daniel's explanation?

[IndyJoe 0]

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying into Daniel's explanation. I understand all of his points, but it was still an a$$hole move. He says it's not an advantage, but that's not true. There are so many examples where he's putting the other players in a bad situation. If Daniel moves in for 100k, and you've doubled your 2k buy-in to 4k, and you have top pair, would you call? How about 2nd pair? What if you're first to bet, and Daniel is behind you? You can't force him out with a big bet. He's taking pots away from you when normally you could take them down. I can see how it could be a positive situation. Like the guy that got lucky when he flopped his set, but what about the guys that get sucked out on, or what about the guy that loses his AQ vs Q6 because he was forced in preflop? As Daniel stated, HE came out ahead. Not the "little" guys. I would like to see Daniel go down to the Bellagio, and play in the big game, and see if he plays the same way then! Lets see if he acts so arrogant and cocky when the money he loses would actually hurt him a little. Does it make him feel better to bully the table? DN = Donkey Negreanu

[allinbluff35 0]

TPMMASP

[crowTrobot 2]

at best it was pointless because doing that has gotta be terrible practice for tourneys or higher level $ games.

[cabbage 0]

I understand both sides of this ...but Daniel has to believe that a fellow with a million dollars versus my 5 grand with take some "wild" chances against my perfect plays and eventually win with a lucky shot...all in that is..

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I understand both sides of this ...but Daniel has to believe that a fellow with a million dollars versus my 5 grand with take some "wild" chances against my perfect plays and eventually win with a lucky shot...all in that is..

With 10-20 blinds??? If you have $5000 in front of you and the guy tries to hit a gut shot on you he isn't going to hit it very often. When he misses, you'd have $10,000. You could keep playing, or take your profit. It amazes me that this concept isn't sinking in with many of you. As for me being an arrogant jerk, dude, everybody was having a good time. I was mocking myself, having fun, being a goofball. Everyone enjoyed it, why does that bother YOU?

[allinbluff35 0]

It amazes me that this concept isn't sinking in with many of you.

most people don't understand deep stacked NLHE, they only understand 100bb buyin games or tournaments.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I understand both sides of this ...but Daniel has to believe that a fellow with a million dollars versus my 5 grand with take some "wild" chances against my perfect plays and eventually win with a lucky shot...all in that is..

With 10-20 blinds??? If you have $5000 in front of you and the guy tries to hit a gut shot on you he isn't going to hit it very often. When he misses, you'd have $10,000. You could keep playing, or take your profit. It amazes me that this concept isn't sinking in with many of you. As for me being an arrogant jerk, dude, everybody was having a good time. I was mocking myself, having fun, being a goofball. Everyone enjoyed it, why does that bother YOU?

To quote Jay Z, Daniel, brush that dirt off your shoulder. Don't worry about haters, you can't please every body.

[booyaga 0]

Damn....if I had a choice between putting up 10k for the WSOP, or taking my chances with the "crazy romanian" and his wad o' cash, I would take the latter.

[Ralphy 0]

DN ignore these losers. If I was there I would have been dying to sit at that table. -and I am certain that everyone most likely was having a good time. You are the Wynn poker spokesman and sitting at some of the tables is what you are suppossed to do.ignore the fools

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

DN ignore these losers. If I was there I would have been dying to sit at that table. -and I am certain that everyone most likely was having a good time. You are the Wynn poker spokesman and sitting at some of the tables is what you are suppossed to do.ignore the fools

Actually, daniel, you owe it to your fans to only play grueling, heads up matches with Barry greenstien and Phil Ivey for 2,000,000 dollars a piece. Anything less than that makes you a coward and a failure. You should never have fun playing poker, and only play for maxium stakes. :roll:

[Tantalar 0]

What the hell, seriously? How can anyone in their right mind insult a guy for having some fun!?Are you trying to agitate him before the big tournament? Show a little support. Instead of trying to rip him apart on his own forum, you should perhaps stop talking and go away.And rather than go to name calling... Last time someone was being a jerk to him and I tried to defend him he said to just act nice and pray for the guy's soul. So in honor of DN, lets pray that the corruption and evil in INDYJOE's heart is washed away by our prayers Killem with kindness as DN said!

[GamblinLeaf 0]

Siiiigh. In all the other pointless threads on this topic I asked a couple of pretty simple questions, but no one took the time to answer me. All I wanted to know was: 1) Were there well-armed individuals forcing people to sit down at the "crazy romanian's" table? 2) Was Wynn security preventing people from getting up and leaving said table?Just wondering.

[billybob6q6 0]

Yes, this is my first post, and yes, I did sign-up specifically to address this issue.I am a well-know poker pro who wishes to remain anonymous (for now). I do not wish to get into a big exchange with Daniel (a la Barry G).Daniel you are wrong on many levels.First, I have not seen addressed your most controversial statement, which is:I genuinely, and honestly believe I could beat that game without ever looking at my cards. I'm dead serious. I couldn't win if they knew that obviously, but I am certain that I could squeak out a small profit just by taking pots that no one else wants.This statement is true. You can beat it playing this way not because of your superior skill, but because of your huge stack. More specifically, it doesn't matter if someone is "taking at shot" for $2,000. The stakes are high enough to make players in that game care about the money at risk. $125,000 means must less to you than $2,000 means to these players. That is the key. If they had say $30 at risk and you played this way, they would never fold and your style would not overpower the game. You're counting on the fact that the money matters to them and a loss would affect them. For this "blind" style to work, the stakes need to be high enough for the other players to value the money at riskIt is this same concept that prohibited Doyle, Jen, Howard, et al from playing Andy Beal much higher than they did. They knew Andy wanted to play high enough to put the pros in an uncomfortsble position, thus reducing if not eliminating their edge. Andy's bigger bankroll and the pros style adjsutments due to the very high limits would work to Andy's favor. The pros acknowledged all of this, thus their insistence on setting these limits.Casinos don't set table limits to slowly rake the players. They do it to prohbit what you're doing. The game can be overpowered. An analogy would be the table limits set in the pits. If there were no range of bets allowed, only a mininum bet at Blackjack say, the game could easily be beaten by a millionaire just by using the double your bet method. (just keep doubling your bet when you lose, until you win eventually. As long as you don't go broke you will beat the casino.)Daniel, I like you and think you are a great player and a fine person. Players with your character have advanced poker and its perception. But you will never be included with the true elite until you're above sitting in this type of game for amusement. Doyle, Chip, and Johnny would never do this. Tiger Woods would never appear at the local public course and play blind-folded.

[FiveFingerz 0]

Well after reading through this thread and reading Daniels Blog, you know i realized how one sided and arogant people can be just because you dont think the same way they do. But anyway I have to agree with Daniel and must say I often buy in with less than the maxium limit sometimes with less then everyone at the table especially in online games and I have made out just fine. Heres the thing that people are not understanding when you sit down with the least amount of chips or someone sits down with 10x's more chips than you it actually gives you an advantage especially if you are being bullied. Any player with any kind of skills in this game is just gonna sit back and wait for their hand slo-play it and cash in all the while studying the bully and picking up on every little mistake he makes. Being shortstacked in cash game doesnt force you to do anything because you can get up and leave whenever you like so you can not compare it to tourney play.Anyway I use this as common practice in online ring games because #1 it minimizes my loses when I am having a bad night and not catching cards and it maxamizes my profits when I sit a table with some yahoo who thinks he can bully everyone around because he has more chips then everyone. And as for that last guy billybob whoever you are bless you child you need Jesus in your life, Just cause your a pro at whatever you do doesnt make you a better person than everyone else and so what if you want to have some fun with amatures or up and coming poker players its just that, fun. Just cause your a pro means that you can only sit at tables with other pros yea OK whatever dude.Keep up the good work Daniel its nice to have a pro like you who takes the time out to mingle with us lowly amatures and give us some insight on this wonderful game. We apprieciate it. As for those who want to criticize you for what you do, we pray for them they are just jealous....LOL

[jaaaaakke 0]

I'm only mad that daniel mentioned a slanksy book.... Shhhhhh.. :wink:

[Tantalar 0]

Keep up the good work Daniel its nice to have a pro like you who takes the time out to mingle with us lowly amatures and give us some insight on this wonderful game. We apprieciate it. As for those who want to criticize you for what you do, we pray for them they are just jealous....LOL

ExactlyAnd what is with all the hate? Sheesh

[dfresh 0]

I agree completely with this post. A large stack in a low, non-progressive blind no limit game is not much of an advantage, playing against someone that doesn't care about the money can be difficult.All in all....I would have paid to get the seat on DN's left that night.

Yes, this is my first post, and yes, I did sign-up specifically to address this issue.I am a well-know poker pro who wishes to remain anonymous (for now). I do not wish to get into a big exchange with Daniel (a la Barry G).Daniel you are wrong on many levels.First, I have not seen addressed your most controversial statement, which is:I genuinely, and honestly believe I could beat that game without ever looking at my cards. I'm dead serious. I couldn't win if they knew that obviously, but I am certain that I could squeak out a small profit just by taking pots that no one else wants.This statement is true. You can beat it playing this way not because of your superior skill, but because of your huge stack. More specifically, it doesn't matter if someone is "taking at shot" for $2,000. The stakes are high enough to make players in that game care about the money at risk. $125,000 means must less to you than $2,000 means to these players. That is the key. If they had say $30 at risk and you played this way, they would never fold and your style would not overpower the game. You're counting on the fact that the money matters to them and a loss would affect them. For this "blind" style to work, the stakes need to be high enough for the other players to value the money at riskIt is this same concept that prohibited Doyle, Jen, Howard, et al from playing Andy Beal much higher than they did. They knew Andy wanted to play high enough to put the pros in an uncomfortsble position, thus reducing if not eliminating their edge. Andy's bigger bankroll and the pros style adjsutments due to the very high limits would work to Andy's favor. The pros acknowledged all of this, thus their insistence on setting these limits.Casinos don't set table limits to slowly rake the players. They do it to prohbit what you're doing. The game can be overpowered. An analogy would be the table limits set in the pits. If there were no range of bets allowed, only a mininum bet at Blackjack say, the game could easily be beaten by a millionaire just by using the double your bet method. (just keep doubling your bet when you lose, until you win eventually. As long as you don't go broke you will beat the casino.)Daniel, I like you and think you are a great player and a fine person. Players with your character have advanced poker and its perception. But you will never be included with the true elite until you're above sitting in this type of game for amusement. Doyle, Chip, and Johnny would never do this. Tiger Woods would never appear at the local public course and play blind-folded.

[Kangaroo 0]

Daniel, I like you and think you are a great player and a fine person. Players with your character have advanced poker and its perception. But you will never be included with the true elite until you're above sitting in this type of game for amusement. Doyle, Chip, and Johnny would never do this. Tiger Woods would never appear at the local public course and play blind-folded.

while I respect what you've said above what i quoted I disagree with this part. In the pro poker circles (which im not a part of) you may be right and you may not be considered truely elite unless you exclusively play the top game? So daniel sat down at a low limit table at a casino which he is a spokesperosn for and played a table limit which some of the people with lesser bankrolls play. so what? he had some fun and made some money? Im not entirely sure of the format in vegas because im from Australia but would it be different if DN only bought in for a meager amount but went allin and took a couple of bad beats and rebought in several times? is the problem here the amount of his buy in? sitting down with 125,000 in chips. personally if I was sitting at a table with DN I'd know even if he only had 2000 in chips in front of him he wouldnt have any trouble buying in again if he went bust. In my opinion it makes daniel more human to interact outside the social clique of the top game I'd love to play at a table with him, what an experience! I dont mean to be rude but the last part of this post came across as a bit snobbish sure I can see where you are coming from but lets compare apples with apples, I'm 100% sure that I couldnt beat tiger woods at one hole of golf in my life. however Im pretty confident I could win money off daniel if I was holding AA even if it was just a blind. Poker has become an extremely popular game and the interaction of the top "celebrity" players with the joe blows and fred bloggs is part of what makes it entertaining to me.Again to normal people (not pros) like myself the fact that Doyle, Chip and Johnny dont play in the low games for amusement isnt what makes them elite to me, it's their success in tournaments and overall what they've made from poker I mean come on two of these guys have won what 10 bracelets? i think having that on the resume makes them stand out a fair bit by itself. I mean if Daniel is having a bit of fun making money and preparing for a tournament thsi way what's the problem? has he made so much from poker that you're going to ban him for the lower limits completely? no if playing in the lower limits and having a bit of fun makes someone "not elite" I wouldnt be too worried about their conceptions of me.btw give us a clue, do you have a big beard?apologies for the structure of this post it was a bit of a string of thoughts and i can tend to get carried away.

[Newbs 0]

Yup. Think we all figured out who the new guy is. Gigs up.

[Ralphy 0]

Daniel, I like you and think you are a great player and a fine person. Players with your character have advanced poker and its perception. But you will never be included with the true elite until you're above sitting in this type of game for amusement. Doyle, Chip, and Johnny would never do this. Tiger Woods would never appear at the local public course and play blind-folded.

Daniel's personality is very much different than the pros you just mentioned. that is why he can get away with sitting at that table whereas a Phil Ivey could not.Daniel is lighthearted, fun, and childlike. He likes to goof around and that is one of the reasons he is so popular.i think you need to focus on the part where, "almost everyone had a blast". I am sure that the guy who took a big loss did not have so much fun, but that's poker.

[trumpman84 0]

If Daniel moves in for 100k, and you've doubled your 2k buy-in to 4k, and you have top pair, would you call? How about 2nd pair?

You call if you think you have the best hand, you fold if you don't. How does this change if you have $4000 and someone has a "reasonable" buyin of $5000 and moves in on you? It's the same situation. If you think you have the best hand enough of the times to call, but you fold because you don't want to risk $4000 or however much you have at the table, you are playing too high stakes and need to switch tables...end of story.And as DN said, everyone was having a blast and I'm sure they were...I know I would've if I was there...why does this bother so many people?

[Whiteside 0]

Being untouchable and 'above' having fun with the public should not make someone truly elite. Likewise, being fully accessible to the public without success doesn't make you elite (it just makes you a member of the public!). A lot of success with some genuine openness and PR skills will get you a long way towards it - for this generation of players and followers at least.The key point for me is that the game was not solely for DN's amusement. Those that chose to stay at the table did so presumably either because they saw an opportunity or because they were also enjoying themselves. I see no problem in that.[/b]

[murmar 0]

Does anyone else remember reading what Paul Phillips had to say on the subject? It was a while ago, and might have been on 2+2. From what I remember, he said that it was great to be the guy with tons of money, that he was "donking off" tons of chips only to take them all back later after he had convinced everyone that he was a maniac. Anyone have a problem with that?

[blueodum 0]

Well I think DN is absolutely right that a bad player with a huge stack against a bunch of good players with small stacks is at a huge disadvantage.But DN also explained in a separate thread why he sat down at the game. It was part of his preparation for the upcoming tournament. He calls it nutbar- s0mething that he's described many times in the past. It consists of playing aggressively pre-flop (basically raising every pot), but thereafter trying to play well. The purpose is (as DN explained) to create difficult post-flop situations so he can sharpen his play.Having the other players covered by such a huge amount means he can force them to make a decision for their whole stack at any point in time. For the shortstacks the game is simplified to a binary decision - enter the pot (and go all in) or fold. That kind of poker isn't my idea of fun.And even in the cases where a shortstack has a good hand, and DN hasn't put him all in, now he faces the prospect of trying to outplay DN postflop.It would be completely different if all the players bought in for 150 000 and were all wealthy enough that losing it wouldn't hurt. Then they could play the kind of "pure NL" DN talked about in this entry.To sum up:I understand that if you are putting your money in with the best of it, you are + EV - ON THAT PARTICULAR HAND. But when one stack dominates the others and is wielded by a skilled player, there are tactical advantages that work in the other direction.

[trumpman84 0]

But when one stack dominates the others and is wielded by a skilled player, there are tactical advantages that work in the other direction.

This is simply not true...it would only be true if the players were forced to keep playing until they busted him, but in a cash game players can leave with their winnings whenever they choose, and they can even rebuy if they get unlucky unlike a tournament. A lot of people's buy-in strategy for a no limit game is to cover the entire table. What difference does it make if that person covers the table by $1,000 chips or by $200,000 chips? None whatsoever. An all-in bet is only as big as your stack is.You are thinking along the lines of "With such a big stack, DN could go all in every hand and he would bust the entire table inevitably" The truth is, if DN did that, he would only be called by premium pairs and maybe AK, and lose most of his show downs. The players who doubled up would probably leave when they got uncomfortable with their stack..they don't have to stay to get DN down to 0 and the blinds aren't rising or giving them any pressure to play hands, so the simple strategy would be to wait for a big hand and call. Daniel would be down quite a few thousand and doubling a lot people up until they decide to leave.