Poker Coverage: Poker Legislation Poker Tournaments Daily Fantasy Sports 2016 WSOP

Gus Hansen Nears $20 Million In Web Poker Losses

Danish Grinder Resumes Playing After Short Break, Continues Epic Slide

Print-icon
 

It’s unclear why Gus Hansen doesn’t just stick to live poker, the arena in which he is one of the most successful players in the history of recorded card playing.

A horrible past seven days on Full Tilt Poker resulted in the Dane dropping nearly $1 million, which has brought his losses on 2014 to a new low of $4.66 million.

The recent plunge also put him at this lowest point ever on the software lifetime. Over the years playing on Full Tilt Poker, the Gus Hansen screen name is now down more than $19.5 million. That’s by far the worst for any one account in the history of web poker.

The number is so large that the second-worst account of all-time is roughly $12.5 million better off than Hansen. Unknown and inactive “noataima” lost just over $7 million from 2006-2008.

To be fair, noataima played just four percent of the hands that Hansen has played online. It has taken Hansen roughly 1.5 million hands since 2006 to lost the incredible sum.

Hansen took a break from online this year to travel during June and July. He made a stop in Las Vegas, and he said that he had a good summer playing live cash games in Sin City. Upon returning to Full Tilt this month, Hansen actually went on an upswing of around $700,000. However, the streak was very short-lived, as Hansen soon went on a seven-figure slide, followed by a quick uptick, and then this week, where he dusted off the profits and then some.

This month was the first time that Hansen broke the $19 million in losses mark. Back in May, Hansen was approaching the $19-million threshold. The short break was of no help.

Much of his losses over the past week came in the eight-game mix.

On the flip side, the bigger winners during the seven-day period were Alex “PostflopAction” Kostritsyn ($672,669), Viktor “Isildur1” Blom ($391,581), Isaac “luvtheWNBA” Haxton ($346,595) and Dan “jungleman12” Cates ($273,034).

Cates recently broke the $10-million mark in lifetime Internet winnings, and he shows no signs of slowing down. It seems like a matter of time before the Maryland native passes Patrik Antonius and Phil Ivey as the biggest winner in the history of online poker.

All figures via HighstakesDB.

 
 
 
 

Comments

L2K4FC
almost 2 years ago

Has anyone from CP asked Gus what's up? Its great to run articles on how much he is losing every few months but how about an interview guys? How about some hand analysis? Lol..too funny.

 
Reply
 

TandG21
almost 2 years ago

What bull shit only a ploy to make you think you can win playing poker. Makes me think if he can't win playing maybe I shouldn' even think of playing.

 
Reply
 

bmpek
almost 2 years ago

where does all this money come from???????

 
Reply
 

Jim28
almost 2 years ago

Freddy Deeb @ The Inaugural WPT Event @ Bellagio when Hansen sucks out with Rags to eliminate Deeb:

" I wish i could play this guy everyday for the rest of my life."

 
Reply
 

PokerPong
almost 2 years ago

I sat through his so dogmatic video on the "math" of card odds vs. pot odds and that most rarefied of esoteric majesty and wisdom referred to as "implied" odds, enduring his "implied" message that anyone who doesn't go along with that is a worse deficient poker player. He's the most dogmatic person I've ever seen on that topic. I've also put up with other people's occasional dogma and insulting innuendo about the matter. While some degree of loose intuitive consideration of pot odds may be often be a good idea strategically, to suggest that everyone has to sit around and continually make multiple precise mathematical calculations all session long in order to be a good poker player is simply arrogance and absurdity, and these so embarrassing headlines all these months sure don't fail to corroborate and vindicate that. Meanwhile, he's essentially been a total laughing stock in the media for how many months now over these staggering and monumental losses? A few years or so now? I don't wish him or anyone ill, but the vindication is nice after the pedestal of pontification from these uber-math pushers. And meanwhile as well, I've been winning and continually coming out way ahead even after any losses while refusing and not needing to sit around engaging in the game-enjoyment-killing crunching of numbers all the time...

 
Reply
 

3pokeronly
almost 2 years ago

PokerPong, I certainly agree Gus is somewhat dogmatic, unfortunately, you have come across as equally so. Intuition, read ability, big balls and MATHS are all tools in poker, if you do not use them all you are not playing your optimal game. Gus reliance on implied odds is discounting the other maths and the fact that he is playing good players that have a balanced game and a solid read on his weaknesses, his inability to fold to fold when those damn implied odds flash in his is costing him, in tournament play one good river card can place him in a dominant position and from there to a good result, in cash games, winning one good pot does not win the session. Good luck all CP's, 3P.

 
Reply
 

PokerPong
almost 2 years ago

You don't have to sit around doing multiple precise calculations and even comparing them to each other. There is no law of nature or logic that proves that when "pot odds" are better or worse than "card odds" you should or should not bet or fold or that one course of action is better than the other. That is nonsense. You don't have to even know exactly that your "pot odds" are "27%" or 1 to 5 or 1 to 6 even if there are times when you can't help but know. I'm certainly not denying that it's often important to make some judgments based on and practice some degree of awareness of "quantity," e.g. roughly how abundant are your outs, roughly what is the ratio of how much you have to bet to stay in the pot and is that worth the risk now given all other factors, for example - but you do not need to know exact #'s or continually do mathematical calculations. That's all the more so since knowing exactly how many "outs" you have still means plenty of those so called "outs" can still lose. So I certainly recognize there is a place for some degree of a rough awareness of quantities and proportions, simply not a requirement for the kind of "math" dogma so many peddle, push, and some try to show off about with declarations like "there was a 4.17% chance of winning..."

 
 

Ben4
almost 2 years ago

this same article with different numbers every month is getting old and silly. Does anyone care? Funny that FullTilts 2 biggest sponsored pros cant win. You'd think from a marketing perspective they would dump these guys and go a different direction.

 
Reply
 

Aman
almost 2 years ago

I find it odd that ftp will go this length to promote their site.
I will make an assumption
"No sane poker pro will continue playing at a site and lose money for years"
Gus hansen is a sane poker pro.
Now I make a third assumption, the money lost does not belong to gus but to ftp.
Final assumption the money belongs to ftp. FTP owned by pokerstars.

 
Reply
 

L2K4FC
almost 2 years ago

Another angle is that maybe he has more on tap to lose. Poker is not his only income stream. It actually wouldn't surprise me if he made a complete comeback. All the same, can someone from CP get an interview with Gus? I'd like to hear it straight from the man himself.

 
Reply
 

PokerPong
almost 2 years ago

Honestly now - despite what I wrote above, is it even credible that he could really lose so much unless there was something "questionable" going on? Or does anyone think he plays high on heroin or something like that? Right, neither do I.

Okay, so I've said this before - and I know it's complete heresy to all the worshiping lovers of PokerStars who bow down and sing its praises - isn't it time the software itself in this industry was addressed amidst all this lovely regulation and scrutiny? Or is it fine for US companies to just be jumping into bed in partnerships with the same "off-shore" villains people were villainizing not so long ago?

I can speak from experience: I left FT because the action of the software was in my opinion the most "non-credible" I had ever experienced (free play only). I find that PokerStars is also extremely suspect too: practically every other hand either has a pair on board in the flop, or at least three of a suit on board. Come on folks, wake up: is that kind of software action credible? Should it not be thoroughly audited and examined?

Okay now, I've gone and done it this time. Probably here come the ones who will soon cry and trumpet how PS is the best company ever, blah, blah, blah..

While you're at it, review a video I recommend watching, "online poker is a scam" on youtube, the channel name is RobersDee. Bear in mind - not only do I strongly recommend this video, but I recommend it as a supporter of online poker, not the opposite. Get it? Evaluate what the guy says in light of your own broad experience with both free play (where there is still lot of $ involved for buying chips) as well as real money play, and don't get hung up on any specific names he mentions. Look at the big picture, and then be honest about your own experiences.

 
Reply
 

PokerPong
almost 2 years ago

P.S. The video is only 9:12 and is well done.

 
Reply
 

PokerPong
almost 2 years ago

Here's the url: www (dot) youtube (dot) com / watch?v=b3tv-1rBJeY

Remember: I'm a supporter of online poker, not the opposite. But the kind of online poker I really want in this country is clean online poker. Get the picture?

 
 

VoiceOfReason
almost 2 years ago

It is only well done to a point though, no actual proof or numbers. For example he says that he has played roughly the same number of hands live and online, but we only have his 'word' on this don't we?

 
 

PokerPong
almost 2 years ago

>"only well done to a point though"

Why do I like this video so much, and recommend people become familiar with it? Because regardless of the specific brand(s) he mentions, it essentially matches and resonates with my own experience even in "free" online poker alone that it couldn't get any more compelling. The video positively drips with credibility, and that can be a sound judgment call from life experience regardless of how many #'s or "proofs" are formally attached. The bottom line is that even for those who do well and come out ahead, something still appears to be rotten in Denmark and there appears to be a strong measure of "dirtiness" that needs to be addressed and rooted out if it's true, as it so appears to be to so many.

 
 

PokerPong
almost 2 years ago

P.S. And remember, "free" poker is not really free. There are the exact same financial incentives for the percentage of "dirtiness" that may exist and pervade, just a different scale. "Virtual goods" including things like virtual chips is still a billion-dollar industry.

 
 

PokerPong
almost 2 years ago

"one thing he didnt touch on..."

Well said, misfits. And it's exactly wicked things like that which all need to be looked at under a big spotlight of scrutiny, and it's long past time for people to speak up for regulation of the "software" specifically as well as clamoring for regulation of the more nebulous term "industry" without any mention whatsoever of the software and how it "behaves." If that's not one of the biggest essentials to the whole scene I don't know what is.

What you are saying about what they actually do sounds like a good and plausible "description," but I still am extremely skeptical and doubtful that it has to also be a "prescription." I question whether a computer program cannot be truly random; but even if it cannot in the most purest mathematical sense, I still am extremely doubtful it cannot be truly "random-like" to a near perfect semblance of the truly random. Moreover, I really super doubt it *has to be* as the Robers Dee video guy describes, and as you describe here - that it *has to be* so clearly and suspiciously tilted towards maximizing rake while partially shafting (or more) the people at their very real expense.

 
 

PokerPong
almost 2 years ago

Oh, and of course that it *has to be* as my own experience has indicated also...

 
 

PokerPong
almost 2 years ago

Hmm, well that sure made everyone go silent. Interesting...

 
Reply
 

VoiceOfReason
almost 2 years ago

As much as I would love to disagree with you, I think you make a valid point(s). Especially about pokerstars, to the point that I will not make any real money deposits on that site anymore; it is far less painful to be constantly rivered when you are just playing freerolls!

Besides is there really a software program that can 'shuffle' a deck as well as a human dealer?

 
Reply
 

PokerPong
almost 2 years ago

Sad. And yet, all these people I encounter online (not here, I get around) who do nothing but sing the praises of PS and all but declare it to be perfection itself. Not just rivered, too, btw, but the donk-bettor flop hits for both (weak) hole cards when a big pot's at stake can also be pretty amazing there.

As far as software goes, I happen to have a fair amount of IT experience myself. I have a very hard time believing that people cannot come up with programming that is clean, far more believable and far more truly and believably randomized in result. As the saying goes, it just appears that in some cases something may be very rotten in Denmark regarding some of the software out there in the world, and I'm certainly far from alone in that. Yes indeed, "rotten in Denmark," couldn't get any better fit for the famous subject of this article.

 
Reply