daniel's explanation?

[Allie 0]

CamelVic, you are wrong and while that is extemely frustrating, I will give it one more shot to explain it to you. I would be a favorite over a worse player if I had $2000.00 in front of me and my opponent had $125,000 in front of him provided the blinds stayed small, like $5-$10. Here is the thing, I don't HAVE to continue to risk my whole bankroll against the big stack in a cash game. I could buy in for $1000 and if I lost that, I could rebuy for another $100 if necesary. If I was the better player, chances are that after a six hour session I would be ahead. Let's say for this example I won $2000 after six hours. Now I could quit, and the next day buy in for $1000 again. If I lost that, again I could buy in for another $1000. If I was the better player, and had the time to do so, I would win every last dollar of that $125,000. Also, I would be the FAVORITE to do so. I understand what you are thinking: you are thinking in a freeze out that the big stack would win more often than that. Of course, while that's true, if the $2000 stack happens to win he gets 62.5 to 1 on his money! So, if the $2000 stack was able to win even the freezeout just once out of 50 times, he'd make a very nice profit. Does that help you?

Daniel, I think most of us understand what you are saying. But the explanations and examples you are giving are based on the long run. And I think thats the part that some people, me anyway, are having trouble with...and the part that maybe you're not understanding from our point of view. This session you played at the Wynn was not the long run. It was very much a "short run"....you only played for an hour and a half. (Not for 6 hours, as per your above example.)Let me give you my own example of what Camel Vic was trying to say in his hypothetical "email to my wife".I will call myself an intermediate poker player. Let's say I take a trip to vegas. I have 2,000 set aside for poker playing, on my 3 day trip. I decided to buy in 1000 at the 5/10 NL and give it a shot. I play for a couple of hours and I'm up 500. Then you sit at the table with 125k. I see quickly that you are playing loose and crazy. So, I decide to wait patiently and hope I get a monster and take some of that money you're "giving" away. I look down at AA in late position. UTG raises to 100 dollars, and you raise 10k in the dark, for fun. I call with my AA. Everyone else folds, and you turn over 83offsuit. The board comes 8Kj63. You win my 1500. I reload my last 1000. You leave 20 mins later. Yes, I got my money in with the best of it....and that's all you can ask for...blah blah blah. But, short term, I lost the hand and my buy in and winnings, and half my money for the trip. And you're gone now, so I'm not going to get a chance to win it back from you. The advantage you had was being able to bet or raise large sums of money, with no financial or emotional impact to yourself. That's the key. If you lost a few thousand, it was no big deal to you. You could afford to risk 10k on a rag hand that you hadn't even looked at. No one else could do that. That gives you a significant emotional edge. Discussing the theories of the size of your buy in...is all based on long term outcomes. But in your very short term session, you were able to beat people with any 2 cards, for their entire stack. I don't at all think you did this with any malicious intentions. To the contrary, I think you really were just having fun. But I think you have maybe have lost sight of what these smaller sum of money, 1k -2k-3k, etc...mean to regular people. And I know people are going to say...hey when you sit at the poker table you take your chances...don't sit if you can't afford to play. But in my example, I buy in for what I can afford, and assume that I will be risking my money with some ability to "play" for it. When you sit at the table and play like you did....the only "play" I have is the one I decribed. Wait for the goods and take my shot. Push my money in with the best hand and hope it stands up. You've taken all the "play" away, by making a ridiculous sized raise in the dark. When my hand doesn't stand, and you leave a short time later....you've gained my 1500, I have no chance to get it back, and you won it, all in the spirit of "fun". Sure, I can afford to lose 1500 without it changing my life. But it's still enough money, that I wouldn't find it "fun" to lose it under those circumstances....where there was no "play"....just a crap shoot where I've been put in a position of of risking my stack on one hand, where I'm a statistical favorite, but came out on the wrong side.Please understand that I mean no disrespect. I think you're a good guy, and were just having some fun. I'm just trying to explain why some of us feel the way we do about it.

[ziggy587 0]

How can his chip stack lower your advantage???? He cannot outplay you for anymore then the $500 you have...... It is not like the big cash games in the 20's and such where you had like 1hr to come up with the $$$$ to make the call or else it is considered your loss....Give me a break...In essence each hand you both have $500 :shock:

[idrinkcoors 0]

I kind of criticized the buy-in on the 2+2 forum, even though I'm a big DN fan because of his Christianity.His blog entry made a lot of sense and I understand his point. I was at the Wynn two days before his big buy-in, (1-3 nl) and I would have loved to see a loose maniac buy in for thousands. Having said that, Daniel with his 125k would outplay me and my $200 stack fairly quickly, and I would have to go back and play nickel video poker with my wife. If it were some random guy with 125k at my table, go ahead. But the Cardplayer player of the year? No way. (Even though it would make a good story to get busted by him).

[rog 0]

Daniel, I think most of us understand what you are saying. But the explanations and examples you are giving are based on the long run. And I think thats the part that some people, me anyway, are having trouble with...and the part that maybe you're not understanding from our point of view.

The long run is about taking +EV situations when they come along, and in the long run, you will make money. If you dont have enough bankroll to survive the long run, that's your fault. Variance doesn't care who is calling your bets, and wether it's the same chips you lost earlier or not. +EV is +EV. Playing for the long run is having enough BR, and taking +EV situations when you get them.

I look down at AA in late position. UTG raises to 100 dollars, and you raise 10k in the dark, for fun. I call with my AA. Everyone else folds, and you turn over 83offsuit. The board comes 8Kj63. You win my 1500.

If you dont want to lose 1500 in one hand, why did you buy in for that much? Protect what you cant afford to lose by keeping it off the table.Now, what happens if Daniel never sat down, and you got those rockets? Aren't you still hoping to get all your chips in preflop if the opportunity arises? Isn't it likely much closer against a legitimate hand than an 8-3 off nutbar? Your aces have not only a higher long run expectation (EV) against Daniel's hand, but you're also more likely to win against Daniel's fictional trash hand. You have better EV and lower variance. Where is there any foundation for a complaint? I would love to be in the scenario you've described.

[crowTrobot 2]

even though I'm a big DN fan because of his Christianity.

that just means he's weak-minded (or lazy-minded) when it comes to reality. hard to be a fan of that.

[Allie 0]

Daniel, I think most of us understand what you are saying. But the explanations and examples you are giving are based on the long run. And I think thats the part that some people, me anyway, are having trouble with...and the part that maybe you're not understanding from our point of view.

The long run is about taking +EV situations when they come along, and in the long run, you will make money. If you dont have enough bankroll to survive the long run, that's your fault. Variance doesn't care who is calling your bets, and wether it's the same chips you lost earlier or not. +EV is +EV. Playing for the long run is having enough BR, and taking +EV situations when you get them.

I look down at AA in late position. UTG raises to 100 dollars, and you raise 10k in the dark, for fun. I call with my AA. Everyone else folds, and you turn over 83offsuit. The board comes 8Kj63. You win my 1500.

If you dont want to lose 1500 in one hand, why did you buy in for that much? Protect what you cant afford to lose by keeping it off the table.Now, what happens if Daniel never sat down, and you got those rockets? Aren't you still hoping to get all your chips in preflop if the opportunity arises? Isn't it likely much closer against a legitimate hand than an 8-3 off nutbar? Your aces have not only a higher long run expectation (EV) against Daniel's hand, but you're also more likely to win against Daniel's fictional trash hand. You have better EV and lower variance. Where is there any foundation for a complaint? I would love to be in the scenario you've described.

LOL. You quoted my first paragraph, without the context of the rest of it....and gave me an unnecessary lesson in EV.The rest of what you said tells me that you completely and utterly missed my point. I don't have the energy to try to explain it again. I give up. :wall:

[CoranMoran 0]

I think it is very interesting how there can be such opposing opinions about a single topic. But different ideas is what makes poker so enjoyable.

does he have an advantage? of course he does

I see 2 points in your argument.Let's take a moment to analyse them closer.

a player w/ a stack size of 1k in a 5-10 nl game can not win the maximum amount against a 3k player in any pot. he is at a disadvantage to that particular player.

The fact that you are trying to get across is true. Yes, you can not take all of your opponents chips in 1 hand.- in this example, you can only take 1k chips in a hand.But you have forgotten to mention the other side of this issue...You can only lose 1k chips in any one hand.These two factors even themselves out. (Less gain; Less risk)Thus, there is no advantage in this sense.To confirm this, just look at the big stack's perspective.If he is in a hand with you, even though he has 3k chips, the most he can win in one hand is 1k and the most he can lose is 1k.These are the same numbers that you have.Thus, obviously, you have no advantage or disadvantage against this player.Now let's look at your other point...

a player w/ a stack size of 1k in a 5-10 nl game can not and will not have the ability to break a player w/ a stack size of 3k,

And this seems to be true too.In any one hand, only the smaller stack can "break".But the important thing to realize here is that breaking an opponent is completely irrelevant in cash games.Unlike tournments, your opponent can reload any time. You can not knock out a player just because you took the chips he decided to bring to the table.Thus "breaking" him is worthless, except for the fact that it limited the amount of chips you could have gained from him on the hand you broke him with.Ironically, if you won a big hand and took his entire stack of 1k chips, and then he bought back in for 5k more, you would actually have wished that he had had more chips than you to start with!In conclusion:1) Breaking a player is of no important in cash games. Bringing his current chip stack to 0 has no value to you.It is entirely possible that, even though your opponent has brought fewer chips to the table, he has a much larger bankroll that you do overall.2) While having the largest chip stack at the table seems to "maximize" your wins, your potential losses always adjust to be equal to the gains.The important point to remember is that, when it comes to stack sizes, the amount of chips you can win is always equal to the amount you can lose. Thus having more adds more potential, but also more risk.No advantage.--cnm

[idrinkcoors 0]

even though I'm a big DN fan because of his Christianity.

that just means he's weak-minded (or lazy-minded) when it comes to reality. hard to be a fan of that.

Actually crowtrobot, 2.1 billion of us are fans of that, so it's not too hard. And if you think DN is weak-minded, maybe you'd like to play him heads up?

[CoranMoran 0]

Here is my take on another post...I was able to pick out 3 points that you made.1) You potentially could take a bad beat and lose all your money.2) DN has an emotional advantage because the money doesn't "mean as much" to him3) You would prefer to be in a game which you could have more "play" rather than one that is all-or-nothing.

I look down at AA in late position. UTG raises to 100 dollars, and you raise 10k in the dark, for fun. I call with my AA. Everyone else folds, and you turn over 83offsuit.

1) Bad Beat.When you are playing poker, and you have the best possible hand preflop, what is your biggest fantasy....?What one thing, above all others, would you hope for in this situaiton?My answer: to have a player who is playing very badly put me all in with horrible cards.Can there be any better investment for my $1500?I view this as an absolute best possible scenario.Anyone who is in this situation should feel blessed by the poker gods.

Everyone else folds, and you turn over 83offsuit. The board comes 8Kj63. You win my 1500.Yes, in your example. this was a very bad beat.But in reality, anyone who had your $1500 covered could have put the same bad beat on you.As you know, that is part of poker.But you should still walk away feeling content that you had a huge chance to make a lot of easy money.

The advantage you had was being able to bet or raise large sums of money, with no financial or emotional impact to yourself. That's the key. If you lost a few thousand, it was no big deal to you. You could afford to risk 10k on a rag hand that you hadn't even looked at. No one else could do that. That gives you a significant emotional edge.

When a high roller plays at stakes that are so low to him that they are "no big deal" to him, he will likely play too loosely. This is a DISadvantage to the high roller.Because the potential losses are not very significant to him, he will make poor decisions and likely spew off his chips.If skill levels are even, you will have a significant advantage over this player.This is why the pros always love it when a wealthy business man wants to play in their game. The business man has the "emotional advantage" that you are referring to... but all it does is cause him to dump off his chips more easily.Point being: The emotional advantage that you referring to is no advantage at all. In fact, it is often a disadvantage.

But in my example, I buy in for what I can afford, and assume that I will be risking my money with some ability to "play" for it. When you sit at the table and play like you did....the only "play" I have is the one I decribed. Wait for the goods and take my shot. Push my money in with the best hand and hope it stands up. You've taken all the "play" away, by making a ridiculous sized raise in the dark.

3) Taking the play out of the game.This is a valid point.When a Loose-Aggressive player enters the game, it changes the entire feel of the table. You have to change your style of play to keep up.The potential for gaining a lot of money raises, but so does the risk.If you feel more comfortable being in a slower game that allows you more "play", I comepletely understand.But the solution to this is to move yourself to another table.If you decide to ramain at the loose-aggressive table, no matter what the reasons, then all of the responsibility is on you. --cnm

[crowTrobot 2]

Actually crowtrobot, 2.1 billion of us are fans of that, so it's not too hard. And if you think DN is weak-minded, maybe you'd like to play him heads up?

yes it's not too hard - christianity is a pretty convenient emotional void-filler, and once you are raised or otherwise entrenched with those beliefs filling your emotional needs it's very hard to release, just like any other cult or addiction. it's just incredibly sad that there are so many *intelligent* people in the world like DN that are either incapable of or have no desire to (or in DN's case too busy to?) apply any meaningful level of intelligent, logical thought to what they believe. however i'm not the one who keeps mentioning prayer and/or christianity in poker threads.

[idrinkcoors 0]

however i'm not the one who keeps mentioning prayer and/or christianity in poker threads.

Actually you just did. Now back to poker and God bless you!

[crowTrobot 2]

Actually you just did. Now back to poker and God bless you!

did i sneeze? :? actually i never have brought it up and would happily support separation of church and poker.

[Allie 0]

CoranMoran,Thank you for taking the time to actually read what I wrote and make some intelligent responses to it. You make some very valid points. A few things I'd like to say in response:The bad beat scenario = best possible scenario getting AA in against 83o. Everything you said was correct. My main point on that was that DN was at the table for so short a period of time....that if I lose that one hand, even aftering entering with the best of it.....I have no chance to recover that loss from him. He has done a hit-and-run on me so to speak. But you're right, if I knew it was a one shot proposition ahead of time, I would take it anyway. And yes, anyone having my 1500 covered could put that beat on me.....but I doubt there were any other people raising 10k in the dark, into 100 or 200 dollar pots. The emotional advantage. The difference between your scenario of the wealthy businessman, and the DN scenario....is that DN is an excellent player. Yes, some pots he was spewing chips and acting silly. But in his blog, 2 of the large pots he won,....he didn't donk play them. In the QT clubs hand, he flopped top pair with 2 clubs....check raised with it and won a good pot. In another hand he flopped the nut flush and trapped the other players out of their chips. So....he plays loose and crazy with some hands, but then traps in other hands....people calling his check raises or betting into him when he has the nuts....because they've seen how crazy he's been playing. He outplayed them, plain and simple. He had the huge stack, the benefit of total financial and emotional disregard for his stack, the ability to play loose and crazy with his stack....but was still able to trap with the nuts. Not just some clueless businessman with alot of money. For all the crazy play and having fun, he still walked away 3700 winner.

[Ralphy 0]

You people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I agree that DN does not owe anyone an explanation. Anyone can do whatever they want if it is within the rules. I would have loved to been at that table just for the experience.I hope that Daniel does not let all this nonsense affect him for the upcoming tournament at the Bellagio.

[GamblinLeaf 0]

I will call myself an intermediate poker player. Let's say I take a trip to vegas. I have 2,000 set aside for poker playing, on my 3 day trip. I decided to buy in 1000 at the 5/10 NL and give it a shot. I play for a couple of hours and I'm up 500. Then you sit at the table with 125k. I see quickly that you are playing loose and crazy. So, I decide to wait patiently and hope I get a monster and take some of that money you're "giving" away. I look down at AA in late position. UTG raises to 100 dollars, and you raise 10k in the dark, for fun. I call with my AA. Everyone else folds, and you turn over 83offsuit. The board comes 8Kj63. You win my 1500. I reload my last 1000. You leave 20 mins later. Yes, I got my money in with the best of it....and that's all you can ask for...blah blah blah. But, short term, I lost the hand and my buy in and winnings, and half my money for the trip. And you're gone now, so I'm not going to get a chance to win it back from you. The advantage you had was being able to bet or raise large sums of money, with no financial or emotional impact to yourself. That's the key. If you lost a few thousand, it was no big deal to you. You could afford to risk 10k on a rag hand that you hadn't even looked at. No one else could do that. That gives you a significant emotional edge. Discussing the theories of the size of your buy in...is all based on long term outcomes. But in your very short term session, you were able to beat people with any 2 cards, for their entire stack. I don't at all think you did this with any malicious intentions. To the contrary, I think you really were just having fun. But I think you have maybe have lost sight of what these smaller sum of money, 1k -2k-3k, etc...mean to regular people. And I know people are going to say...hey when you sit at the poker table you take your chances...don't sit if you can't afford to play. But in my example, I buy in for what I can afford, and assume that I will be risking my money with some ability to "play" for it. When you sit at the table and play like you did....the only "play" I have is the one I decribed. Wait for the goods and take my shot. Push my money in with the best hand and hope it stands up. You've taken all the "play" away, by making a ridiculous sized raise in the dark. When my hand doesn't stand, and you leave a short time later....you've gained my 1500, I have no chance to get it back, and you won it, all in the spirit of "fun". Sure, I can afford to lose 1500 without it changing my life. But it's still enough money, that I wouldn't find it "fun" to lose it under those circumstances....where there was no "play"....just a crap shoot where I've been put in a position of of risking my stack on one hand, where I'm a statistical favorite, but came out on the wrong side.

Hey, Allie. Very interesting and well thought out post. I've been in the "no one's forcing you to sit" camp, but what you point out has made me wonder what I'd do in a similar situation to your hypothetical example. Here's the thing ... what happens if you're sitting in the same (hypothetical) game and someone rich and famous, but not a poker player, sits down. Let's say Tiger Woods sits down with a monster stack and you decide to be patient and wait for the goods. You don't play a hand for 45 minutes, and in that time, you see him go broke once and reload again, so you know he's happy to donate to the table. As in your example, you finally wake up with aces, Tiger raises more than your stack, and you push, and Tiger sucks out. Would you feel differently than in your example above? If you would feel differently, because Tiger's not a good poker player, my question would be doesn't DN nutbarring essentially mean he's playing "bad poker"? Don't we want people who like to sit with a lot of money to play "bad poker" at our table?I'm asking sincerely because I'm not sure what I'd do. I don't normally play no-limit live but, hey, if I was in Vegas and saw some rich celeb throwing chips around I'd sure be tempted to sit. But your comment about taking the play out of it makes me wonder whether it'd be worth it.

[Allie 0]

I will call myself an intermediate poker player. Let's say I take a trip to vegas. I have 2,000 set aside for poker playing, on my 3 day trip. I decided to buy in 1000 at the 5/10 NL and give it a shot. I play for a couple of hours and I'm up 500. Then you sit at the table with 125k. I see quickly that you are playing loose and crazy. So, I decide to wait patiently and hope I get a monster and take some of that money you're "giving" away. I look down at AA in late position. UTG raises to 100 dollars, and you raise 10k in the dark, for fun. I call with my AA. Everyone else folds, and you turn over 83offsuit. The board comes 8Kj63. You win my 1500. I reload my last 1000. You leave 20 mins later. Yes, I got my money in with the best of it....and that's all you can ask for...blah blah blah. But, short term, I lost the hand and my buy in and winnings, and half my money for the trip. And you're gone now, so I'm not going to get a chance to win it back from you. The advantage you had was being able to bet or raise large sums of money, with no financial or emotional impact to yourself. That's the key. If you lost a few thousand, it was no big deal to you. You could afford to risk 10k on a rag hand that you hadn't even looked at. No one else could do that. That gives you a significant emotional edge. Discussing the theories of the size of your buy in...is all based on long term outcomes. But in your very short term session, you were able to beat people with any 2 cards, for their entire stack. I don't at all think you did this with any malicious intentions. To the contrary, I think you really were just having fun. But I think you have maybe have lost sight of what these smaller sum of money, 1k -2k-3k, etc...mean to regular people. And I know people are going to say...hey when you sit at the poker table you take your chances...don't sit if you can't afford to play. But in my example, I buy in for what I can afford, and assume that I will be risking my money with some ability to "play" for it. When you sit at the table and play like you did....the only "play" I have is the one I decribed. Wait for the goods and take my shot. Push my money in with the best hand and hope it stands up. You've taken all the "play" away, by making a ridiculous sized raise in the dark. When my hand doesn't stand, and you leave a short time later....you've gained my 1500, I have no chance to get it back, and you won it, all in the spirit of "fun". Sure, I can afford to lose 1500 without it changing my life. But it's still enough money, that I wouldn't find it "fun" to lose it under those circumstances....where there was no "play"....just a crap shoot where I've been put in a position of of risking my stack on one hand, where I'm a statistical favorite, but came out on the wrong side.

Hey, Allie. Very interesting and well thought out post. I've been in the "no one's forcing you to sit" camp, but what you point out has made me wonder what I'd do in a similar situation to your hypothetical example. Here's the thing ... what happens if you're sitting in the same (hypothetical) game and someone rich and famous, but not a poker player, sits down. Let's say Tiger Woods sits down with a monster stack and you decide to be patient and wait for the goods. You don't play a hand for 45 minutes, and in that time, you see him go broke once and reload again, so you know he's happy to donate to the table. As in your example, you finally wake up with aces, Tiger raises more than your stack, and you push, and Tiger sucks out. Would you feel differently than in your example above? If you would feel differently, because Tiger's not a good poker player, my question would be doesn't DN nutbarring essentially mean he's playing "bad poker"? Don't we want people who like to sit with a lot of money to play "bad poker" at our table? I'm asking sincerely because I'm not sure what I'd do. I don't normally play no-limit live but, hey, if I was in Vegas and saw some rich celeb throwing chips around I'd sure be tempted to sit. But your comment about taking the play out of it makes me wonder whether it'd be worth it.

You have raised an interesting point with this scenario Leaf. I see what you're saying. I think I would feel differently if it were Tiger Woods, let's say playing poker for the first time, with a ton of money. This is why....At the root of this whole controversy, is the concept of - is what Daniel did right or wrong, cool or uncool, etc. And yes Daniel was crazy and loose and "nutbarring"....but he wasn't nutbarring every hand, and I think that's significant. As per my post above to CoranMoran....he played some hands straight up....check raising, check the nuts and trapping, etc. So even though he's playing really loose....he is not a sucker at the table like Tiger Woods would be. He had the roll to play silly and not care about the consequences, but the savvy to play like a real poker player when he woke up with a hand. If I was sitting in that game and Daniel sat, and I knew with clairvoyant vision (lol) how he was going to play...a lot of sillyness, with sporadic shots of real poker playing thrown in and a monster roll....I would have probably left the table.

[humbled 0]

Are you guys even considering yourself pokerplayers???This whole thread is laughable, and ill tell you why. What you should know by now is that poker is a game, a mindgame, but when money is involved it is a game of gambling. Meaning there are no safe roads and at the same time it's a huge pyramid-game where the best player takes it all, would he or she live for so long and travel so much (hehe maybe the rake will bust us all? who knows).How he or she takes all the money doesn't matter, if it's by badbeats or by always getting the best of it, it doesn't matter. What matters is when you sit down at a poker table you are there to win everybody elses money, whatever it takes (whatever the rules allow), that should be your one and only goal. Now serious players know of course it would probably be impossible to win everything by just dealing bad beats on people so most try to play according to gametheory, odds, reads and other skills which may help you win.That being said i'd like to come to the conclusion; you cannot, never ever accuse someone of being a jerk at a pokertable, ever!! Unless he or she verbaly abuses you, you just cannot do that! I think i have a clue why some of you have such a hard time believing what Mr Negreanu is saying even when he explains exactly how and why he did what he did and how a better player will have an edge over time even if the better player had a shorter stack, and that clue is: (here it comes, hope you are ready for it)I really believe you guys think you are all great at poker but the only thing that's holding you back is your not so big bankroll. "Of course its easier for them to win they can afford to take chances, they can afford to call down the bully with just a small pair" etc. I really think many of you think like that, thus giving you a reason to persue a "neva-gonna-happen-poker career". Most of you should probably face the facts that 95% of everyone who plays poker will lose in the long run and just quit.What the other pro said about the business man being so rich he even got the pokerpros turn chicken, that businessman right there had the right idea, stop at nothing to achieve your goal, that man's a player not some "tight-aggressive-internetplaying-microlimitgrinding-wannabe-pokeraccountholder". But of course when the pros turned his nosebleed stakes down they showed they are responsible enough of thier money to keep them for a longer time, but hey im just saying what you most of you already know.Daniel Negreanu seems like a very nice guy but he is a pokerplayer and worse it's his proffession.Much love,humbled by the fact that im probably a part of a 95% majority.

[humbled 0]

Are you guys even considering yourself pokerplayers???This whole thread is laughable, and ill tell you why. What you should know by now is that poker is a game, a mindgame, but when money is involved it is a game of gambling. Meaning there are no safe roads and at the same time it's a huge pyramid-game where the best player takes it all, would he or she live for so long and travel so much (hehe maybe the rake will bust us all? who knows).How he or she takes all the money doesn't matter, if it's by badbeats or by always getting the best of it, it doesn't matter. What matters is when you sit down at a poker table you are there to win everybody elses money, whatever it takes (whatever the rules allow), that should be your one and only goal. Now serious players know of course it would probably be impossible to win everything by just dealing bad beats on people so most try to play according to gametheory, odds, reads and other skills which may help you win.That being said i'd like to come to the conclusion; you cannot, never ever accuse someone of being a jerk at a pokertable, ever!! Unless he or she verbaly abuses you, you just cannot do that! I think i have a clue why some of you have such a hard time believing what Mr Negreanu is saying even when he explains exactly how and why he did what he did and how a better player will have an edge over time even if the better player had a shorter stack, and that clue is: (here it comes, hope you are ready for it)I really believe you guys think you are all great at poker but the only thing that's holding you back is your not so big bankroll. "Of course its easier for them to win they can afford to take chances, they can afford to call down the bully with just a small pair" etc. I really think many of you think like that, thus giving you a reason to persue a "neva-gonna-happen-poker career". Most of you should probably face the facts that 95% of everyone who plays poker will lose in the long run and just quit.What the other pro said about the business man being so rich he even got the pokerpros turn chicken, that businessman right there had the right idea, stop at nothing to achieve your goal, that man's a player not some "tight-aggressive-internetplaying-microlimitgrinding-wannabe-pokeraccountholder". But of course when the pros turned his nosebleed stakes down they showed they are responsible enough of thier money to keep them for a longer time, but hey im just saying what you most of you already know.Daniel Negreanu seems like a very nice guy but he is a pokerplayer and worse it's his proffession.Much love,humbled by the fact that im probably a part of a 95% majority.

[grass Da 55 0]

Are you guys even considering yourself pokerplayers??? you are clearly lost on the argument and haven't the slightest clue what is going on in here. pls go take a nap and leave the poker discussion to the few of us who had actually comprehended the subject at hand. really, pls go away. and keep telling people they can't become professional poker players like it's an impossible feat or something while they take your money.

[grass Da 55 0]

But you have forgotten to mention the other side of this issue...You can only lose 1k chips in any one hand. yes, i can only lose 1k in any one hand. But you have forgotten to mention the other side of this issue... the opponent w/ 3k can also only lose 1k against me in any given hand therefore certain decisions are different when playing against a small stack than a big stack.lets say player A, B, and C are at the same table. players A and B has a 3k stack while player C only has 1k. are you saying that in every situation at a nl poker table that player A will play his big stack against player B the same way he will use it against player C? no, player A and B (the biggest stacks at the table) will most likely be less aggressive against each other than they will against player c and the rest of the table because more of their stack is vulnerable when they are up against each other. there clearly is an advantage to having a stack that can cover the rest of the table.But the important thing to realize here is that breaking an opponent is completely irrelevant in cash games. this is completely wrong. one's main goal at a cash game table is to extract the maximum about of money at every given opportunity. if you were at a table where you were winning, playing your A game, and improving your stack to a formable amount of money. you mustn't quit until your opponents go broke or quit themselves. this is why phil ivey is the most feared cash game player in the world. when he's running good, he stays until he breaks you. if you're leaving while you're winning and staying while you're losing, then you are not playing winning poker.While having the largest chip stack at the table seems to "maximize" your wins, your potential losses always adjust to be equal to the gains.The important point to remember is that, when it comes to stack sizes, the amount of chips you can win is always equal to the amount you can lose.Thus having more adds more potential, but also more risk.No advantage.if you're a winning player w/ an effective bankroll, more potential and more risk simply equals more money. there's a reason why the best nl players at pokerstars and ultimatebet reload every chance they get. more chips equals more ammos equals a more powerful opponent than he already is. if you're saying that mahatma of UB is equally dangerous when he has 10k to having 100k at the 50-100 nl table, than that is just absurd. you shoulda seen thenizzles play his 270k stack at prima's 50-100 nl. that is all.

[rog 0]

if you're saying that mahatma of UB is equally dangerous when he has 10k to having 100k at the 50-100 nl table, than that is just absurd. you shoulda seen thenizzles play his 270k stack at prima's 50-100 nl. that is all.

Name one move mahatma or thenizzles can make with an extravagant stack that they couldn't just as easily make with a smaller big stack.Extra stack once the table is covered is about as relevant as the deed to my house, or the pink-slip for my car. It's wealth I own that simply doesn't play. One could call me arrogant for flaunting it by pulling it out at the table, but it gives me no advantage whatsoever. This is so easy to understand...

[CoranMoran 0]

Let me see if I can better understand your point...

yes, I can only lose 1k in any one hand. But you have forgotten to mention the other side of this issue... the opponent w/ 3k can also only lose 1k against me in any given hand therefore certain decisions are different when playing against a small stack than a big stack.

My point above is that the risk/reward factor in any one hand, when measured in the number of chips that can be won or lost, is exactly the same for both the big and small stack.Thus there is no tangible difference in any one hand.Possible counter: "But in the long run, the 3k stack will have more leverage over smaller stacks."Refutation: In ring games, you can add more chips or walk away with your stack after any hand. Thus you can only analyze ring games one hand at a time and not in the long run.

therefore certain decisions are different when playing against a small stack than a big stack.

It appears that your point of "decisions being different" may be that the big stack has a "psychological" advantage over the small stack?You are saying that a player with 3k chips can feel more comfortable and confident battling a 1k stack because only a portion of his stack is in risk on any one hand.Consequently, the 1k stack must play more tentatively because his entire stack is at stake.But you are drawing an erroneous assumption that is causing your conclusion to be off the mark.You assume that the 1k stack only has $1000. (If the chip stacks actually did represent the players' complete bankrolls, then your point of a psychological advantage may be very true!)But most players do not bring a high % of their bankroll to a NL ring game.So it is probable that the 1k stack has much more in reserve.And it is even possible that the 1k stack actually has a much deeper bankroll that the 3k stack.So the 1k stack probably doesn't have any bigger fear of losing 1k than the bigger stack does.Thus the size of stacks currently on the table for any one hand probably can not correspond to any psychological advantage at all.

lets say player A, B, and C are at the same table. players A and B has a 3k stack while player C only has 1k. are you saying that in every situation at a nl poker table that player A will play his big stack against player B the same way he will use it against player C?

No, the play will be different against the different stacks.But the risk/reward ratio will be the same.

player A and B (the biggest stacks at the table) will most likely be less aggressive against each other than they will against player c and the rest of the table because more of their stack is vulnerable when they are up against each other.

Yes, this is true.

there clearly is an advantage to having a stack that can cover the rest of the table.

But again, your conclusion is not true.You point out that the big stack can be more aggressive against the little stack, but has to be less aggressive against the other big stack.But you can not forget about the other side of the coin. The big stack can gain a lot more from the other big stack.Thus the risk/reward ratios remain the same against both opponents.This answer was in my opriginal post:

The fact that you are trying to get across is true. Yes, you can not take all of your opponents chips in 1 hand. - in this example, you can only take 1k chips in a hand. But you have forgotten to mention the other side of this issue... You can only lose 1k chips in any one hand. These two factors even themselves out. (Less gain; Less risk) Thus, there is no advantage in this sense. To confirm this, just look at the big stack's perspective. If he is in a hand with you, even though he has 3k chips, the most he can win in one hand is 1k and the most he can lose is 1k. These are the same numbers that you have. Thus, obviously, you have no advantage or disadvantage against this player.

------------------

But the important thing to realize here is that breaking an opponent is completely irrelevant in cash games. this is completely wrong. one's main goal at a cash game table is to extract the maximum about of money at every given opportunity. if you were at a table where you were winning, playing your A game, and improving your stack to a formable amount of money. you mustn't quit until your opponents go broke or quit themselves.

Let me clarify.Your point was that it is easier to "break" an opponent when you have a bigger stack than he.My point is that even if you manage to take all of the chips he happens to have on the table at that moment, it does not mean you have "broken" him.As I have said:

You assume that the 1k stack only has $1000. (If the chip stacks actually did represent the players' complete bankrolls, then your point of a psychological advantage may be very true!)But most players do not bring a high % of their bankroll to a NL ring game.So it is probable that the 1k stack has much more in reserve.And it is even possible that the 1k stack actually has a much deeper bankroll that the 3k stack.

So yes, you want to maximize your winnings.But being in a situation in which an opponent has a smaller stack than you does not help you maximize your winnings.The fact that your opponent brought a smaller stack to the table actually minimizes your potential winnings. (But once again, since it minimizes the risk to your own stack, things even out.)

if you're a winning player w/ an effective bankroll, more potential and more risk simply equals more money.

Agreed! Bigger chip stack increases your potential risk and reward.And whenever you are the best player at a table, you want to increase the potentials.But the key point here is that it is your lead in skill that gives you the advantage over the other players; it is not your lead in chips.

if you're saying that mahatma of UB is equally dangerous when he has 10k to having 100k at the 50-100 nl table, than that is just absurd. you shoulda seen thenizzles play his 270k stack at prima's 50-100 nl. that is all.

The talented players are favored to take your chips no matter what their stack size is. If they have a larger stack, they can take more of your chips in any one hand. This makes them appear "more dangerous".But they can only take as many chips as they can lose. Thus their risk/reward ration remains the same.Example: Player A (1k chips) VS Player B (3k chips) Player A and B both can gain or lose 1k chips on any one hand.No advantage for either player.Note: if player A loses and runs out of chips, he can simply bring more to the table. This really is not a factor.If player A doubles up, this scenario appears: Player A (2k chips) VS Player B (2k chips) Now the stakes are higher as each can lose 2k on any one hand.But the ratio is still even.No advantage to either player.If player A actually takes the lead and obtains the bigger stack like your example with "mahatma", we may get this scenario: Player A (3k chips) VS Player B (1k chips) Player A may now seem more "dangerous".But in reality, both sides can now only gain or lose 1k.But the point is that the ratios are still equal.Thus no advantage to either player.Conclusion:The larger your stack, the more you can win.The larger your stack, the more you can lose.The smaller your stack, the less you can lose.The smaller your stack, the less you can win.Risk/Reward ratio is always the same.Thus the stack size does not seem to give any advantage.--cnm

[Javakid 0]

It would have been very easy for Daniel to walk away but he didn't. He signed up and waited for a seat to free up.If a professional player such as Daniel sat on a table where I'm playing, his bring-in bankroll should be relevant but on the same count and more importantly - how is he actually playing his bankroll.If he's throwing it around it seems obvious to alter your game accordingly. Continue playing small pots versus a little patience with possibility of an instant double-up against Daniel. You could win thousands of small pots in your lifetime. For the vast majority of players, a chance of a double-up against Daniel would be a lasting memory - you'd be hard pressed to forget it - even if you lost.Would make a good side-show for something....Daniel's Double-Up ChallengeThrow in a bit of golden tee as a final gamble element and job done...stock from the IPO would soar!!!!There was once a TV show over here in UK called 'Opportunity Knocks'. Maybe it wasn't aired in USA.JK

[mandm 0]

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

i completely agree

[mandm 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' date=' you shouldn't play poker. If a play is +EV its +EV' date=' 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.[/quote'']I couldn't agree more! 8)