missing the bigger picture. Ferguson makes an awful lot of money from his involvement with Full Tilt. The more money they make the more they can give to him and attracting both players and attention to the site is obviously key to this money-growing process. If you can't see the big, very well orchestrated marketing component of the Ferguson Challenge then you're missing something.

For obvious reasons he was never going to explicitly say that in any of the material he published about his challenge and I choose to believe that he's an honourable guy so I'm sure he meant this to be a lesson / demonstration in good BRM as well. But every time he talked about it, he said he was doing it on Full Tilt Poker. When someone linked to an update on the challenge, they linked to Full Tilt Poker because that's where the info was published. When someone wanted to go watch him in action, they had to log in to Full Tilt Poker. And if they wanted to have a crack at the challenge themselves Full Tilt would've been the place a lot of people chose to try it.

As for NCFoldem's point about the differences between a pro and an amateur doing this, I think that's another unstated benefit of the challenge for Full Tilt. Very few of the amateur players who attempt this challenge will ever reach the goal. What a lot of them will have done, however, is gotten frustrated and then deposit on the site.

It also showed off what a good player Ferguson is because let's face it, this was a pretty difficult task even for a professional. And when Ferguson (or any of the site's other big-name sponsored pros) looks good, the site looks good.

OZ... Your ramblings are dead on! Very well written! While you can't argue with intent, you can question motive and hidden objectives.

There is no doubt, in my mind, that there was a lot more going on here!

IMO--people can get a lot more out of his challenge in resects to the BRM side than anything else. BRM cannot be stressed enough and Ferguson's is probably one of the best outlined guides I have seen.

I agree. It will be interesting to see how Daniel does. His Buy-in requirements are allot looser than Chris's (20% of Daniel's bankroll is the min. for cash games were as Chris only risked 5%). It will be interesting to see if he can deal with the variants.

My last post on the topic: Chris says that you can start from nothing and move up, etc. Wrong. Chris Ferguson can start with nothing and move up, etc. He had such a difficult time doing it that he proved that for the rest of us (non Chris Fergusons) it would be nearly impossible, so why even try? The experiment itself proved to me and most others who are not in denial, (the denial people will always mold things to fit their needs), that for the vast majority, it can't be done. If this was his intention, he succeeded.

You will find plenty of people on this site that started from nothing and moved up. How far up is dependent on the individual.

This may be your funniest post yet. But, I now see where you are coming from. I did not realize, until now, that the majority ("rest of us") were a bunch of pessimistic, non-achievers that believe that those things that appear impossible should never be attempted. Because after all, what really is the point.

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']I really hope that this is not true. I hope that the majority of the members here can take positives out of this challenge and incorporate similar BRM for themselves. Some people have taken their zero to hero to the heights of Chris Ferguson and these people should be congratulated! Others like me are not getting rich but have made some money and by using strong BRM have been able to continue to play games that are within our bankrolls.[/font]

No, the majority of you (not all certainly) are a bunch of unrealistically optimistic people. I can reasonably guess that no one from CC started with zero and even came close to doing what Chris did, which was ridiculously unimpressive (he is one of my favorite players, by the way). I would have only been impressed if he started with zero and made 100 Grand within a month. I'm not so easily impressed I guess. By the way, for you elite people, what's with the kiss-assy rah, rah, rah go Cards Chat crap - makes me wanna' puke!

I've got $15 on FT. I'm going to use his method to see how far I can take it.

We will just have to see what happens.Everybody gets dealt different hands in this game.Bankrolls or not, what he accomplished was pretty impressive.

Wrong. There's been at least two people here that have done it.

Such negativity.. I think somebody needs a care bear hug!

I wasn't going to say anything but, kiss-assy rah, rah, rah go Cards Chat!

I'm negative. Without getting too personal, I have a neuro disease (incurable) which has been hammering me lately, going through withdrawal from 2 perscription meds (for the disease - they don't work) - 1 is worse than getting off of heroine I found out - so I apologize. I am cranky to the max! My tone is bad. I always walk left when every else goes right (that's a different disease I guess ... lol), but I seriously apologize for my negative and rude tone, (even if I might have meant some of it). So .. uhhh ... <cough> ... that's it I guess.

Well, NC does have a bit of a point. I'll admit that the Ferguson challenge was more of a discouragement than encouragement for me as well.

I looked at this and thought...wait, a top professional player is having issues at micro stakes? He even went busto several times after scratching up a little money? What does this mean for me? For poker in general? If one of the best has issues like that, can I ever really be "great" at poker? Is it really "just gambling" after all?

It really did bother me quite a bit. But I've learned a lot since then and I can understand how even the best player in the world can sit down with $1.00 at a 2NL table and lose.

So, I dunno. I'm still not excited by the accomplishment just due to how long it took. But it's still something.

Oh my God! This never happened before! Holy Moly! Wait. Is this some kind of alternative universe of something? Did I accidentally travel to another dimension?

I am starting from "ZERO" dollars...I get itm some times,in the$150 dollar freerolls offered by fulltilt. Then afterwards , when I reinvest in micro stakes "cash" nlh the variance seems to kill me... So here I go again. One more time...Sarting with "zero" balance at full tilt. I`ve been playing on fat bet as well as pokerstars, My balance was "Zero" at fat bet amd have worked it up to almost 4 euros.This dosen`t sound like alot, but your average "itm" is on small tourneys approximently .20 euro`s .I`ve accomplished this by playing strictly in freeroll tourney`s and 0.01 entry`s that are like sub-turbo`s at full tilt.Also just a side note that at fat bet they only pay the top ten on the larger freerolls,and top three in the sub-turbo`s. My pokerstars account is still under two dollars and that limits my abilitys to there .10 cent tourney`s. But I know I`ll get there. I`m not able to just Re-load/ deposit as i`m living on a limited income, so I`m being patient. Mine time will come when I cam afford larger games and then maybe I`ll be pickin you off ... Good luck to all .Trimming1

Actually, I do the same. Had my BoDog balance up to $16 (from zero) before I lost it all (I have a .45 balance right now - hilarious).