"high Stakes Poker: Season 2" Blog

[stevel999 0]

Wow. All I have to say is that everyone who posts in the bad beat thread should read this blog first. Can't wait to see it all.

[PairTheBoard 0]

Daniel said they were short handed at one point. When they were talking about who were the Top 5 players in the World, Matesow claiming to be one, and DN jabbed that Matesow was not even in the Top 5 at that Table, it would have been funnier still if they had been short handed with 5 players at the time.

[rookie2619 0]

He's been having a "bad run" of cards for a long while now. 1st season I beleive he finished down only 200k after losing 750k of his 1mil. Now he seems to be well on his way to doing that again. Im not sure its all just a "bad run" or "bad beats" exept for the 2 quads he ran into. That doesnt seem to be happening to anyone else but him on this show. I know Daniel is rich but he seems to be losing a lot of money, especially online.

[getarealjob 0]

Wouldn't it be great to see him go broke?If he keeps playing the bigger games, and eventually starts playing the higher buy'in 25k+ tournaments, maybe he will. He's made most of his money from bad players. It's like a professional Tiger Woods playing on the High School circuit. Not that I'm comparing him to the likes of Tiger Woods. I'm just saying I doubt he'd have any game against consistently tougher competition--as we're seeing. He plays well against bad players.Eventually he'll be dependent on his outside investments; and as poker plateaus, and people get more and more annoyed with his squeaky obnoxious personality, he'll have less opportunity to make residual income. He'll be totally dependent on his commerical retail investments (hopefully he's been smart enough to invest in that), and you'll see him getting staked again.I give him five years. What a great story that would make. Every poker writer is waiting eagerly for that ending.

[rogerwilco 0]

He's been having a "bad run" of cards for a long while now. 1st season I beleive he finished down only 200k after losing 750k of his 1mil. Now he seems to be well on his way to doing that again.

High Stakes Poker 2 is over already, so, no.And losing with a FH to quads, a flopped straight to quads just is expensive when both players have big stacks

Im not sure its all just a "bad run" or "bad beats" exept for the 2 quads he ran into. That doesnt seem to be happening to anyone else but him on this show. I know Daniel is rich but he seems to be losing a lot of money, especially online.

Really? How about Barry Greenstein? And if for example Sammy Farha had not gotten so damned lucky in the first season of HSP, he wouldn't have looked nearly as smart with his style of playing, he could have lost a lot of money.

[Azreous 0]

If he keeps playing the bigger games, and eventually starts playing the higher buy'in 25k+ tournaments, maybe he will. He's made most of his money from bad players. It's like a professional Tiger Woods playing on the High School circuit. Not that I'm comparing him to the likes of Tiger Woods. I'm just saying I doubt he'd have any game against consistently tougher competition--as we're seeing. He plays well against bad players.

Yeah, he's not playing well at all in these televised cash games. He's just tossing his money in with inferior hands 100% of the time and not sucking out on his opponents. What a donk....(sw, except for that horrible 40k call on the river when he should have known he was beat. That's about it as for as terrible play goes.)

[mattster 0]

Yeah, he's not playing well at all in these televised cash games. He's just tossing his money in with inferior hands 100% of the time and not sucking out on his opponents. What a donk....(sw, except for that horrible 40k call on the river when he should have known he was beat. That's about it as for as terrible play goes.)

I dont agree fully. Consider a scenario where he wasnt up against quads or river boat beats he would have finished this game about 600-700K up. Small margins in poker.

[LadyGrey 6]

You guys are mean (even taking into account the 'sw's). Running into that many quads is just plain unlucky. DN's strategy is normally very successful, it sounds like he just wasn't getting enough hands to implement it fully.

[7s7c 0]

I have a hard time feeling bad for folks when their bad beat stories begin with:Eli raised to 2000 and I called from the small blind with 3h 5h, when you are up against an overpair, hit a lucky flop, then get unlucky the rest of the way...I try to feel bad, i do...it's not easy though.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I have a hard time feeling bad for folks when their bad beat stories begin with:Eli raised to 2000 and I called from the small blind with 3h 5h, when you are up against an overpair, hit a lucky flop, then get unlucky the rest of the way...I try to feel bad, i do...it's not easy though.

You need to open up your mind a little bit and try to think outside the box. NLH is a game that's all about implied odds. Calling $2000 when players have over $100,000 in front of them isn't exactly committing yourself the hand. The goal with playing these type of hands is to try and hit a tricky flop and get all of your money in as a huge favorite.

[All_In 0]

Is it possible to watch this show in canada?i know it's on GSN or something, but that's not available to reg. digital cable subscribers in the GTA, at least not to me.What channel??? All I hear is how great the show is, but can't watch it...

[Oziumrules 0]

Daniels bad beats are unbelievable! How unlucky can you get! I watched him play online and I have never seen such suckouts in my life. I hope the cards change soon, he is actually playing well (High Stakes & online) from what I have seen. Keep your chin up D!

[Steppin Razor 0]

I thought the much more informative part of the blog was the part about playing blind. Bad beats don't need too much discussion, they're bad beats.It occurred to me when reading that playing blind part. That guy playing online tournaments with his hole cards taped over? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even know everything I'd supposed to be learning if I did that. I get the 'play-the-player' aspects of playing blind (tourney or the way DN was playing), but I know I don't have a full understanding what was going on. I'm gonna be wondering about what I'm missing for a while....feels weird not posting something political

[nutzbuster 7]

Daniels beats have been epic. Just astounding at times, especially on line. And there is some magic to this no lookie poker strat. I have actually done this before without realizing it, usually after a bad beat and on tilt, And it is amazing how often your opponants will fold their hands! But it only seems to work when I am down and not giving a crap about the money. Gee...I think I may have just remembered something.Superbowl weekend Daniel sat in our game and addressed this. An older Toronto semi-pro buddy of his (brett?) was using some version of this 'blind' tactic against us every hand!, He often times seemed to not even look at his cards, or even when he did he bet in a very methodical, pre detemined manner. I knew he was playing us, and I wanted to bust him sooo bad, but for the life of me I just NEVER saw a card above a 9! A reasonable opportunity just never came. Then Daniel came over and blew his strategy right outta the water, or at least attempted too. He wanted us to get there and hit back!, at one point saying "COMMON, MAN UP! You see these??? (holds up chips) You can't think of this as real money! If you do your DEAD!... GET IN THERE!!!" (or words pretty close to that) but just could not make myself do it with the 7-3, 8-2, 10-4 crap I was getting.Daniel is so right on about this (as if he needs me to say so, lol). I still am confused about how and when to go the no lookie route, but it does seem to work.

[FullMontyM1 0]

Then Daniel came over and blew his strategy right outta the water, or at least attempted too. He wanted us to get there and hit back!, at one point saying "COMMON, MAN UP! You see these??? (holds up chips) You can't think of this as real money! If you do your DEAD!... GET IN THERE!!!" (or words pretty close to that) but just could not make myself do it with the 7-3, 8-2, 10-4 crap I was getting.Daniel is so right on about this (as if he needs me to say so, lol). I still am confused about how and when to go the no lookie route, but it does seem to work.

Playing scared is doom, but so is playing stupid. I think the fine line between them is demarcated by either a) innate or learned feel or B) mastery of the mathematics of poker or c) both.Monty

[nwojozz 0]

How about Barry Greenstein?

Greenstein finished HSP1 making his money back... He went a nice last run.

[Canary3 1]

Wouldn't it be great to see him go broke?If he keeps playing the bigger games, and eventually starts playing the higher buy'in 25k+ tournaments, maybe he will. He's made most of his money from bad players. It's like a professional Tiger Woods playing on the High School circuit. Not that I'm comparing him to the likes of Tiger Woods. I'm just saying I doubt he'd have any game against consistently tougher competition--as we're seeing. He plays well against bad players.Eventually he'll be dependent on his outside investments; and as poker plateaus, and people get more and more annoyed with his squeaky obnoxious personality, he'll have less opportunity to make residual income. He'll be totally dependent on his commerical retail investments (hopefully he's been smart enough to invest in that), and you'll see him getting staked again.I give him five years. What a great story that would make. Every poker writer is waiting eagerly for that ending.

What an idiot....1. 25k buy in tournies are nothing at all to Daniles bankroll... and what 25k tournies are you talking about? I didnt know they had these on a regular basis. 2. Im sure the players in the 4000-8000 game that Daniel plays on a regular basis are "bad players" 3. the majority of the hands youve seen on high stakes poker have been sick luck and just terrible beats

[Masquerade 0]

Yeah, he's not playing well at all in these televised cash games. He's just tossing his money in with inferior hands 100% of the time and not sucking out on his opponents. What a donk....(sw, except for that horrible 40k call on the river when he should have known he was beat. That's about it as for as terrible play goes.)

I think the Hansen 55 hand was horrible. Calling allin with 66 on a 9 6 5 5 8 board? You're beaten by 99 and 88 as well as 55. Danny still seemed fixated on the idea that Hansen was putting him on an overpair - even on river! Give Gus some respect here! Why can't he put Danny on a boat and trap him?

[Steppin Razor 0]

I think the Hansen 55 hand was horrible.

Think so? Gus couldn't go all-in with a straight? Or even A5? As for 'give Gus respect', it seems considering Gus could make that move with less than the nuts gives him a lot of credit. I'd have a really hard time folding a full house against a player who plays like Gus Hansen does. Unless we were playing Omaha. Of course, I wouldn't last 5 minutes at a table with Gus Hansen (having taken the first four minutes to decide what to do PF first hand). Someday, but not now.But, I think it's kind of silly to analyze a hand between two great players who play against each other a lot, and me not even having seen the hand.

[Masquerade 0]

Think so? Gus couldn't go all-in with a straight? Or even A5? As for 'give Gus respect', it seems considering Gus could make that move with less than the nuts gives him a lot of credit. I'd have a really hard time folding a full house against a player who plays like Gus Hansen does. Unless we were playing Omaha. Of course, I wouldn't last 5 minutes at a table with Gus Hansen (having taken the first four minutes to decide what to do PF first hand). Someday, but not now.But, I think it's kind of silly to analyze a hand between two great players who play against each other a lot, and me not even having seen the hand.

I believe that Daniel, in his heart of hearts, knows he played that hand like a donkey and will admit it at some point in the future. His comment about Hansen thinking he has an overpair on river makes about as much sense as MikeyMcD pushing allin because "I dont think you've got the spades". Board is 9 6 5 5 8 and Hansen is putting Danny on an overpair? Yeah right.

[Balloon guy 158]

I believe that Daniel, in his heart of hearts, knows he played that hand like a donkey and will admit it at some point in the future. His comment about Hansen thinking he has an overpair on river makes about as much sense as MikeyMcD pushing allin because "I dont think you've got the spades". Board is 9 6 5 5 8 and Hansen is putting Danny on an overpair? Yeah right.

On the flop it was Hansen playing bad, thinking his trip 5's were good.Easy to look at full board and judge play. Pre-flop and after flop DN was monster ahead, and Gus played like a total donkey playing to a one outer...Oh Gus didn't know DN had trip 6's? Weird that he didn't figure that out, but DN was suppose to accurately give Gus one of only 3 hands that beat him.I think Phil Helmuth and you would have many good conversations about how bad others play

[Masquerade 0]

On the flop it was Hansen playing bad, thinking his trip 5's were good.Easy to look at full board and judge play. Pre-flop and after flop DN was monster ahead, and Gus played like a total donkey playing to a one outer...Oh Gus didn't know DN had trip 6's? Weird that he didn't figure that out, but DN was suppose to accurately give Gus one of only 3 hands that beat him.I think Phil Helmuth and you would have many good conversations about how bad others play

No .... why am I bothering .... oh force myself ... Gus didnt play like a donkey. Of course he thinks his 55 is probably good on the 9 6 5 flop but I guarantee he was fully aware of the possibility of DN having 66 or more likely 99. But he isnt losing all his money on the hand.Your love of DN is blinding you to the fact that he called allin with the 4th nuts and, surprise, surprise was shown a better hand. The fact it was quads is irrelevant. He's losing to 99 and 88 as well. And what's his argument for not putting on Gus on 99 or 55. He wouldnt check river when he's put DN on an overpair. But why has Gus put him on an overpair - because thats what DN tried to sell on the flop. This is zero level thinking. Normally DN is thinking what does the other guy think that I think he has etc ... what went wrong here? Gus is a world class player and the reasoning is "my 4th nuts is good because he's put me on an overpair". The fact Gus had quads has obscured the issue for everyone who is lazily saying that DN was incredibly unlucky because Gus hit a 1-outer. Yes he's unlucky to lose the pot but he didnt know Gus had an under set. Why couldnt Gus have 99? Or 88 since check-raised allin on river when an 8 came? Why no analysis of these possibilities, no probabilities assigned?

[Claw1980 0]

On the flop it was Hansen playing bad, thinking his trip 5's were good.Easy to look at full board and judge play. Pre-flop and after flop DN was monster ahead, and Gus played like a total donkey playing to a one outer...Oh Gus didn't know DN had trip 6's? Weird that he didn't figure that out, but DN was suppose to accurately give Gus one of only 3 hands that beat him.I think Phil Helmuth and you would have many good conversations about how bad others play

while i have no proof nor could any be acquired, id bet the better part of my bank roll that hte money just as easily could have gone in on the flop in this hand...i find it very difficult ot believe that gus would have folded on the flop for his whole stack even.

On the flop it was Hansen playing bad, thinking his trip 5's were good.Easy to look at full board and judge play. Pre-flop and after flop DN was monster ahead, and Gus played like a total donkey playing to a one outer...Oh Gus didn't know DN had trip 6's? Weird that he didn't figure that out, but DN was suppose to accurately give Gus one of only 3 hands that beat him.I think Phil Helmuth and you would have many good conversations about how bad others play

of course he COULD have had those hands, he also could have had 85, 65, or 95. he COULD have had 78 or... he could have had a5... or k5.. or 25... theres lots of hands DN could have beat.

[Longshanks 0]

On the flop it was Hansen playing bad, thinking his trip 5's were good.

i suppose you make world class laydowns of sets on the flop all the time, if you keep that up you will be broke soo enoughget your nose of out DN's *** for one second and try and think differently

[HurricaneKyle 0]

First off let me start by saying that those of you saying that Gus or Danny played the hand like a donk are idiots at hold'em and I'd welcome you to any table I play at. You'd get run over if you would honestly consider folding 66 in this position or think that 55 is in trouble on the flop.My question is for DN, when you said you stalled on the turn trying to give Gus the impression of an overpair: Is it possible that you gave off a sign of strength here so that Gus could be confident that you were actually very strong so that he could check raise the river? That kind of tactic would work against low limit donks, but I would imagine that a high limit player would read right through this almost all the time because if you were representing Queens then this would almost certainly be a raise or fold spot. Flat calling against a player like Gus with all the potential scare cards that could come really says strength. I go broke here 100% of the time on the river, and the hand really played itself in the end.