Dn Playing 100/200

[Vtlaxer09 4]

No thanks. Not a big fan of folding in position.

lol... its not like you're lighting money on fire with that call or anything.o wait.

[Snamuh 0]

I don't think that Daniel minds me saying that he doesn't mind the table being tough since maybe his main purpose in playing these games is to gain experience and to improve on his NL Holdem cash game. Usually every other player at the table is a winning 25/50 regular at least.Of course it makes it easier when you're winning and Daniel won another $21K or so last night and has been the biggest winner at 100/200 at Stars this month so far.

Yeah this is a completely fine response. It's definitely good to challenge yourself.

No thanks. Not a big fan of folding in position.

I mean yeah, in a really aggressive 4 handed game, you want to be defending a lot wider, but ATo is just such a poor hand. If you really feel that his range is wide enough that you can profitably defend ATo, I don't see how you aren't calling or jamming turn there. He's likely barrelling that turn with just about any value hand, spades, Jx, maybe something like KQ, and a few pair plus straight draw hands. I mean this scenario kind of illustrates why defending a hand like ATo (even having position) ends up being extremely marginal. Also, I'd take into account who you are playing against - playing back at top players with marginal hands is really going to be lighting money on fire in the long run. If he's 3betting very wide, I like 4bet bluffing preflop to like 4400 in this spot - basically just turning the better hands I'd otherwise fold into a 4bet bluff.

[Naismith 0]

I mean yeah, in a really aggressive 4 handed game, you want to be defending a lot wider

What range of hands would you be defending with?

[Snamuh 0]

What range of hands would you be defending with?

It depends on how wide their ranges are, but I'd rather be defending like AQ/AJ/KQ/KJ, probably like 87s+ and some suited gappers like QTs, J9s. I'd probably flat like KK/AA, but 4bet like AQ/AK as well as a range of pocket pairs that would likely be something like 66-QQ with the bottom end of the cutoff varying based on how wide they're 3betting. My decision to defend wider would also depend on how confident I am in my postflop abilities vs a given opponent - vs a guy like ZeeJustin that is going to be making my life hell so often, I might nit up a bit. I know this is going to sound blasphemous, but I think DN is going to overrate his postflop abilities (especially only 125 BBs deep) vs some of the best NLHE players around.

[tskillz187 0]

I think he's played around 1600 hands which is of course not a lot and proves nothing but still better to be winning than losing.The game doesn't really go without Daniel starting it and it usually breaks when he leaves. It's actually a great situation for Daniel to be in for improving on his game. He knows that he can get a game pretty much anytime he wants.

Definitely better to be winning than losing. I mean I'm sure Daniel is aware that he is viewed as the fish as you are pointing out. I guess my thinking is, that if he wanted to challenge himself to improve he could sit at small-mid stakes and still find a challenge for probably much cheaper. He'd also probably learn quicker as well, or at least find out what level he was at. Like if he sat at 2-4/5-10nl I'd think he'd be surprised to find out that people would still think he was the fish (games would def build around him, etc. Not saying he would be like a prime fish, I think he'd be small loser/breakeven/small winner). Games would start, only he'd have the benefit of also getting in games with some soft spots. I don't have enough money to prop bet Daniel, but I'd be really surprised if Daniel played a 30k hand month of 2-4/5-10nl on Stars and came out significantly ahead (4bb/100 or so). That's not intended to be a huge knock on him, it's meant to say how much tougher the games are today and how many people play NLHE really solid. I think if he were serious about addressing his leaks he would start there and move up as he figured out he was above that learning curve. IMO he's skipping a lot of steps in the learning process by jumping in the highest games. I think simple retorts like "Not folding, I'm in position" to midstakes winners like Snamuh kind of point out that misjudgment in thought process.I don't know his motivation for playing high stakes and he can play however high he pleases, but I think he's misguided if he thinks his skill is on par for those games or if he thinks that is the best way to improve. Maybe if he also hired a coach and played those huge games he could advance rapidly, and who knows he might be doing that.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I don't know his motivation for playing high stakes and he can play however high he pleases, but I think he's misguided if he thinks his skill is on par for those games or if he thinks that is the best way to improve. Maybe if he also hired a coach and played those huge games he could advance rapidly, and who knows he might be doing that.

Daniel's motivation to play is because he enjoys playing the game and likes the challenge. He won't get that some enjoyment from playing in a 5/10 game and taking the approach that you're suggesting. I don't think that Daniel thinks he can't learn from playing the lower limits but he thinks he'll learn more from the higher limits while it'll also interest and challenge him more.Daniel is having a lot of fun playing poker and has been for quite a while. He played some live Bobby's Room sessions late last year when he had time and did very well in the big mixed games he was playing. While 100/200 NL is high stakes it's still quite a bit smaller than what Daniel would be willing to play in a mixed game.There is only a limited amount of time that he has to play and he's going to do things that will maintain his interest the most in that time while also filling the goal of improving his NL cash game.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Definitely better to be winning than losing. I mean I'm sure Daniel is aware that he is viewed as the fish as you are pointing out. I guess my thinking is, that if he wanted to challenge himself to improve he could sit at small-mid stakes and still find a challenge for probably much cheaper. He'd also probably learn quicker as well, or at least find out what level he was at. Like if he sat at 2-4/5-10nl I'd think he'd be surprised to find out that people would still think he was the fish (games would def build around him, etc. Not saying he would be like a prime fish, I think he'd be small loser/breakeven/small winner). Games would start, only he'd have the benefit of also getting in games with some soft spots. I don't have enough money to prop bet Daniel, but I'd be really surprised if Daniel played a 30k hand month of 2-4/5-10nl on Stars and came out significantly ahead (4bb/100 or so). That's not intended to be a huge knock on him, it's meant to say how much tougher the games are today and how many people play NLHE really solid. I think if he were serious about addressing his leaks he would start there and move up as he figured out he was above that learning curve. IMO he's skipping a lot of steps in the learning process by jumping in the highest games. I think simple retorts like "Not folding, I'm in position" to midstakes winners like Snamuh kind of point out that misjudgment in thought process.I don't know his motivation for playing high stakes and he can play however high he pleases, but I think he's misguided if he thinks his skill is on par for those games or if he thinks that is the best way to improve. Maybe if he also hired a coach and played those huge games he could advance rapidly, and who knows he might be doing that.

Well you are definitely wrong about one thing and that's the best approach to get better in terms of the learning curve. If you can afford it, playing against the very best players is the best approach.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Daniel is playing another early session from Austria right now.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Daniel having a wee bit of good fortune.PokerStars Game #41536966860: Hold'em No Limit ($100/$200 USD) - 2010/03/22 11:10:53 ETTable 'Dresda V' 6-max Seat #2 is the buttonSeat 1: cts687 ($31380 in chips) Seat 2: molswi47 ($22990 in chips) Seat 3: tjbentham ($9800 in chips) Seat 4: KidPoker ($94213 in chips) Seat 5: Sleyde ($20895 in chips) tjbentham: posts small blind $100KidPoker: posts big blind $200*** HOLE CARDS ***Sleyde: folds KidPoker said, "lol"cts687: raises $400 to $600molswi47: folds tjbentham said, "minbuy from the blinds obv"tjbentham: folds KidPoker: raises $1400 to $2000Sleyde said, ":club:)"cts687: calls $1400*** FLOP *** [8d Qd Ac]Sleyde said, "kidpoker makes us all stuck :ts"KidPoker: bets $2400KidPoker said, "running good lately"cts687: calls $2400*** TURN *** [8d Qd Ac] [4s]KidPoker: bets $6200cts687: calls $6200*** RIVER *** [8d Qd Ac 4s] [4c]KidPoker: bets $55200cts687: calls $20780 and is all-inUncalled bet ($34420) returned to KidPoker*** SHOW DOWN ***KidPoker: shows [Ah Qc] (two pair, Aces and Queens)cts687: shows [Ad 2d] (two pair, Aces and Fours)KidPoker collected $62855 from pot*** SUMMARY ***Total pot $62860 | Rake $5 Board [8d Qd Ac 4s 4c]Seat 1: cts687 showed [Ad 2d] and lost with two pair, Aces and FoursSeat 2: molswi47 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)Seat 3: tjbentham (small blind) folded before FlopSeat 4: KidPoker (big blind) showed [Ah Qc] and won ($62855) with two pair, Aces and Queens

[FCP Bob 1,312]

PokerStars Game #41535534009: Hold'em No Limit ($100/$200 USD) - 2010/03/22 10:29:44 ETTable 'Dresda V' 6-max Seat #5 is the buttonSeat 1: cts687 ($21262 in chips) Seat 2: molswi47 ($31391 in chips) Seat 4: KidPoker ($47400 in chips) Seat 5: Sleyde ($20600 in chips) cts687: posts small blind $100molswi47: posts big blind $200*** HOLE CARDS ***KidPoker: raises $400 to $600Sleyde: folds cts687: raises $1600 to $2200molswi47: folds KidPoker: calls $1600*** FLOP *** [6h Jd 4h]cts687: checks KidPoker: bets $2200cts687: calls $2200*** TURN *** [6h Jd 4h] [2d]cts687: checks KidPoker: bets $5600cts687: raises $11262 to $16862 and is all-inKidPoker: calls $11262*** RIVER *** [6h Jd 4h 2d] [3c]*** SHOW DOWN ***cts687: shows [9s 9c] (a pair of Nines)KidPoker: shows [4s 4c] (three of a kind, Fours)KidPoker collected $42719 from pot*** SUMMARY ***Total pot $42724 | Rake $5 Board [6h Jd 4h 2d 3c]Seat 1: cts687 (small blind) showed [9s 9c] and lost with a pair of NinesSeat 2: molswi47 (big blind) folded before FlopSeat 4: KidPoker showed [4s 4c] and won ($42719) with three of a kind, FoursSeat 5: Sleyde (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)

[FCP Bob 1,312]

PokerStars Game #41534163947: Hold'em No Limit ($100/$200 USD) - 2010/03/22 9:48:55 ETTable 'Dresda V' 6-max Seat #2 is the buttonSeat 1: cts687 ($20000 in chips) Seat 2: molswi47 ($20000 in chips) Seat 4: KidPoker ($23898 in chips) KidPoker: posts small blind $100cts687: posts big blind $200*** HOLE CARDS ***molswi47: raises $400 to $600KidPoker: raises $1200 to $1800cts687: folds molswi47: calls $1200*** FLOP *** [3h Ah Ac]KidPoker: bets $1200molswi47: raises $2550 to $3750KidPoker: raises $3650 to $7400molswi47: raises $10800 to $18200 and is all-inKidPoker: calls $10800*** TURN *** [3h Ah Ac] [9h]*** RIVER *** [3h Ah Ac 9h] [5d]*** SHOW DOWN ***KidPoker: shows [Qs As] (three of a kind, Aces)molswi47: shows [7d Ad] (three of a kind, Aces - lower kicker)KidPoker collected $40198 from pot*** SUMMARY ***Total pot $40200 | Rake $2 Board [3h Ah Ac 9h 5d]Seat 1: cts687 (big blind) folded before FlopSeat 2: molswi47 (button) showed [7d Ad] and lost with three of a kind, AcesSeat 4: KidPoker (small blind) showed [Qs As] and won ($40198) with three of a kind, Aces

[FCP Bob 1,312]

PokerStars Game #41535664701: Hold'em No Limit ($100/$200 USD) - 2010/03/22 10:33:27 ETTable 'Dresda V' 6-max Seat #4 is the buttonSeat 1: cts687 ($20000 in chips) Seat 2: molswi47 ($31391 in chips) Seat 4: KidPoker ($68557 in chips) Seat 5: Sleyde ($22495 in chips) Sleyde: posts small blind $100cts687: posts big blind $200*** HOLE CARDS ***molswi47: folds KidPoker: raises $400 to $600Sleyde: folds cts687: raises $1600 to $2200KidPoker: raises $3000 to $5200cts687: raises $14800 to $20000 and is all-inKidPoker: calls $14800*** FLOP *** [2s 7h 9h]*** TURN *** [2s 7h 9h] [Kc]*** RIVER *** [2s 7h 9h Kc] [Th]*** SHOW DOWN ***cts687: shows [9c 9d] (three of a kind, Nines)KidPoker: shows [Ah Kh] (a flush, Ace high)KidPoker collected $40095 from pot*** SUMMARY ***Total pot $40100 | Rake $5 Board [2s 7h 9h Kc Th]Seat 1: cts687 (big blind) showed [9c 9d] and lost with three of a kind, NinesSeat 2: molswi47 folded before Flop (didn't bet)Seat 4: KidPoker (button) showed [Ah Kh] and won ($40095) with a flush, Ace highSeat 5: Sleyde (small blind) folded before Flop

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Daniel just quit the session with a bad connection from Austria up about $109K

[Fade2241 0]

mbn. wtg DN!

[Vtlaxer09 4]

lol sick 5 bi sesh 1 tabling jesus.

[Snamuh 0]

Well you are definitely wrong about one thing and that's the best approach to get better in terms of the learning curve. If you can afford it, playing against the very best players is the best approach.

I don't think you can make this as a general statement, at least to the point where you are saying that he is "definitely wrong." While you may think that this is the best way to get better in terms of the learning curve, it might not be true for everyone (and you saying so doesn't necessarily make it true for yourself either). If you play the highest stakes possible and lose 30+ buy-ins, regardless of whether you can afford it, dropping 30+ buy-ins (which is far more likely to happen against tough competition in the most aggressive games) can be crushing to one's confidence, and it's definitely a lot harder to get better when one's confidence is low. It's really easy to make this statement when you are winning.

[ThreeBet 0]

I don't think you can make this as a general statement, at least to the point where you are saying that he is "definitely wrong." While you may think that this is the best way to get better in terms of the learning curve, it might not be true for everyone (and you saying so doesn't necessarily make it true for yourself either). If you play the highest stakes possible and lose 30+ buy-ins, regardless of whether you can afford it, dropping 30+ buy-ins (which is far more likely to happen against tough competition in the most aggressive games) can be crushing to one's confidence, and it's definitely a lot harder to get better when one's confidence is low. It's really easy to make this statement when you are winning.

First off, there aren't many "general statements" on any subject that you can't drive a Mack Truck through if you want to.Daniel has said many times he wants to get to the level of Ivey, Durr and Antonius and playing 100/200 is surely a good arena for that ... the original post saying he should play 5/10 is laughable (not sure if it was yours), imo, considering the games he has played in for years ... this isn't some guy off the street trying to learn the game, he's trying to make some adjustments ... he aint exactly a chump at the tables ... as far as confidence goes it all depends on your thought process going in and I think it's pretty clear that he understands what he's up against and most importantly, why he's in the game in the first place.

[delved 0]

I don't think you can make this as a general statement, at least to the point where you are saying that he is "definitely wrong." While you may think that this is the best way to get better in terms of the learning curve, it might not be true for everyone (and you saying so doesn't necessarily make it true for yourself either). If you play the highest stakes possible and lose 30+ buy-ins, regardless of whether you can afford it, dropping 30+ buy-ins (which is far more likely to happen against tough competition in the most aggressive games) can be crushing to one's confidence, and it's definitely a lot harder to get better when one's confidence is low. It's really easy to make this statement when you are winning.

I think I'm on another planet if I'm to see DN lose 30 buyins in a few sittings at 100/200.

[Naismith 0]

... the original post saying he should play 5/10 is laughable (not sure if it was yours), imo, considering the games he has played in for years ...

There's nothing laughable about dropping down in limits to improve your play.

[Snamuh 0]

First off, there aren't many "general statements" on any subject that you can't drive a Mack Truck through if you want to.Daniel has said many times he wants to get to the level of Ivey, Durr and Antonius and playing 100/200 is surely a good arena for that ... the original post saying he should play 5/10 is laughable (not sure if it was yours), imo, considering the games he has played in for years ... this isn't some guy off the street trying to learn the game, he's trying to make some adjustments ... he aint exactly a chump at the tables ... as far as confidence goes it all depends on your thought process going in and I think it's pretty clear that he understands what he's up against and most importantly, why he's in the game in the first place.

Even though you quoted my response, you pretty much failed to address any point I brought up. I'd also like to point out that Daniel is claiming that the best way to improve is to play against the best players. However, the only tangible improvement he's described in the thread on 2p2 is where he says he's come to understand 4bet and 5bet sizing, and why the grinders size them really small. This brings about two points:1. He didn't come to the conclusion/realization that he did because he's playing against the toughest competition. He could have seen the regulars do it, but probably didn't understand it until discussing it with his peers (he mentioned Somerville/JCarver). This would lead me to state that the best way to improve is not to play in the toughest games, but by discussing hands with top players. Discussing poker strategy with top players is almost certainly going to be the best way to improve.2. He could have observed this same 4bet/5bet sizing in small and midstakes online games. Seriously, it's something that a cash grinder learns fairly early on in their development. The things you'd learn more from a higher stakes game are like third and fourth level thinking, but you can't really understand these concepts without first understanding the basic fundamental concepts you learn playing the lower stakes games. Pretty much anyone who has performed the grind and continues to on a daily basis can understand this.I'd like to state that I fully understand Daniel's reasons and motives for playing the HSNL games, as Bob pointed out previously. I am simply disagreeing with the statement that he made to tskillz: "Well you are definitely wrong about one thing and that's the best approach to get better in terms of the learning curve. If you can afford it, playing against the very best players is the best approach." I'm not trying to bash Daniel at all, I'm simply saying there are other things to consider. Being close-minded and making such absolute generalized statements can be dangerous to one's poker game.

[no not baxter 0]

This thread makes me

[Snamuh 0]

I think I'm on another planet if I'm to see DN lose 30 buyins in a few sittings at 100/200.

We're talking about longterm here. Day to day results don't really matter in poker. And it is certainly possible to lose 30 buy-ins in like 10k hands or something even if you are playing very well. Most of the casual poker population will probably never realize or understand this. Variance is absolutely wicked. A crushing poker player can suffer completely soul crushing downswings in tough, aggressive games. And Daniel is choosing to play in some of the toughest possible.

[Voldemort 0]

[Mercury69 3]

rigged imo

[Balloon guy 158]

Is it me or does it seem DN has dumped the small ball strategy lately?