Re: Daniel Negreanu - Great Insider Gossip
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A great gambler isn't always going to get the best of it.
Then he or she does not qualify as a great gambler, this person qualifies as an action junky.
[/ QUOTE ]
Meh in that type of world you have to give action to get action, no one wants to gamble with a nit. aka -ev gambles are fine if it leads to higher +ev propositions later.
[/ QUOTE ]
Totally true if that was the intent of the gambler and it leads to enough extra plus propositions later. Partly true if the gambler was under the mistaken impression that his original gambles were plus EV but it still gets extra good bets later. Not true at all if the gambler doesn't get enough extra good bets to make up for his bad ones.
Personally I can think of no gambler who was reknowned for making a lot of bad bets, who didn't wind up broke.
[/ QUOTE ]
My English teacher told me spelling is paramount.
But on the less nitty bastard line if a professional gambler took known -EV bets for 'fun' that were for a very small % of their bankroll(Doyle playing $500 blackjack for example) would you class this as gambling or spending?
|