Jump to content

Daniel's Comments On Wsop Main Event Broadcast


Recommended Posts

To me, it's just the WSOP ME that's become a joke because it's the big one. The only way that could possibly change is if they bump the buyin up to $25K or more.But if you think all tournament poker is crap, you know who to blame for that- television and online poker sites. TV popularized the game and online poker made it possible for all the donks to come out and play.
Just the ME? Look at the ridiculous amount of $1500 NL tournaments there are. With the buy in that low, and the amount of players coming plus the horrible strcture for those tournaments, that if you don't double up in the first or 2nd level, you're a short stack.One thing they need to do is get rid of satellites for $1500 tournies, make them pony up the money for those ones.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe how shortsighted most of you are. This 'that's not poker' mentality is absurd. Sure. Tournament poker isn't 'poker' in the NLHE cash game sense. No one really ever said that it was. The mistake is thinking that tournament poker can or should mirror a cash game. Negreanu makes comments like that because he believes his best shot to win is if people are not doing exactly what that guy did. The other guy has determined that his best shot to win includes, perhaps predominantly, that move.Sitting here and saying, you must play small ball or you suck is absurd. The question is what strategy is effective at any given time. If you're playing against Negreanu, it's not self evident that even attempting to counter small ball with small ball is the optimal strategy.
Every single successful tournament player I can think of controls pot size, tries to chip up with small pots or at worst stay even with them and then win a big pot with the nuts, or something close to it. If your strategy isn't somewhat similar to this, I have to think you are not a successful tournament player, or "suck." All Daniel was trying to do was to point out how scared he looked playing that way, so that Daniel could play some pots with him later with cards he could call standard raises with, which is almost any two in position with deepstacks against a weak player. I thought the move was fine and I'm sure DN meant nothing personal to the guy and was just trying to set him up later, but I also believe that DN thinks that it isn't poker. I tend to agree with him, it is very frustrating being handcuffed to waiting for a hand over someone that is just going to push with his openers.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Every single successful tournament player I can think of controls pot size, tries to chip up with small pots or at worst stay even with them and then win a big pot with the nuts, or something close to it. If your strategy isn't somewhat similar to this, I have to think you are not a successful tournament player, or "suck."
This is absolutely false. Not all successful tournament players go the small ball route. Many players are significantly tighter than Negreanu. They enter pots with big hands. The look to play a big pot with those hands. In the early stages, the pots may appear small simply because they can only raise so much in relation to the blinds or they won't get any action. In later stages, many players simply play the move-in game even if they have an M greater than 25.
All Daniel was trying to do was to point out how scared he looked playing that way, so that Daniel could play some pots with him later with cards he could call standard raises with, which is almost any two in position with deepstacks against a weak player. I thought the move was fine and I'm sure DN meant nothing personal to the guy and was just trying to set him up later, but I also believe that DN thinks that it isn't poker. I tend to agree with him, it is very frustrating being handcuffed to waiting for a hand over someone that is just going to push with his openers.
You've fallen into a trap here. You aren't analyzing EV of these moves. If you knew that Negreanu wouldn't call with anything but the nuts--and he might even fold the nuts to an all in bet that could cripple him if the board was rich in draws--why do you think it's such a bad play to push for 5k to win 500? You can increase your stack by 10% each time. You're simply professing blind adherence to this goal of playing deepstack poker in a tournament setting. You have romanticized the ideal of complex play. News flash: NLHE Tournaments ARE NOT POKER in that sense. There are all sorts of artificial conditions that alter the playing field.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Every single successful tournament player I can think of controls pot size, tries to chip up with small pots or at worst stay even with them and then win a big pot with the nuts, or something close to it. If your strategy isn't somewhat similar to this, I have to think you are not a successful tournament player, or "suck."
I agree with dirtystacks.That's a pretty terrible generalization in terms of assuming small ball is the only successful method by pros.Correct me if I'm wrong but Dan Harrington is not a small ball person.If you ever watch the Grinder play there's plenty of times he's extra aggressive because he's trying to accummulate chips against timid players. I remember him reraising a player with 66 and when his opponent called he looked foolish but his reasoning is that a lot of players will fold in that situation fearing aces or kings.Poker is a beautiful game because of all the different approaches and adjustments you can make. Everyone is free to describe what they feel is the correct way of playing but at the end they are all right and wrong at the same time.I'm not really any category of player. I play what works best IMO for that exact tournament, hour, or moment.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Online players are MUCH better than live players.
No... you can't make a generalized statement like that. Online players have strengths that live players do not, and vice versa. Online players may be better at understanding betting patterns, but live players also have that skill, plus the required people skills that are necessary at a poker table.I just think that they are two different animals...but, for the most part, I think Balloon Guy hit the nail on the head in regards to the two main differences! :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites

This method was very similar to Ted Forrest's play in the Poker Superstars III against DN. Had strong starting hands in a six handed situation, and moved all in twice in the first few hands.Not sure you can argue that Ted's play is 'not poker'. It's a legitimate play, depending on the number of players and the blind structure.Dev

OK the other night in one hand, Daniel bet something like 150 and a guy moves all-in behind him for something like 5k. DN questions the bet, the guy responds "that's poker." DN then says something along the lines of "no, that's not poker."i understand what DN is saying, but bear with me for a moment here. most folks on here probably agree with DN, and to a certain extent, i do too. but think about it for a minute:is that the future of poker? i can see how if guys keep playing long enough like that, they'll go broke and in theory eventually all those guys will eventually fade away, taking their poker style with them. BUT - if only for an instant, when i heard DN say that, i thought that maybe he was sounding like one of those old athletes who says something along the lines of "that's not how to play MY sport. These guys in the NBA/NFL/NHL/whatever are making a mockery of the game I love.", when in reality, that IS how the game is played today. Dunking, dancing in the endzone, etc. So the question is, is there a paradigm shift in poker? Must everyone play DN's way? The "right" way. Or will this new aggressive style slowly but surely become the norm? In my mind, that's one of the beauties of poker. Not everyone plays the same way. And a wild, stupid style can be effective at times, though not over the long haul, of course.Anyway, there's my two cents. Let me know what you're thinking...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looked like DN was pointing out the guys overbet cause he wanted to play flops and he wasn't getting to. I would have said the same thing hoping that would somehow manipulate the players into playing smaller pots. Overbetting is poker though. It might not be good poker but it is NO LIMIT HOLDEM right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Looked like DN was pointing out the guys overbet cause he wanted to play flops and he wasn't getting to. I would have said the same thing hoping that would somehow manipulate the players into playing smaller pots. Overbetting is poker though. It might not be good poker but it is NO LIMIT HOLDEM right?
Another thing to mention about this...It's oversimplifying to use the term 'overbet' like this. That implies that it's an incorrect bet. Sometimes it's the best play. You have to look at EV over the long run vs. that player. A simple example (for those who haven't read Sklansky's NLHE book):You have the nuts and it's heads up on the river. There's $100 in the pot and both players have $500 stacks. You believe the other player will call an all in bet 10% of the time, a $200 bet 20% of the time, a $100 bet 40% of the time, and a $50 bet 90% of the time.EV's are:$500 * .10 = $50$200 * .20 = $40$100 * .40 = $40$50 * .90 = $45Clearly the all in is the best play. Of course, I modified the numbers so it would come out this way, but it's an entirely plausible scenario. If a player is skilled enough to use all in bets with nothing more frequently against an opponent like Negreanu (who won't call) but make sure they have a hand when they make the same bet against weaker opponents who are more likely to call, they can accomplish two goals. 1) Neutralize a dangerous player's edge and pick up some extra pots, and 2) Set up a play against the other players who will look him up because "He just can't have it every time. I have top pair!"
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is absolutely false. Not all successful tournament players go the small ball route. Many players are significantly tighter than Negreanu. They enter pots with big hands. The look to play a big pot with those hands. In the early stages, the pots may appear small simply because they can only raise so much in relation to the blinds or they won't get any action. In later stages, many players simply play the move-in game even if they have an M greater than 25.
Most players are tighter, I didn't say anything about playing a ton of pots, I said controlling pot size, which is a crucial part of ALL poker, not just one utilized by small ball pros. I don't think many of the tighter pros are looking to play big pots with big starting hands either, but to play big hands with the nuts. Negreanu on the Circuit made a good point about this when contending that Brad Booth's strategy of making big PF raises with big hands is wrong because you are creating a large pot where you will not be able to get away from your big PF holding on an unenviable hand.Now for the bolded part, isn't this the reason for the topic at hand! They don't raise huge because they won't get action with their big holding, isn't that what Negreanu is trying to point out to the player with the overbet. He's saying hey smaller bet I'll give you action because I'm confident you won't be able to fold your hand if I hit.
You've fallen into a trap here. You aren't analyzing EV of these moves. If you knew that Negreanu wouldn't call with anything but the nuts--and he might even fold the nuts to an all in bet that could cripple him if the board was rich in draws--why do you think it's such a bad play to push for 5k to win 500? You can increase your stack by 10% each time. You're simply professing blind adherence to this goal of playing deepstack poker in a tournament setting. You have romanticized the ideal of complex play. News flash: NLHE Tournaments ARE NOT POKER in that sense. There are all sorts of artificial conditions that alter the playing field.
How can you analyze the EV of this situation? I contend Daniel will never ever fold the nuts, though I'm not positive. I also doubt he will be run over with top holdings if the player shows he is a move in player, so maybe 2-3 move ins where DN doesn't have the nuts or close to it.I don't know what actual pot size was for your 10% example, the original post on this thread said he made a raise of 5k over 150.
I agree with dirtystacks.That's a pretty terrible generalization in terms of assuming small ball is the only successful method by pros.Correct me if I'm wrong but Dan Harrington is not a small ball person.If you ever watch the Grinder play there's plenty of times he's extra aggressive because he's trying to accummulate chips against timid players. I remember him reraising a player with 66 and when his opponent called he looked foolish but his reasoning is that a lot of players will fold in that situation fearing aces or kings.Poker is a beautiful game because of all the different approaches and adjustments you can make. Everyone is free to describe what they feel is the correct way of playing but at the end they are all right and wrong at the same time.I'm not really any category of player. I play what works best IMO for that exact tournament, hour, or moment.
What are the exact, tournament, hours, or moments that you decide being in control of pot size and trying to chip up with minimal risk are bad ideas? Every single knowledgeable player does this. Grinder is clearly putting a move on a guy, I'd bet there was a significant amount of money in the pot and blinds were becoming more of a factor
Link to post
Share on other sites
In my mind, that's one of the beauties of poker. Not everyone plays the same way. And a wild, stupid style can be effective at times, though not over the long haul, of course.
I agree with this. Different styles make the game interesting. I think DN may have been a bit surprised by the move. I would have also like to see Daniel humor the guy and let him reveal his thinking and maybe his cards. And, again, humor him because theres no place for coaching at the table.
Link to post
Share on other sites

all in takes the play away from the pros, if he raises say 1000, then DN can read him and maybe come over the top and force the best hand to fold, nobody wants that to happen to them. People cant come over the top of an allin so they cant outplay it, obviously frustrating for Daniel, but he would tell you honestly it's probably the best strategy against a player who is better than you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the simple fact. The dude was a complete donk, but if you are going to play a hand against someone who you feel is a WAY better player than you then why give them a chance to outplay you. What Daniel was trying to do was get the table to limit the size of the pot. If he can get the table to play many small pots then they are in big trouble, but if everytime Daniel enters they make it 10X to go they have really cut into his advantage. He must pick up cards to play and his big hands must hold up. It only takes one hand to ruin his tourney, and while he is sitting back waiting for cards the donks are building stacks and knocking eachother out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the use of the word overbet is an oversimplification, but i am pretty sure that on the hand in question it was an overbet lol. Overbetting that much when facing a raise by dn that early in the tourny, I think is hardly a positive ev play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So the question is, is there a paradigm shift in poker? Must everyone play DN's way? The "right" way. Or will this new aggressive style slowly but surely become the norm?
The difference between other 'sports' and poker is that in poker you can analyze a certain strategy to determine its expected value over the long run. Therefore, not taking into account small stylistic differences, something on this large scale of difference, between playing style, it is possible to compare two different styles and determine is one is more correct than the other.In the case of this massive overbet, in order to ensure that a novice player doesn't 'get outplayed after the flop' it is clear that while this approach may work in the short run in the long term this type of player is not maximizing their value with the best hand and minimizing loses with the worst hand. In the case of this all-in preflop strategy if the player has the best hand and the worse hand folds he is only winning a small pot. In turn the only hand he will get called with is a hand that beats him and he will be in turn risking all his chips with the worst hand in those cases.So in the long run this strategy is flat out stupid.That is not to say that this approach will not become more and more common, if it does though, it's not something i'll be unhappy about because it is easily beatable
Link to post
Share on other sites
In the case of this massive overbet, in order to ensure that a novice player doesn't 'get outplayed after the flop' it is clear that while this approach may work in the short run in the long term this type of player is not maximizing their value with the best hand and minimizing loses with the worst hand. In the case of this all-in preflop strategy if the player has the best hand and the worse hand folds he is only winning a small pot. In turn the only hand he will get called with is a hand that beats him and he will be in turn risking all his chips with the worst hand in those cases.So in the long run this strategy is flat out stupid.
No.Giving up EV by putting yourself in a position to get outplayed by an obviously better player is "flat out stupid."
Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference between other 'sports' and poker is that in poker you can analyze a certain strategy to determine its expected value over the long run. Therefore, not taking into account small stylistic differences, something on this large scale of difference, between playing style, it is possible to compare two different styles and determine is one is more correct than the other.In the case of this massive overbet, in order to ensure that a novice player doesn't 'get outplayed after the flop' it is clear that while this approach may work in the short run in the long term this type of player is not maximizing their value with the best hand and minimizing loses with the worst hand. In the case of this all-in preflop strategy if the player has the best hand and the worse hand folds he is only winning a small pot. In turn the only hand he will get called with is a hand that beats him and he will be in turn risking all his chips with the worst hand in those cases.So in the long run this strategy is flat out stupid.That is not to say that this approach will not become more and more common, if it does though, it's not something i'll be unhappy about because it is easily beatable
dude, you are forgetting something, over THE LONG RUN, these guys have no shot of being +ev against Negreanu, they aren't playing for THE LONG RUN, they are playing to get as much money as possible in the SHORT TERM so hopefully luck can win out for them. You are right that this is easily beatable, in the LONG RUN, but it is not so easily beatable in the SHORT TERM since you have to play huge pots in which you can sucked out on, no matter how skillful. It's pretty common knowledge that if you are playing someone much better than you you should be playing the biggest pots possible to cut the edge, this is not stupid.
Link to post
Share on other sites
dude, you are forgetting something, over THE LONG RUN, these guys have no shot of being +ev against Negreanu, they aren't playing for THE LONG RUN, they are playing to get as much money as possible in the SHORT TERM so hopefully luck can win out for them. You are right that this is easily beatable, in the LONG RUN, but it is not so easily beatable in the SHORT TERM since you have to play huge pots in which you can sucked out on, no matter how skillful. It's pretty common knowledge that if you are playing someone much better than you you should be playing the biggest pots possible to cut the edge, this is not stupid.
It isn't easily beatable--or even beatable at all--in the long run, if it's done correctly. The problem with it is that it does not maximize value against worse players.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware of the idea behind the method. Just because that is the BEST method to employ over the LONG RUN does NOT mean it is a winning method. Either way if you play Daniel Negreanu long enough, you're going to lose, or so most people would say. The best I would give that approach is a way to slowly bleed to death instead of looking like a donkey on one hand and flipping up two pair and asking your opponent if he has the flush on a 3 suited flop.The END result is the same, that is my point. So dumb guy can play that way for one tournament and if he's lucky he'll never re-raise all his chips when he's against an overpair. But he can't do that forever, it is mathematically a bad play and the same as giving up and saying I have no shot so i'm just gonna do this...shove. It's like how you would teach a chimp to play poker.Ok, so it could be situationally correct, but the OP was questioning whether or not this was a viable option to become the general way in which NLHE is 'supposed' to be played. The answer to which is no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...