$10 Into $100,000

[S_Bite 0]

Im not arguing one way or the other but I have had "computer people" tell me that there is no such thing as random on a computer. Again I dont know the details or the technicality of it all but the argument was basically that computers do what some input tells it to do.

I'm in the group of computer people and can tell you that you are both right and wrong (as is so often the case =) A computer program only does what you tell it to do so it cannot in theory pick a completely random number, it has to compute it somehow. But in practice there are several means to achieve total randomness for the user. One simple way is to multiply the millisecond (or smaller still) a certain query has been made by a given number. Since any user, even one who knows the code, has no way of knowing when the machine starts counting or how long the delay is for the message to get to you; ergo complete randomness by any standard.As I'm also a math person I absolutely detest the notion that the reshuffling of cards by the poker server in between actions in a hand makes it any less random or has any effect what so ever on the play!! An unknown card is "the same" unknown card even if you reshuffel it twice and throw half the deck away =)In fact I kind of like the idea that when, after you've had to fold, the case ten that would have made you the nuts in a big multiway pot comes on the river, I can remain unsteamy because it might not have come had I called. So I wont listen to what either you nor Poker Stars has to say =)

[GUGA KUERTEN 0]

Im 6th right now on the waiting list

[GUGA KUERTEN 0]

Im 6th right now on the waiting list

NOOOOOO!! i didn`t make it daniel is gone

[javi 0]

Can anyone explain to me Daniel's decision to play FR instead of 6max? Is it to limit the amount of blinds he has to pay playing with such a small bankroll?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Can anyone explain to me Daniel's decision to play FR instead of 6max? Is it to limit the amount of blinds he has to pay playing with such a small bankroll?

To lower variance. The shorter you go, the more hands you need to play and the more swingy it gets. You can "hide" in a ring game and be a bit more nitty.

[nosoul 0]

Im not in the group of "computer people", but here in the group of "human people" who know a bit about computers think a bit different. No, just kidding.The thing is that with a computer and a good algorithm you can get only pseudorandom numbers. Pseudorandom is not exactly pure random (or ideal random) because the string of numbers depends on the very firt number and how the arithmetic method arrange the rest. Did I say "the arithmetic method arrange the rest"But, then.. what on this earth can give you pure random to play online poker?I would say pseudorandom is absolutely acceptable for our lovely poker. Isnt it?

That's where the mouse clicks come in. The Linux kernel uses things like mouse clicks, network traffic, etc to generate the seed number for the RGN. This makes the RGN effectively a purely random series.Actually, pseudo random isn't good enough. Pseudo random means all the possible outcomes aren't really possible. If that were the case (i.e. the deck couldn't be shuffled in all possible ways), then the odds for the game would be different, which isn't acceptable.

[Landshark 0]

To lower variance. The shorter you go, the more hands you need to play and the more swingy it gets. You can "hide" in a ring game and be a bit more nitty.

I've decided to give this a try just to see how far I can get (& to see which level is most profitable for me in regards to money won per hand). After 2 weeks I'm up to .05/.10. Table selection is HUGE!I don't expect to get as far as DN, but this is a fun experiment so far!

[S_Bite 0]

There is one thing in the rules though that strikes me as quite strange. When Daniel is approaching a new level, as he is right now, he is buying in for the amount needed to reach the new level. Why? And if he, say after the next session, is $1 short, or 45c or 6c, is he buying in for that amount then and just throws it in the pot as soon as possible? I'm just saying, why not keep playing poker and do that voodoo that ........ aso

[TheDonk1989 0]

I guess I am doing something similar to Dan. Accept I have started with $50 (my first deposit) I have been playing almost 2 hours a day for a little more than 3 weeks and I've got it up to $106 so far. I play at 4 fast tables of .02/.05 on Poker Stars. Look me up, TheDonk1989.

[chipsnfish 0]

Hey Dan,the 5c games not enough thrill anymore? hehe Think my BR is getting close to yours now... beware soon enough my separate one will hit yours too (wishfull thinking)!Have fun dude.

[Koonsy08 0]

To lower variance. The shorter you go, the more hands you need to play and the more swingy it gets. You can "hide" in a ring game and be a bit more nitty.

True so hows it going for you? you still at $.02/.05?oh by the way like the pic of obama and you very cool!!!!!

[flintsword 4]

Here is a practical question for the guys that have spent a lot of time watching (or lucky dogs) playing the table where Daniel is massaging to increase his bankroll."What practical cues are given off by the players that are going to be trapping with big hands, as opposed to just a player that is too loose?"These games must be stiff with slowplayed big hands trying to trap DN. In the unlikely event DN wants to answer this one without giving away the farm of his strategy, just email me or put it on pokerVT.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

There is one thing in the rules though that strikes me as quite strange. When Daniel is approaching a new level, as he is right now, he is buying in for the amount needed to reach the new level. Why? And if he, say after the next session, is $1 short, or 45c or 6c, is he buying in for that amount then and just throws it in the pot as soon as possible? I'm just saying, why not keep playing poker and do that voodoo that ........ aso

Well, if I only need to win $1 to get to the next level it would be foolish of me to risk $10 on the table to do so.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Here is a practical question for the guys that have spent a lot of time watching (or lucky dogs) playing the table where Daniel is massaging to increase his bankroll."What practical cues are given off by the players that are going to be trapping with big hands, as opposed to just a player that is too loose?"These games must be stiff with slowplayed big hands trying to trap DN. In the unlikely event DN wants to answer this one without giving away the farm of his strategy, just email me or put it on pokerVT.

They aren't sophisticated enough to trap me for maximum value, no matter how they approach the hand.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

This was SUPER FAST at $0.02-$0.05$0.02-$0.0561 +$9.0583 +$9.4346 -$0.5447 +$2.7415 +4.74====================251 +25.44 $50.67 On to level 3!!!

[chipsnfish 0]

This was SUPER FAST at $0.02-$0.05$0.02-$0.0561 +$9.0583 +$9.4346 -$0.5447 +$2.7415 +4.74====================251 +25.44 $50.67 On to level 3!!!

Nothing like scare him that I was catching up for him to restart playing for nickels ... Well done Daniel You run like a God though! heheAnother thing lets say your first session at 10 NL you loose 1 buy in $5 you move imediately down or you keep grinding 10 NL with a shorter buy in like you would do if you had lost the initial $2 buy in on level 1?

[stevel999 0]

Another thing lets say your first session at 10 NL you loose 1 buy in $5 you move imediately down or you keep grinding 10 NL with a shorter buy in like you would do if you had lost the initial $2 buy in on level 1?

His rule is he never goes down. He never buys in for more than 20% of his bankroll.Re running like God.. 5 buyins in 250 hands = 100 BB/100 hands! Yes, I would say that that is running like God.........BUT such a small sample.I still say that Daniel will run into that bad swing and lose his bankroll well before he is near his goal.

[stevel999 0]

They aren't sophisticated enough to trap me for maximum value, no matter how they approach the hand.

Personally I think this is the whole key to winning at microstakes. Maximizing value from your big hands: trap the aggressive players, bet more than you usually would against calling stations because many microstakes players call very light as in this example from my blog: http://blindtilt.com/?p=271For the same reason (they call light) rarely bluff on the river. It is frustrating to put a pot size bluff on the river and they call with bottom pair.

[S_Bite 0]

Well, if I only need to win $1 to get to the next level it would be foolish of me to risk $10 on the table to do so.

Thank you for answering and congrats to the quick success so far!But... with a risk of (unintentionally) annoying you, I don't really understand this logic. Buying in short does indeed leave you with less to lose, but it also takes away some of the ev a good/great player like you will have on each hand. You have also already stipulated rules for maximum buyins to limit bankroll swings. My point is: buying in very short will probably make it harder to win the specified amount as it takes away tactics and strategies from your arsenal. Had your ultimate goal been to reach the next level your reasoning might have sounded better to my ears, but as of now the goal is to reach $100,000 and you can just as well lose your full buyin the next session when it is even bigger.I know I'm nagging and this isn't really a big deal in any case. You can of course buy in for 2 bb go allin at opportune moments, rebuy if you lose and sooner or later you'll win. GL on the next levels and may you prove all the sceptics wrong!! =)

[Snake Plissken 0]

I think this is really cool and inspiring. When you play higher, I'm going to join u in the full ring games. GL

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Thank you for answering and congrats to the quick success so far!But... with a risk of (unintentionally) annoying you, I don't really understand this logic. Buying in short does indeed leave you with less to lose, but it also takes away some of the ev a good/great player like you will have on each hand. You have also already stipulated rules for maximum buyins to limit bankroll swings. My point is: buying in very short will probably make it harder to win the specified amount as it takes away tactics and strategies from your arsenal. Had your ultimate goal been to reach the next level your reasoning might have sounded better to my ears, but as of now the goal is to reach $100,000 and you can just as well lose your full buyin the next session when it is even bigger.I know I'm nagging and this isn't really a big deal in any case. You can of course buy in for 2 bb go allin at opportune moments, rebuy if you lose and sooner or later you'll win. GL on the next levels and may you prove all the sceptics wrong!! =)

My primary goal is always to make it to the next level. I want to do that as quickly as possible, without taking too many steps backwards.

[Hamlet 0]

My primary goal is always to make it to the next level. I want to do that as quickly as possible, without taking too many steps backwards.

Daniel, in your set of rules you indicate when to go forward. Now that you mentioned "backwards", is there a rule for that situation?

[Merby 3]

I think this is really cool and inspiring. When you play higher, I'm going to join u in the full ring games. GL

I think your sig is really cool and inspiring

[imabd 0]

This was SUPER FAST at $0.02-$0.05$0.02-$0.0561 +$9.0583 +$9.4346 -$0.5447 +$2.7415 +4.74====================251 +25.44 $50.67 On to level 3!!!

What did DN's opponent have on the last hand last night? DN won (what, like $4 to put him over) w/AJ (flopped 2 pair, went all in on the river), but I didn't see what the guy called the all in w/. I left before checking out observer chat. It was an interesting hand for several reasons as I recall, and a flush draw hit on the river...

[javi 0]

wtg daniel!