Dn Playing 100/200

[JoeyJoJo 18]

But I will say that it's completely wrong for you to say so absolutely that a person grinding 5/10 cannot beat a 100/200 game right now unless he hops in and proves it. It doesn't have to say anything about them as a poker player if he can beat 100/200 but is playing 5/10. Maybe he usually plays 25/50 and will sit 100/200 when it's going, but he happened to go on a 75k hand break even stretch at 25/50. You know that winning players do that online? The best players grind out hands day after day and don't get to win. That's one reason. Maybe he just doesn't have the BR for 100/200 cause he just bought a house or invested a lot of money away from poker. There are dozens of reasons why poker players play lower stakes than they are capable of beating.

But...are these guys you just described considered 5/10 players? Isn't there a difference between a 5/10 player and someone playing 5/10?

[Fade2241 0]

I think it means that the player sucks because he views poker in a way that allows him a way to make a significant income with relatively little risk of ruin, as opposed to daniel who is awesome because he was self admittedly relatively "poker broke" a few years ago after losing a shit ton in the big game playing a huge predominately PLO game that was out of his bankroll thanks to his ego.I think.

Yeah, i'm pretty sure DN has Card Player articles or whatever telling players how important game selection is if you want to be a winning player, etc. That's why i asked for the clarification. Contradiction ftw.

[Fade2241 0]

But...are these guys you just described considered 5/10 players? Isn't there a difference between a 5/10 player and someone playing 5/10?

Good point, imo DN is someone who is just playing 100/200, he's not a 100/200 player. goes both ways.

[Balloon guy 158]

Acid Knight is right,I could probably beat $100/$200 NL but it is my choice to play $.10/$.25 PLO instead.I mean, I can win races. And I know a flush beats a straight.

[Acid_Knight 2]

But...are these guys you just described considered 5/10 players? Isn't there a difference between a 5/10 player and someone playing 5/10?

As a live player, you probably describe yourself as one thing or another because you log most of your hours playing one game.Online, people have the choice of playing multiple stakes at the same time. I play HU and play 1/2 to 5/10 and I'm starting to play 10/20. If someone asks, I tell them that I play 1/2 to 5/10.Since the 100/200 games don't run too often (I'm just guessing here, but isn't 25/50 the highest limit that regularly runs?) then most players would probably refer to themselves as 25/50 players.Overall I think it's fairly unimportant. My point was that there is a pool of players who are probably (or have proven themselves) capable of beating 100/200 that aren't playing those stakes for whatever multitude of reasons. If someone can beat 100/200 but over the course of the year plays 500k hands at 5/10 and 10/20 and then they play (and win) over a 18k hand sample of 100/200, I'd still call them a 5/10 or 10/20 player.Fade is right though. What you call yourself in terms of what kind of player you are isn't really important. It's just semantics.

[Merby 3]

People who don't have Masters degrees are idiots. Some of *those* people may claim to be just as smart as us people with higher degrees, but I just don't buy that and I never, ever will. They may have the potential to be just as smart, but unless they actually enroll in a graduate program there is no way to know if they'd be smart enough to earn that degree. If a person WAS smart enough to earn a Masters degree but still chose to keep his corporate job and not go back to university, that says a lot about the type of person he is.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

My point was that there is a pool of players who are probably (or have proven themselves) capable of beating 100/200 that aren't playing those stakes for whatever multitude of reasons. If someone can beat 100/200 but over the course of the year plays 500k hands at 5/10 and 10/20 and then they play (and win) over a 18k hand sample of 100/200, I'd still call them a 5/10 or 10/20 player.

Well, this is what I was wondering about. If you jumped on a random 5/10 table, you would expect to be playing against players who can right now beat 100/200? I would've guessed that the majority of 5/10 players are playing 5/10 because they aren't ready to play higher. But, you know, I don't play poker, so I'm just guessing.

It's just semantics.

Get him, vb!

[Acid_Knight 2]

Well, this is what I was wondering about. If you jumped on a random 5/10 table, you would expect to be playing against players who can right now beat 100/200? I would've guessed that the majority of 5/10 players are playing 5/10 because they aren't ready to play higher. But, you know, I don't play poker, so I'm just guessing.

Let's make one thing clear here. I don't think that many of the 5/10 players are capable of beating 100/200. I would say that on any given day though you're bound to see one or two of them since they're the regs who are pouring in a ton of volume and crushing the 5/10 games. Those are the guys that I'd guess have the chops to sit right down in the 100/200 game and hold their own.The vast majority of poker players are losing players. They cannot beat the rake and or the players that they sit down at the tables with. Of the select group of players who are capable of beating 5/10 or whatever limits they're playing, a vast majority of those players can't beat limits higher than where they're at since it is such a struggle for them to win in the first place. There are guys though like DrGiggy (that Tim pointed out on the previous page) and someone like Nanonoko who grind out hands at 5/10 and below, but are just such good players that you wouldn't want to bet against them in a higher stakes game.I've been careful since I'm not trying to say anything about Daniel's game or anything here because I'm trying to talk in generalities about the skill levels of groups of people and point out what I see to be the flaws in DN's argument, which have nothing to do with his abilities as a player. If I had to bet on someone to beat a 100/200 game, I'd bet on someone like Nanonoko or DrGiggy who has seen hundreds of thousands of hands and is a great thinking player and beats 5/10 as opposed to betting on someone like DN who's just now putting in work to try and reorient himself with the state of today's NL game online, even if he's playing at stakes that are much lower than what he's used to playing and therefore isn't affected by the money. I just think the guys who are more in tune with what's going on and have a more sound mechanical background are the guys who are going to be more likely to succeed before someone like DN does here.

[Acid_Knight 2]

People who don't have Masters degrees are idiots. Some of *those* people may claim to be just as smart as us people with higher degrees, but I just don't buy that and I never, ever will. They may have the potential to be just as smart, but unless they actually enroll in a graduate program there is no way to know if they'd be smart enough to earn that degree. If a person WAS smart enough to earn a Masters degree but still chose to keep his corporate job and not go back to university, that says a lot about the type of person he is.

[nutzbuster 7]

Don't you guys get it?All of this was just a brilliant plan by Daniel to get some of the best players ever on FCP to start posting here again.Genius sir. :icon_clap:edit: omg Merby...

[KingJames 11]

<3 Merby Great posts, AK

[Fade2241 0]

People who don't have Masters degrees are idiots. Some of *those* people may claim to be just as smart as us people with higher degrees, but I just don't buy that and I never, ever will. They may have the potential to be just as smart, but unless they actually enroll in a graduate program there is no way to know if they'd be smart enough to earn that degree. If a person WAS smart enough to earn a Masters degree but still chose to keep his corporate job and not go back to university, that says a lot about the type of person he is.

awesome <3

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Nah, I just don't buy that and I never, ever will. They may have the potential to be just as good, but unless they actually play in the 100-200 games there is no way to know if they'd be successful against the other top players in that game. If a player WAS good enough to beat 100-200 but still chose to play 5-10 that says a lot about the type of player he is.

The skill gap between limits is much closer than you think + most people aren't huge degenerates like Isildur.

I think part of the differing view is that Daniel may not realize how wide a limit range some of the winning regular players will play. A lot of the players who have been playing with Daniel at 100/200 also put in a lot of hands at 10/20.

[CoolHandKai 0]

People who don't have Masters degrees are idiots. Some of *those* people may claim to be just as smart as us people with higher degrees, but I just don't buy that and I never, ever will. They may have the potential to be just as smart, but unless they actually enroll in a graduate program there is no way to know if they'd be smart enough to earn that degree. If a person WAS smart enough to earn a Masters degree but still chose to keep his corporate job and not go back to university, that says a lot about the type of person he is.

That's kinda the point - if there is a job description that requires a Masters, would a person without one really apply and say "I don't have the Masters, but I'm sure I could do the job regardless."? Also, would the company hire that guy, if they've got other candidates available?If Daniel wants to play 100$/200$ to improve his high stakes game, it's pretty daft to come out and say "Play 5$/10$ instead, the players there could beat 100$/200$!". Even if that statement were true, it is meaningless, as those guys are playing 5$/10$ and not 100$/200$. I have to agree with Daniel, unless those guys (whomever we are talking about here) actually play at the stake that Daniel wants to play, the statement "Well, they could beat the game..." is worthless.The bottom line is: Why should someone, who wants to play 100$/200$, sift through the player base of 5$/10$ in order to find guys that would be able to play 100$/200$, when he can instead play 100$/200$ right away with those players without any selection process?

[Voldemort 0]

People who don't have Masters degrees are idiots. Some of *those* people may claim to be just as smart as us people with higher degrees, but I just don't buy that and I never, ever will. They may have the potential to be just as smart, but unless they actually enroll in a graduate program there is no way to know if they'd be smart enough to earn that degree. If a person WAS smart enough to earn a Masters degree but still chose to keep his corporate job and not go back to university, that says a lot about the type of person he is.

So great

[bull62 0]

Why should someone, who wants to play 100$/200$, sift through the player base of 5$/10$ in order to find guys that would be able to play 100$/200$, when he can instead play 100$/200$ right away with those players without any selection process?

Maybe to get a solid fundamental base before getting into high stakes leveling wars?

[Whatever 1]

Which is what he already said he plans to do if/when he learns how to multi-screen.

[Mills 0]

I am nowhere close to the skill level of 98 percent of those that have posted here... so I won't comment on the poker side. But it does seem odd that DN starts his posts in this thread proclaiming that the viewpoints of others are clearly wrong and his are clearly right. He's created the adversarial atmosphere that has arisen here because he is being so dismissive of everyone else's point of view.

[Whatever 1]

They don't play 100/200 duh.

[CoolHandKai 0]

I am nowhere close to the skill level of 98 percent of those that have posted here... so I won't comment on the poker side. But it does seem odd that DN starts his posts in this thread proclaiming that the viewpoints of others are clearly wrong and his are clearly right. He's created the adversarial atmosphere that has arisen here because he is being so dismissive of everyone else's point of view.

Personally, if I had to read several condescending statements like "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." I would be a lot less friendly in my response. DN certainly has his fair share of guilt in escalating the adversarial atmosphere, but I wouldn't say he created it. But this is not a kindergarden, "He started it!" shouldn't really factor into any of this. This thread pretty much is about Daniel playing 100$/200$ (it's not about playing 5$/10$ and it's not about the skill level of 5$/10$ players either), so perhaps we could get back on topic rather than pursuing the thread hijack?

[JustLikeNegs 1]

Personally, if I had to read several condescending statements like "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." I would be a lot less friendly in my response. DN certainly has his fair share of guilt in escalating the adversarial atmosphere, but I wouldn't say he created it. But this is not a kindergarden, "He started it!" shouldn't really factor into any of this. This thread pretty much is about Daniel playing 100$/200$ (it's not about playing 5$/10$ and it's not about the skill level of 5$/10$ players either), so perhaps we could get back on topic rather than pursuing the thread hijack?

you live in fantasy forum land!

[Balloon guy 158]

Seems to me that DN has been very vocal public lately that he is not at the level of PA, Durrrrrrr Ivey etc. and is admitting he needs to learn more before he can claim to be on par with them.He also was a few years ago at the top of the game, maybe not the best, but playing at that level regularly.The skill level passed him by, and it took a couple years for him to admit it.So now he dropped down to play a lower stake to increase his knowledge to the point he can play at the upper levels.Seems $100/$200 is a pretty big drop for his previous level, which is what everyone is saying he should do.Personally I would bet that most decent players who grind 10/20 Nl regularly could play any levels if properly rolled. But maybe I don't know enough about the higher levels to understand why I am wrong or right.And besides, how is DN going to continue to coach players how to play if he doesn't learn first?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

And what is that? Please explain what that would say about the player imo

Well the obvious. The player is risk averse and not too interested in trying to maximize his profits if it means risking ruin. I wouldn't say a nit, but along those lines. If someone was well rolled, enough to play 100-200 but stuck to 5-10 instead the only logical reason is that they are afraid of ruin and/or don't think they could beat the game for as much as they could a 5-10 game.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I think it means that the player sucks because he views poker in a way that allows him a way to make a significant income with relatively little risk of ruin, as opposed to daniel who is awesome because he was self admittedly relatively "poker broke" a few years ago after losing a shit ton in the big game playing a huge predominately PLO game that was out of his bankroll thanks to his ego.I think.

Well isn't this some flat out BS. I don't think it means the player would suck, but how could any of you argue that there is no way to say for sure if a player was capable of beating the 100-200 game unless they actually played in it? How a player reacts against 5-10 players doesn't tell the story of how they would do in a game versus 100-200 players. That's not elitist, that's just a fact. As for the second part, where in the world did you hear that BS? PLO game? Um what??? If your definition of a few years ago meant 10 years ago you'd have a point. I hardly ever played a PLO game. I played one session where PLO was in the max with an elevated cap and lost 1.3 million days after winning about 650k. I was still up on the year.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I've pretty much just left the posts alone in this thread, but this post comes off as pretty ignorant to me and is probably insulting to a lot of good winning players who play mid to high stakes.Do you know what 5/10 and 10/20 NL plays like these days? Do you know what it takes to grind out tens of thousands of hands in a 6max game with 4 other regs and a fish (or 5 other regs) and still win day after day? It's fine that you don't. It's not your job to know and it obviously doesn't say anything positively or negatively about you whether you know or not... ...until you start talking like you do know the skill level of those players and you're not speaking too highly of them. Then it makes you look bad imo.Every poker player has a ceiling in their development. Some players are willing to acknowledge this ceiling and realize that the best that they might ever do is regularly beat a 5/10 game. For some people, they'll never beat 1/2. Some people will beat $1k/$2k. Some people will have their ceiling at 10/20 and will regularly keep trying to play 25/50 and it won't work. Just because a player is regularly playing 5/10 NL, it doesn't mean that they can't beat 100/200 NL and it doesn't mean that they couldn't sit in the game today and beat it. There are other factors involved that have the players playing the limits that they are playing.I'm not saying Mike (no not baxter) is right here because I don't know. I don't know which 5/10 players would or could beat a 100/200 game right now. I know that the good and great players at 5/10 have the mechanics to beat any limit. Poker is still poker and ranges are still ranges. Maybe they grasp the other psychological things that are going on right away and maybe they don't. But I will say that it's completely wrong for you to say so absolutely that a person grinding 5/10 cannot beat a 100/200 game right now unless he hops in and proves it. It doesn't have to say anything about them as a poker player if he can beat 100/200 but is playing 5/10. Maybe he usually plays 25/50 and will sit 100/200 when it's going, but he happened to go on a 75k hand break even stretch at 25/50. You know that winning players do that online? The best players grind out hands day after day and don't get to win. That's one reason. Maybe he just doesn't have the BR for 100/200 cause he just bought a house or invested a lot of money away from poker. There are dozens of reasons why poker players play lower stakes than they are capable of beating.I just think that you should state your opinion a bit more as opinion than fact.You don't even know if you're beating this game. You've played under 3k hands at those stakes and that's what most of these guys play in the first half of the day. I just don't think you should be talking down to established winning players about a game that nobody knows if you're beating as if your voice is the voice of experience about anything related to online poker.

Is everyone taking crazy pills today??? Gosh, my point is clear and valid and shouldn't be seen as condescending in the least. Of course a 5-10 player could beat the game. Most 100-200 players once played 5-10. My point is that you can't possibly know unless they actually play. Why is that condescending or insulting? I didn't ever say the winning 5-10 grinders suck. My point was that I don't want to learn from them when I have the option of learning from the players playing at the stakes I want to succeed at. Yes, I get it. 5-10 is hard. What the hell does that have to do with my point?