You might have seen recently Daniel Negreanu wrote about 2010 tournament winnings and he said he went through the winnings in the last 1-3 years of all 75 Team Poker Stars pros. He only listed the top 40 and stopped and he made various comments about the stats and how the women did disporportionately well and this sort of thing. My only thought looking down the list, is surely this means almost no one makes a living from tournaments??? 

I have rounded and summarised the 2010 winnings he listed, 1, 10...40 just to give an idea. (I don't think we're allowed links here?? but google Full Contact Poker if you want the original)

1. Vanessa Selbst $2.9m
10. Elky $500,000
20. Van Nguyen $240,000
30. Bryan Huang $140,000
40. Chris Moneymaker $70,000

Sure there are a handful at the top who are no doubt doing fine, but I'm assuming Daniel stopped at 40 to prevent further embarrassment rather than the vague excuses he made about it being time consuming. If number 40 is $70,000 (and 10, 20, 30, 40 are all roughly half the previous number), it seems far from impossible to hit $0 well before you get to number 75 - and these are gross winnings, so you would need to reduce buy ins, which could be almost anything. Given these guys are presumably all out playing big WSOPs and WPTs etc, I would assume Chris Moneymaker has played more than 7 $10,000 events in 2010 and has net lost money and he is number 40 and these are - in theory - the best players in the world. Presumably Stars and Full Tilt get first pick of whoever they want and most of the rest get most of the rest. 

Of course there are cash games and I've been reading Marty Smyth's increasingly gloomy blog where he doesn't seem to have been anywhere near a cash, never mind a win all year, but talks vaguely of making it up with sports bets. Of course the beauty of this is cash games and sports betting are completely unverifiable, though I understand that in reality there is probably far more money at stake here - you always hear stories about say Tom Dwan sitting out or blind shoving his entire stack in a tournament because he is more interested in some cash game on the side. Having said that, the various Durrr Challenges appear to have ground to a halt. How come? Surely these guys are dying to play each other since there are a limited number of people willing to play durrr at high stakes and that is the whole point of the challenge. Today's Independent poker column points out that until relatively recently NLHE cash was considered suitable only for lunatics and millionaires. (Maybe he should have said former millionaires?)    I only mention it out of interest, but also the same applies at lower stakes. In my last post I mentioned that since starting the blog I have cashed 3/6 Quarter Millions which I think is above average, certainly for me, though all three were not 'big' cashes and so the more alert will notice that I have net lost money in spite of what I consider a decent (although short term) record and I find myself funding the account from sit and gos.    Answers on a postcard but I think Peter Eastgate has the right idea - take the money and run.