Dn Playing 100/200

[nutzbuster 7]

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.

net worth in the brazillions tho

[babylondonks 5]

This thread would be more fun if Snamuh was still an internet warrior

[tskillz187 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.

No, I'm not. I can state my opinion and present it as fact too!Edit: Nvmd I don't wanna fight. Congrats.

[Snamuh 0]

This thread would be more fun if Snamuh was still an internet warrior

The night is young, my friend.

[wsox8 10]

This thread makes me

responses like these make me :D :D

[Acid_Knight 2]

No, I'm not. I can state my opinion and present it as fact too!

LOL

[Jariso13 1]

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.

This looks like stupid jibber jabber so eat my butt.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

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.

No, I'm not. I can state my opinion and present it as fact too!

In fairness Snamuh's first response to Daniel was a quick one liner fold preflop and this started the discussion a bit. I think Daniel's point is that he'll learn more from playing against the best player than from the players in the smaller limit games. Keep in mind that this isn't the first time that Daniel has worked on specific poker games in his history and he's had to learn new games over the years.

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.

This looks like stupid jibber jabber so eat my butt.

It's not jibber jabber at all and I think Daniel will totally agree that there is huge value in being exposed to high level players and discussing hands with them. One of the things that Daniel did before he played in the big mixed games was sweat Jen Harman when she played by sitting behind her while she was playing in the big game as an example. Daniel in his past has always discussed poker with his friends and peers.I think some of the differing point of view in this thread was regarding whether playing against the best or playing lower is a better way to learn. Nobody said that there isn't huge value in discussing things with other skilled experienced players.If your goal is to compete with the best players and you can afford to play with them and you have a vast poker base already are you going to get to their level quicker by playing in a different game with different players first that has a different dynamic or playing against them sooner ?

[gary21212121 0]

Lets pretend Deeb does have a big hand and for that reasons doesnt call for a floor. Isnt it possible for DN to pick up some infomation based the fact that a majority of people would ask for a floor ruling after an obv. string raise

[CoolHandKai 0]

People who are basically saying "You could learn the same at a lower limit a lot cheaper." are forgetting the important psychological aspect that you need to take the game seriously in order to improve. If Daniel is playing at a limit that feels like play chips to him, I'm not sure if he could get the same out of it.Also, even if lower stakes may be better "value for money" when it comes to learning and improving, I don't think that DN wants to optimise that aspect. For what I assume he wants - improving his game, playing against tough opponents, playing at meaningful monetary blinds - doing what he does achieves exactly that.As for "Talking strategy is better than playing" - I'm sure he's doing that as well, but it's also missing the point that he is in the mood to play, so suggesting to do something other than playing may be correct, while at the same time not being relevant.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I'm not at all wrong about what I said as long as you understand the stated goal is to be the best poker player you can possibly be. I have absolutely zero interest in learning how to grind and beat 5-10 NLH players. My goal is to compete with the absolute best players at the highest levels. The fact that I can afford to do so, and it's not my first time playing poker, makes skipping the unnecessary learning curve of the mid limit games the absolute best way to get better- and fast. I'm not concerned with how the 5-10 players approach the game. Not in the least. All I want to know is how the top guys think, and how they play. Playing 5-10 wouldn't get me closer to that goal than just jumping right in and learning while I play. Obviously discussing hands and other study tools are all part of the plan, but if you can afford to play at the highest levels and your goal is to compete with the best, you'd just flat out be wasting time by playing 5-10. The players I want to learn from don't exist in those games. If there was a 5-10 player I'd want to learn from, he wouldn't be playing 5-10, he'd be playing 25-50 and up. No disrespect meant to any mid limit grinders. I just don't have any desire to be one. Also, if I was able to break even, or compete at the 100-200 level over an extended period of time, don't you think adjusting to a mid limit game would be that much easier? It's like playing snooker vs 9-ball. If you practice on a snooker table with really tight pockets, when you actually go back to 9-ball the holes look like buckets and you just won't miss a shot. It seems easy by comparison. Having said ALL this. I do eventually plan to learn how to multi-table, trying 4 games at once, and will likely start out in the $5-$10 games.

[grindkid 0]

I'm not concerned with how the 5-10 players approach the game. Not in the least. All I want to know is how the top guys think, and how they play. Playing 5-10 wouldn't get me closer to that goal than just jumping right in and learning while I play. Having said ALL this. I do eventually plan to learn how to multi-table, trying 4 games at once, and will likely start out in the $5-$10 games.

Tottally agreed there, it would be silly to drop to the 5/10 at this stage when you are playing a regular 100/200. I wouldnt even consider it. I know this is a lot different, but I am a regular live cash player, I dont play nowhere near 100/200, but play a regular 5/10 and 10/20 (£) at my cardroom, I sat at a 1/2 table a few nights ago and I forgot how different it is. I felt like I was at the .5/.10 microstakes tables on pokerstars. I will post some of the play what went on as I had to write it down i was gobsmacked. It has just proved to me how different the mindset is of players from different stakes, I prolly had my worst nights poker for around 6 months, and dont think ill be playing at these stakes in a live game again. (unless I go broke of course).

[FCP Bob 1,312]

After getting knocked out of the Snowfest Daniel is back playing 100/200.Right now he has about $46K in front of him but my guess is that he's in for about $65K at the moment.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Daniel's connection from his Hotel in Austria is pretty bad and he quit the game. I think he probably lost around $45K or so.

[no not baxter 0]

I'm not at all wrong about what I said as long as you understand the stated goal is to be the best poker player you can possibly be. I have absolutely zero interest in learning how to grind and beat 5-10 NLH players. My goal is to compete with the absolute best players at the highest levels. The fact that I can afford to do so, and it's not my first time playing poker, makes skipping the unnecessary learning curve of the mid limit games the absolute best way to get better- and fast. I'm not concerned with how the 5-10 players approach the game. Not in the least. All I want to know is how the top guys think, and how they play. Playing 5-10 wouldn't get me closer to that goal than just jumping right in and learning while I play. Obviously discussing hands and other study tools are all part of the plan, but if you can afford to play at the highest levels and your goal is to compete with the best, you'd just flat out be wasting time by playing 5-10. The players I want to learn from don't exist in those games. If there was a 5-10 player I'd want to learn from, he wouldn't be playing 5-10, he'd be playing 25-50 and up. No disrespect meant to any mid limit grinders. I just don't have any desire to be one. Also, if I was able to break even, or compete at the 100-200 level over an extended period of time, don't you think adjusting to a mid limit game would be that much easier? It's like playing snooker vs 9-ball. If you practice on a snooker table with really tight pockets, when you actually go back to 9-ball the holes look like buckets and you just won't miss a shot. It seems easy by comparison. Having said ALL this. I do eventually plan to learn how to multi-table, trying 4 games at once, and will likely start out in the $5-$10 games.

I get what you are saying and I think it makes fine sense, but what you said about the bolded quote is ridiculous. There are plenty of grinders at 5/10 who are just as good as those guys you are playing.

[no not baxter 0]

i mean, some of them just are not promoted right.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I get what you are saying and I think it makes fine sense, but what you said about the bolded quote is ridiculous. There are plenty of grinders at 5/10 who are just as good as those guys you are playing.

Agree 100%.

[Suited_Up 2]

i mean, some of them just are not promoted right.

LOLZ

[rocketpoker828 0]

i mean, some of them just are not promoted right.

hof

[tskillz187 0]

No disrespect meant to any mid limit grinders. I just don't have any desire to be one. Also, if I was able to break even, or compete at the 100-200 level over an extended period of time, don't you think adjusting to a mid limit game would be that much easier? It's like playing snooker vs 9-ball. If you practice on a snooker table with really tight pockets, when you actually go back to 9-ball the holes look like buckets and you just won't miss a shot. It seems easy by comparison.

I agree with most of your post and I wanted to point out that I think this is a fine analogy. I just doubt that you can compete/break even over an extended period of time at 100-200. But right now you are doing so, and more power to you, it's awesome to outplay/win/go on a heater as you are trying to learn. I just think you could easily get stuck 150-200k and be like "wtf just happened I'm on their level, I'm playing better than them, I'm unlucky!!" when from looking at HH and decisions it seems like you aren't playing as sound as a high stakes NLHE player does.But I def agree if you can breakeven/win at those limits you'd obv do at least as well in a midstakes game. I'm usually a believer in the "higher the stakes the tougher the game," except for made for TV stuff like HSP. I will say that I think the difference between a crushing 5-10nl reg and a nose bleeds player is very minimal though.I'm not sure if you are familiar with DrGiggy, but here is his Table Ratings, almost all of which is 2-4nl and 5-10nl.He coaches on Phil Galfond's site, bluefirepoker. I think if you watched a video of his (especially deep stacked play) you would have a lot of respect for the mid stakes killers and probably learn a shitload. He's literally the best person I've ever seen discuss poker and deep stacked play.Edit: He's got a cool accent and he's from Canada, so the least you can do is give him a try

[king1305 0]

pokerVT tho

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

LOL @ telling someone who runs his own coaching site about other sites where he can get coaching.

[looshle 6]

in 25-50 and up there's so much leving going on that if you don't understand the first few levels of thinking it's hard to just start at the topnot saying that you need to work on thinking at a higher level but learning the proper optimal adjustments vs each level is something that will be ridiculously harder not having the experience at lower stakes.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

in 25-50 and up there's so much leving going on that if you don't understand the first few levels of thinking it's hard to just start at the topnot saying that you need to work on thinking at a higher level but learning the proper optimal adjustments vs each level is something that will be ridiculously harder not having the experience at lower stakes.

but if you're not interested in playing at those levels, it's not really necessary to learn those levels imo. better to focus your time and energy on learning the higher levels you're interested in playing at. seems obvious, really.

[no not baxter 0]

LOL @ telling someone who runs his own coaching site about other sites where he can get coaching.

lol ya this is funny