Daniel Negreanu Out Of Line?

[Clamps 0]

If he doesnt have an edge than my argument is correct and you are arguing for no reason. Try to stay with the thought at hand rather arguing things that have no relevance to the topic. My argument was that Chan was not the cash game player people give him credit for being. Also anyone who is one of the best in the world (cash games) would have to play in the big game. Its like an entrepeneur passing up a no-lose investment opportunity.

How is it a no-lose investment opportunity? I don't understand how playing poker with the toughest players in the world is a "no-lose investment". Like I said earlier, some of the best in the world would rather play slightly lower stakes with weaker players to make more money. Is this concept really that difficult to understand? Maybe when Chan has free time he likes to play in soft games where he can make the most money, does it really make him any less of a world class player because he isn't in the Big Game every day?

[LuckyMcCatcher 0]

How is it a no-lose investment opportunity? I don't understand how playing poker with the toughest players in the world is a "no-lose investment". Like I said earlier, some of the best in the world would rather play slightly lower stakes with weaker players to make more money. Is this concept really that difficult to understand? Maybe when Chan has free time he likes to play in soft games where he can make the most money, does it really make him any less of a world class player because he isn't in the Big Game every day?

Its no lose when you have an edge. How can it not be? The media holds Chan out to be an excellent cash game player who plays in and beats the big game. My argument is that he does not. I have been to Vegas many times. Never seen him in it. Never read hands he was in in DNs blog or anyone else who has written about the big game and have only heard that used to play in it occassionally but he is weak in many of the limit games they play. There is no arguing that he used to be one of the best tournament players aroung when the fields were smaller, but he cannot be one of the best cash game players in the world if he does not play in the biggest cash game. Also you cannot make more money in a lower game than the big game if you have an edge in the big game. The only mixed game limit below the big game that runs consistently is 400/800. Occassionally you will see 1000/2000 during tournaments, but it is really a moot point, because I have never seen or heard of him playing in these games either.

[Clamps 0]

Its no lose when you have an edge. How can it not be? The media holds Chan out to be an excellent cash game player who plays in and beats the big game. My argument is that he does not. I have been to Vegas many times. Never seen him in it. Never read hands he was in in DNs blog or anyone else who has written about the big game and have only heard that used to play in it occassionally but he is weak in many of the limit games they play. There is no arguing that he used to be one of the best tournament players aroung when the fields were smaller, but he cannot be one of the best cash game players in the world if he does not play in the biggest cash game. Also you cannot make more money in a lower game than the big game if you have an edge in the big game. The only mixed game limit below the big game that runs consistently is 400/800. Occassionally you will see 1000/2000 during tournaments, but it is really a moot point, because I have never seen or heard of him playing in these games either.

You still don't get the point. The Big Game is almost strictly made up of professionals, which means that it is a tough game where noone is going to have a real advantage. I'm getting sick of repeating myself, but I might as well try again. Some of the best players in the world don't want to play the toughest games in the world because they can make more money playing weak players. Just because the stakes are higher does not mean that it's a more profitable game.

[LuckyMcCatcher 0]

You still don't get the point. The Big Game is almost strictly made up of professionals, which means that it is a tough game where noone is going to have a real advantage. I'm getting sick of repeating myself, but I might as well try again. Some of the best players in the world don't want to play the toughest games in the world because they can make more money playing weak players. Just because the stakes are higher does not mean that it's a more profitable game.

No you are obviously not getting the point. The best players in the world beat the big game. If you do not beat the big game for an amount that exceeds what u could make at smaller stakes then you are not one of the best players in the world. Very simple. You cant tell me that pros like Ivey, Reese, and Greenstein who have made tens of millions in that game do not have a significant edge.

[Clamps 0]

No you are obviously not getting the point. The best players in the world beat the big game. If you do not beat the big game for an amount that exceeds what u could make at smaller stakes then you are not one of the best players in the world. Very simple. You cant tell me that pros like Ivey, Reese, and Greenstein who have made tens of millions in that game do not have a significant edge.

Actually, the truth is that you have no idea how much money they've made/lost, so saying that they've been consistent winners is just a complete guess from you. The actual fact is that it's the toughest game in the world, and like I said multiple times before, some of the best cash game players in the world prefer to play weaker opposition because they have a significant edge. And once again, like I said before, Johnny Chan has obligations that keep him from playing cash games all the time. I can't see why you're having a hard time understanding.

[LuckyMcCatcher 0]

Actually, the truth is that you have no idea how much money they've made/lost, so saying that they've been consistent winners is just a complete guess from you. The actual fact is that it's the toughest game in the world, and like I said multiple times before, some of the best cash game players in the world prefer to play weaker opposition because they have a significant edge. And once again, like I said before, Johnny Chan has obligations that keep him from playing cash games all the time. I can't see why you're having a hard time understanding.

I have a hard time understanding, because you are assuming facts to make a failing argument e.g. that Johnny Chan plays in these lower level games,They are more profitable being the reason why, That these "other obligations" could be more profitable than expectation in the big game, and that Pros who play in the big game dont also have other obligations related to business and family. The most serious flaw in your argument is that someone could make more money playing in games 1 level down from the big game yet still have an edge in the big game. This simply mathematically impossible. Also the reason that I know the amount these pros have won or lost ( or a rough estimate) is they themselves have claimed these wins and their opponents have agreed. Also it is reflected in their lifestyle. If you are a losing player in the big game you will go broke quickly. You simply cannot play in the big game xconsistently and not win consistently unless you have another disposable source of income. Anyway I am done this is gambling 101 a class you either failed or didnt take.

[mtdesmoines 3]

I have a hard time understanding, because you are assuming facts to make a failing argument e.g. that Johnny Chan plays in these lower level games,They are more profitable being the reason why, That these "other obligations" could be more profitable than expectation in the big game, and that Pros who play in the big game dont also have other obligations related to business and family. The most serious flaw in your argument is that someone could make more money playing in games 1 level down from the big game yet still have an edge in the big game. This simply mathematically impossible. Also the reason that I know the amount these pros have won or lost ( or a rough estimate) is they themselves have claimed these wins and their opponents have agreed. Also it is reflected in their lifestyle. If you are a losing player in the big game you will go broke quickly. You simply cannot play in the big game xconsistently and not win consistently unless you have another disposable source of income. Anyway I am done this is gambling 101 a class you either failed or didnt take.

The information you don't have is the amount of money they're making from investments and endorsements, etc. Other income could be supporting these guys in the big game. And then there's Mattasow. Anyone believe he'll ever be out of the red?

[TylerSalzman 0]

Laak was one of the best players at the table. The fact is that he walked away as one of the biggest (if not the biggest) winners in the game. Last time I checked, poker was about making money, not making cute plays to impress people. And if you honestly think Antonio isn't a good player then you have your head up your ***. He was one of the best players out of both seasons, regardless of the bad beats he took.

I think the main thing here is that money still have meaning to Antonis and Laak. Losing a few thousand still makes it sting a lot to them as it would to most people. A lot of the other guys are so used to the high stakes that it doesn't even make them flinch anymore.Plus they just have tighter styles, and if the rest of the table is going to let them play tight and continue to give them action, then it is their fault. The way a lot of those guys were playing I would have sat back and waited for primium hands too because I could have still made money on them

[Clamps 0]

I have a hard time understanding, because you are assuming facts to make a failing argument e.g. that Johnny Chan plays in these lower level games,They are more profitable being the reason why, That these "other obligations" could be more profitable than expectation in the big game, and that Pros who play in the big game dont also have other obligations related to business and family. The most serious flaw in your argument is that someone could make more money playing in games 1 level down from the big game yet still have an edge in the big game. This simply mathematically impossible. Also the reason that I know the amount these pros have won or lost ( or a rough estimate) is they themselves have claimed these wins and their opponents have agreed. Also it is reflected in their lifestyle. If you are a losing player in the big game you will go broke quickly. You simply cannot play in the big game xconsistently and not win consistently unless you have another disposable source of income. Anyway I am done this is gambling 101 a class you either failed or didnt take.

What I'm trying to say is that nobody has an edge in the Big Game. The only edge anyone could have is specializing in a certain game, but that's offset by not being as good in a different game. So basically, even if you do have an edge, it's very minimal because you still have to play the toughest players in the world. Of course the game is beatable, but it's going to be leagues tougher than the games at lower stakes that are easier to beat. Anyway, the original argument was that Johnny Chan wasn't a top cash game player because he doesn't participate in the Big Game. My argument is that he now has business deals and a family that are more important to him than playing poker, and if he did want to play, maybe he'd want to do what a lot of top professionals do; play in the lower stakes/softer games that offer an easier profit. If you can't understand this then I'm sorry, but I can't explain it any simpler than that.

[zedd2005 0]

[ThreeBet 0]

The most serious flaw in your argument is that someone could make more money playing in games 1 level down from the big game yet still have an edge in the big game. This simply mathematically impossibleUnless, of course, one's "edge", as you describe it, is greater at the lower levels to make up for the difference in stakes? Definitely mathematically possible! I know basically nothing (not sure how you know more than most) about which pros play where and when and for how much and how they do BUT, from what I do "hear", Mr Chan does have a tendency to play in the Big Game every now and then.

[showstopper24 0]

I'm sure it's public knowledge that Mike borrows.Also, Matusow had been chattering away like he always does, so it's not like Daniel's comment was unprovoked.

true-and mike and daniel are friends

[Caught_clean 0]

No I think you guys are right, Chan is a horrrrrible cash game player! I once saw him lay down to the 3rd re raise and his opponent had rags, not even wired aces or kings and he only bought in for the minimum! Then the guy just got up and cashed out.