Why 57k?

[fleung22 1]

Daniel from Jan 25/'07 blog:With the blinds at 12,000-24,000 with a 3000 ante, I came in for 57,000 with QJ. Why 57,000? Well, when I finish the book I’ll explain why I chose such a seemingly strange number.I was trying to logically figure out why Daniel would pick 57K. Is the magic number [(2 x BB) + (3 x Ante)]?That's my best guess.

[pong1092 0]

Only thing I can figure out is BB+SB+7*ante=24,000+12,000+7*3000=36,000+21,000=57,000. So it would be a pot size amount to come in for. I think this makes the most sense of that number.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Only thing I can figure out is BB+SB+7*ante=24,000+12,000+7*3000=36,000+21,000=57,000. So it would be a pot size amount to come in for. I think this makes the most sense of that number.

Smart man

[fleung22 1]

oh yeah, pot sized bet...well why didn't Danny just say that? it's not revolutionary.speaking of Daniel...shouldn't you be doing tai chi or whatever and getting ready for the tournament?

[Canuckickstan 2]

oh yeah, pot sized bet...well why didn't Danny just say that? it's not revolutionary.speaking of Daniel...shouldn't you be doing tai chi or whatever and getting ready for the tournament?

Or peanut thai fried tofu !!

[Head_Trauma 0]

Smart man

I love the sarcasm. Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing when I saw that post.

[Derswick 0]

speaking of Daniel...shouldn't you be doing tai chi or whatever and getting ready for the tournament?I think this site is "Tai Chi" for Daniel

[CMOORACES 0]

oh yeah, pot sized bet...well why didn't Danny just say that? it's not revolutionary.speaking of Daniel...shouldn't you be doing tai chi or whatever and getting ready for the tournament?

Is it a pot sized bet? If one person before you calls the big blind, do you add that to the 57k and bet 81k? Or is it just tied to the BB+SB+7(ante)?If it's just what's in the pot, then I agree that it's just a pot sized bet. If not, it's a formula that is fixed. Does that make sense or am I just confused (I'm certainly willing to admit the latter) .Interesting topic!

[fleung22 1]

Is it a pot sized bet? If one person before you calls the big blind, do you add that to the 57k and bet 81k? Or is it just tied to the BB+SB+7(ante)?If it's just what's in the pot, then I agree that it's just a pot sized bet. If not, it's a formula that is fixed. Does that make sense or am I just confused (I'm certainly willing to admit the latter) .Interesting topic!

Well now that we know the answer from Daniel I'm not sure this thread is all that interesting but thanks anyways.To answer your question you generally will increase your preflop raise if there are others in the pot. Why? Because they will be deciding their call based on the call amount relative to what's in the pot.

[CMOORACES 0]

Well now that we know the answer from Daniel I'm not sure this thread is all that interesting but thanks anyways.To answer your question you generally will increase your preflop raise if there are others in the pot. Why? Because they will be deciding their call based on the call amount relative to what's in the pot.

Well I still find it interesting but then I'm easily amused Obviously if you have three callers in before you, the raise to 57k loses more punch relative to overall pot size. But does one caller make a difference? Is this approach specifically designed to only be used when there are no other callers in the pot yet? Just trying to understand more of the small ball approach that Daniel raves about. I don't plan to quit my day job.

[compncards 0]

He is turning it into glorified Pot Limit Holdem. :-)

[Fidler0 0]

He is turning it into glorified Pot Limit Holdem. :-)

now..i've only played in one pot limit event...but i think if you raised "the pot" in this situation...it would be like this.Blinds + antes = 57,000after you call the BB there is 81,000 in the potthen you can raise the pot, or 81,000...making the total bet 105,000Daniel raised to only 57k...not even close to a pot sized betcorrect me if i'm wrong...i'm not 100% sure on thisIf Daniel ever raises the pot pre-flop...he's heavily medicated (or extremely short stacked)

[jooka 0]

oh yeah, pot sized bet...well why didn't Danny just say that? it's not revolutionary.speaking of Daniel...shouldn't you be doing tai chi or whatever and getting ready for the tournament?

smart writers challenge the reader.

[Balloon guy 158]

I bet it was the exact amount of 'extra' chips that didn't fit nice and neat in stacks of 20.Now that he's clean shaven, he wanted to be tidy.

[njtough 0]

oh yeah, pot sized bet...well why didn't Danny just say that? it's not revolutionary.

The point is

not

that it is a pot sized bet, but more that Daniel will not overbet the pot ever. Daniel's small ball approach is to bet between 50-75% of the pot in almost all cases. Though I don't necessarily agree with this approach in every situation, I'm sure he will go into detail about the exceptions in his book. So if there was 1 caller, he may still make it 57k but more likely bet 2.5x the big blind. In this case, 2.5x the big blind would have been 60k and would have been over betting the pot; something Daniel's small approach is very much against. He clearly did not want to limp and felt the need to take the lead with his hand, but did not want to overbet either.I'm not sure if Daniel would confirm this, but I believe that is the reason for the 57k. It stays in line with the small ball approach.I like the sound of the small ball approach but I immediately have some reservations about it. I know it's predicated on a player having skill, but it also can put a player to frequent decisions. Daniel is an amazing reader (maybe the best in the game) and can make these decisions and in most instances be right, but even a skilled professional may run into some difficult moments where a larger bet may have dissuaded their opponent from making a move. Anyway, I'm sure Daniel will cover some of this in his book. But I hope he'll also remember that most of us don't read quite as good as him.

[fleung22 1]

The point is

not

that it is a pot sized bet, but more that Daniel will not overbet the pot ever. Daniel's small ball approach is to bet between 50-75% of the pot in almost all cases. Though I don't necessarily agree with this approach in every situation, I'm sure he will go into detail about the exceptions in his book. So if there was 1 caller, he may still make it 57k but more likely bet 2.5x the big blind. In this case, 2.5x the big blind would have been 60k and would have been over betting the pot; something Daniel's small approach is very much against. He clearly did not want to limp and felt the need to take the lead with his hand, but did not want to overbet either.I'm not sure if Daniel would confirm this, but I believe that is the reason for the 57k. It stays in line with the small ball approach.I like the sound of the small ball approach but I immediately have some reservations about it. I know it's predicated on a player having skill, but it also can put a player to frequent decisions. Daniel is an amazing reader (maybe the best in the game) and can make these decisions and in most instances be right, but even a skilled professional may run into some difficult moments where a larger bet may have dissuaded their opponent from making a move. Anyway, I'm sure Daniel will cover some of this in his book. But I hope he'll also remember that most of us don't read quite as good as him.

I was interested in the small ball concept and have incorporated some of the ideas into my game. One thing that Daniel mentioned was that he raised more when he respected the players at the table and that just made a lot of sense to me. I like to be involved in a lot of pots but gear changing is the best method for me. Sometimes a bluff a lot and sometimes I'll go the whole session without making a single cold bluff.I'm definitely curious about the book and hopefully Daniel will post some excerpts before the final print on FCP.