daniel's explanation?

[Mack Show 0]

If you are a bad player and you sit down with a huge stack against good players, there is no advantage.But if you are a good play and you sit down with a huge stack against bad players you are at an advantage in no limit.If it is limit it's all even.Of couse this is just my opinion based on observations over playing casino poker for the last 3 years.Keep posting DN I read it everyday!!To all the haters why are you even posting go back to your basement computers and Pokerstars free rolls.

[jimj2001 0]

Daniel, I think you've given a very cogent explanation as to the advantages and disadvantages to your large stack vs. other players and I agree with the purely logical aspect of it. But I would add that the point that is maybe rankling some is your comment "I genuinely, and honestly believe I could beat that game without ever looking at my cards." I'm sure you could, but...I only wonder what impact your persona influences the game and how people play while you're at the table. As you said, everyone was having a good time, as I'm sure I would. Many would even play a lot differently than normal simply because of the entertainment value brought to the game by a pro as well as someone who is clearly entertaining to play with , as you demonstrate when we see you on the tube. (I once had Phil Ivey sit down next to me in an online game at $.05/.10 limits and I've had such a great time telling that story to my poker friends, it goes beyond the actual poker playing- its about fun, celebrity, entertainment- the most entertainment I've ever had for under $10). If I got to sit at a table with you I'd play as tight as possible just to be able to extend the experience, be entertained and maybe even learn something.From a poker point of view I think you're right on the money but is it "sporting"? (yea, I know once you sit down at the table everyone's a grownup and all that) The answer is in the perception of the individual. I recommend an experiment. Go online and try to duplicate the expereince in terms of limits, bankrolls,etc. But play anonymously. The response might be the same, it might be different, but it might shed some more light on what people think of the general concept vs. the concept of it being done by DN who we all genuinely like.My guess is that you'll get cursed out like us amateurs do (by other amateurs)when we make that flush on the river against 3 aces. GL on the WPT.

[princeof56k 0]

As Daniel stated, HE came out ahead. Not the "little" guys.

While Daniel did say he came out ahead, that does mean that ALL of the little guys ended up in the red. Chances are some came out ahead, some didnt (which is the usual at a poker table when a maniac sits down). If almost all of the players ended up down, its probably due to their own poor play and they would end up losing regardless of how much Daniel sat down with.I've sat down with maniacs before. The vast majority of the time I will leave up, but I have occasionally lost to these guys (usually due to them sucking out on me repeatedly and then leaving before I have a chance to get it back. hey, it happens).From a poker perspective these games are pretty boring since I'm usually waiting to flop a monster. From a money and entertainment perspective, there are few games better than these when a maniac sits down. Usually the table is alive with a lot of joking and chatter. People are laughing and having a good time watching some miracle hand come through on the river to take down a huge pot. And you will usually end up making money off this game. Whats not to like?

[greatwhite 0]

I don't think it was an unfair move, because it was allowed, but was $125,000 really necessary? I think DN was just trying to set the image that he was there to gamble. When would you ever need $125,000 at a 5/10 table?

[screech 0]

I don't see why this topic is getting as much debate as it is.I would love to play against someone making risky plays with large amounts of money. If you can't exploit this, you shouldn't play poker. If a play is +EV its +EV, regardless of the amount of money being wagered. It seems the real issue here is people unwilling to risk large amounts of money as a favorite. It's a gamble, but that's poker. If you are uncomfortable with these situations, you should stop playing.

[shpaget 0]

If I'm at a table with $200 and some guy shows up with $100000 - awesome!!!No ifs ands or buts.The fact is, if you have brought $200 and only $200 to the table, you've made a mistake....if you're not willing or able to buy in for another $200 if you lose the first chunk on a bad beat, maybe you should go back to playing bingo at the $3/$6 LHE tables.That guy's got to play within my bankroll, not his, if he really wants to win all my money - if you got 100k, are you gonna call a guy's all-in $200 bet with your 56 of diamonds?...however, if he had $2000 and bet $200, you would play.Anytime a guy gives me a chance to win $100000 when I only have to risk $200, shoot me in the head if I ever turn down that opportunity.In fact - Daniel - I'm in Vegas next week - Monday - Thursday - you want to play a Head's Up match? My $200 against your $100k? And either of us can quit whenever we want. 8)

[Balloon guy 158]

I was at a casino last night and some higher stakes blackjack players sat down at our 4/8 full kill with about 20 black chips. They both raised with any ace, and capped with any small pair. After I won about $250 from them I quit because I was starting to call them with lousy hands, bcause I knew they didn't care about this. They even said after a full cap loss with ace high against a pair of 4's, it's still less than one hand on blackjack.I won a little, and left when I could no longer control myselfOthers called them down with middle pairs and sometimes loss, then acted like these guys got lucky???Greed made most of us play like jackals. ( to quote Phil Helmuth)If I had more time and control, I would have stayed and made more money.If you can't control your game, then DN will take your money with his huge stack.If you can, you stand to do well.I knew others felt the same when someone at the 25/50 table asked his friend if they should maybe move over to the 4/8 for a little while.

[Chris S 0]

I don't see why this topic is getting as much debate as it is.I would love to play against someone making risky plays with large amounts of money. If you can't exploit this, you shouldn't play poker. If a play is +EV its +EV, regardless of the amount of money being wagered. It seems the real issue here is people unwilling to risk large amounts of money as a favorite. It's a gamble, but that's poker. If you are uncomfortable with these situations, you should stop playing.

I couldn't agree more.

[shpaget 0]

It comes down to people having a set amount of money they are comfortable losing, but they don't want to lose it in one shot.Me, I set my limit, whatever it may be - after that it doesn't matter to me if I lose it over the course of 3 hours or on the first hand...if I think I'm winning, or can win based on the odds, then my chips are going in the middle, regardless.

[billybob6q6 0]

There is so much more to decision making than just making +EV plays. If Daniel was offered 6 to 5 on a coin flip for his entire net worth he would not do it. Why do you think his challenge matches are offered only between $100k and $500k? Because that's his comfort zone. Any more and his security is in jeopardy and any less and all the FCPers will be taking shots for $5k.Sure, Daniel has the right to play for fun. To be a great player you don't have to only play against other great players. The point is, it tells us alot about Daniel because he chooses to do this for amusement. Daniel has stated he wishes to be considered among the games greatest someday, if not the greatest player ever. He certainly has the ability. But he'll likely have to choose to either be the best or the most popular. Ask a top pro who the best players are and then ask someone who watches poker on TV and you'll get different answers. Does Daniel want to be another Hellmuth, Gus, or Duke...players TV represents as world class but no top pro does, or does Daniel wish to have respect among his piers?Twenty years from now Daniel could be considered the best ever. He is immensely talented for reason most on this forum can not comprehend. His play during this year's WSOP main event was pure genius, even though he was out quick. His hand against Deeb on FOX was probably the best poker hand ever televised. But he needs to get back to playing and away from being an internet hero. If I've read all his posts this year, since February he's been a break even player in ring games and is down in tourneys. He's lost his focus.If he has chosen to be a business man, ambassabor, family man, etc and live happily ever after, he has earned that right and has the money to do it. But no one will remember him 5 years from now.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

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.

Nothing personal, but you are way wrong. For me to beat the game without looking at my cards I would NEVER go all in. My strategy would be to play very SMALL pots with very little risk at all. The size of my stack would be totally irrelevant, aside from the neccesity to be able to bet a hand through to the river if necessary.

[JaysonWeber 0]

Psst.. What are you talking about Daniel. Small Ball Doesn't work in poker anymore Go All In. (sw)

[ACEVIPER 0]

daniel is right on and i also am surprised at so many not understanding. in fact reading that blog i was wishing i was on that table laying in wait for that $125,000.00 all in bet. keep having fun danny o' boy and don't listen to the haters. congrats on the marriage!ACEVIPER

[ACEVIPER 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.

[Entrepeneur 0]

Tons of opinions here. But that's what it's for. Ok...It seems like Daniel was using this for a couple of reasons:1. Have some fun and give the Wynn, guests and himself a good time.2. Let off some steam at a 'no threat' limit game.3. Mostly..to practice reading people. He didn't indicate that he called every hand and went all in every time. He said he did it some (only mentioned some of the hands). I didn't hear him mention the 10 times he went all in when someone raised with pocket aces preflop. I think there's a reason for that. He was trying to read people and make powerful decisions when they are on medium type hands. By putting them all in, he can discover if he was right fairly quickly. I think it was a great practice run to try and read some of the wild cards you'll get near the beginning of the tournament. There will be plenty of people near the beginning of the tournament who limp in and raise with moderate hands, and when Daniel can pick-up on that, he can build his stack.That seems to be some part of his nutbar article that he referred to.Just practice reading people.And...he gave the guests a great time, a memorable time and a couple of guys made some good money off him. (I don't think he lost and won back everything from one person).I'm a 'hack' player who is just trying to build a bankroll and I love the site. It's really helping me analyze holes in my game and has already helped by leaps and bounds in making me a better player.just more useless thoughts ...

[ACEVIPER 0]

the post from the anonymous poker pro making an analogy comparing daniels $125,000.00 buy in to blackjack limits. yes, this is why the casinos have limits on their bj tables. this is betting against the unlimited money the house has. if daniel lost a high % of his buy in he would not at will be able to get it back. horrible analogy!ACEVIPER

[trumpman84 0]

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.)

This is a betting strategy. Betting strategies do not affect the EV of a game. If a blackjack game -EV to play in, each hand you play is -EV.By this logic a game in where you are dealt a 4 of hearts every hand and had to play high card with the dealer for even money could be beaten using this strategy.The reason casinos put limits on their blackjack game is because they want to take your money slowly. The lower the bets, the less risk there is for them and the longer you stay in the casino. They don't want a billionaire coming in with 5 billion dollars...placing it all on one hand of blackjack, winning, then leaving the casino I'm sure.

[Kangaroo 0]

Sure, Daniel has the right to play for fun. To be a great player you don't have to only play against other great players. The point is, it tells us alot about Daniel because he chooses to do this for amusement. Daniel has stated he wishes to be considered among the games greatest someday, if not the greatest player ever. He certainly has the ability. But he'll likely have to choose to either be the best or the most popular. Ask a top pro who the best players are and then ask someone who watches poker on TV and you'll get different answers. Does Daniel want to be another Hellmuth, Gus, or Duke...players TV represents as world class but no top pro does, or does Daniel wish to have respect among his piers?If he has chosen to be a business man, ambassabor, family man, etc and live happily ever after, he has earned that right and has the money to do it. But no one will remember him 5 years from now.

Why cant he be both? to be considered the best must he sacrifice his popularity with his fans? what is the notion of being the "best" judged by is it bracelets, money won in cash games, general play or a combination? who decides who the best is? when you start worrying about who is calling you what I really think you're losing focus in life daniels out there employing a technique which he has done for years(nutbar) in some sense id say it would have contributed to where he is today.sure daniels 2005 has been a bit quieter in relation to 2004 but keep in mind 2005 has been a big year for him, he's had to deal with becoming a celebrity not only that but he has had a wedding this year which is no small event. you said yourself that daniels play at the WSOP was genius what does he have to do to be one of the best? and if it disrupt his play is it worth it?You say players like hellmuth are the most popular, not the best. Hellmy has 9 (count em) 9 bracelets in my honest opinion this would have to make him one of the best tournament format poker players in the world is there such a predjudice against televised events that you're going to say he isnt one of the best poker players. I think that s abit of a slap in the face and Id assume phil would disagree it's jsut my opinion but i think a few pros needto loosen up a bit. this is what i love about Daniel he's a fun guy! and in my honest opinion he really shouldnt be worried about what a few of his peers think of him. Live your life for you DN not for your supposed "judges"

[theresa113 0]

Wouldn't it just be better if everyone did thisand chilled just a bit?

[kouta43 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.

Beating the house at roulette -you, my friend know surprisingly little about probability and statistics. Sure you are a pro? professional goofball?

[godoffrisbee 0]

even though i agree with mr negreanu, i believe there is only one way to settle this so-called "debate." Daniel should buy in at the 5/10 NL game with $1,000-2,000 and try to log a wining session by outplaying everyone. just a thought

[martinmc 0]

I am sure he could beat any 5/10 game with any buyin. The players would just by to weak and I'm sure he would just they would just have tell coming out all over. I don't think anyone at that table really cared to much about the money they were losing or they would have left. If they wanted to make money why would they stay in a game short stacked against one of pokers greatest players? I'm sure they mostly stayed in the game so they could say they won a pot or lost a pot to Dn. They're in vegas they have hundereds of games and cardrooms to choose from.

[pokerloser 0]

Why is everyone letting Hellmuth off the hook? He seams to have grasped the same concept, and everyone who plays with him, thanks him and ooo's and aaah's all over him for playing with them.At least once a week you can find Hellmuth on UB sitting at a .25/.50 NL table. where no one has more than about $50. Then I looked at what Phil brought to the table, $6500. Frankly everyone loves him for it. If you guys can't grasp this concept, then don't play, but trashing someone for it is pathetic. Everyone at that table had the right to get up whenever they wanted, make a table change, or sit out, order food and watch, whatever, but nobody ordered them to stay, so they must know something you don't? Maybe that they were having fun? playing with one of the best pro's on the circuit, maybe they thought they had a chance at some loose money. Whatever the reason, he can sit at my table with all the money in the world for all I care, and I am sure the wait list will be longer than the lines to the bathroom at the WSOP this year, and not one of us will give him one word of crap or dissent, just a few bad beats :-) if we are lucky.Keep doin' what your doin' the one thing you don't owe any of us....is an explenation!Sincerely

[jlgosse 0]

Daniel, if that's the case, most people could beat those games plaing any style like that.Anyone can pick up small pots all day, it's not that hard. That doesn't make you an excellent, world-class player.I love the way you play, but I'm with billybob on most of the argument, and I'm not even sure if this is an argument.

[kouta43 0]

here is what daniel must be thinking- you are all a bunch of morons. He says that everyone else was enjoying themselves, and i can imagine that. How many people have sat at the same table as a guy with over 100K in chips? Oh, was anyone forcing them to sit there? sit ther and be bullied around by the big stack. I think we all know the gestapo was waiting to shoot anyone that dared get up from the table because they didnt feel comfortable. It was a fun gesture, you pricks need to get a life. And by the way, ith your limited bankroll maybe you shpuld buy some perspective.