Negreanu disrespects Chen

[Mediocre_Player]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a fan of Negreanu because he's a good player and he's Canadian so I always cheer for him when he's doing well in big events.

However lately I'm becoming more annoyed by his arrogant attitude. His tirades against "math players" are tiresome and they are never logical or well explained. This latest Circuit episode was a great example.

He tried to give examples of mistakes that "math players" make but none of them proved his contention that they make mistakes.

For example he told a story about something TJ Cloutier once taught him. TJ is of course a very succesful tournament player and Negreanu gave him respect for that. Then he said that TJ once told him that he "makes his decisions based on whether he thinks he's got him" and not based on pot odds at all. He gave the example of there being $1000 in the pot on the river and his opponent bets $20 on the end, but TJ is "sure" that he's beaten (90% sure). TJ says that if he thinks he's beat then he would throw it away, even for $10.

My question is why is Negreanu telling us this story unless he's making fun of TJ, which he clearly wasn't? TJ is obviously either lying or he has been successful in spite of this terrible leak. Instead Negreanu was giving respect to TJ and the old school "feel" players while trying to disrespect the math players.

I know that Negreanu uses some math in his decisions, and will consider pot odds, because I've read some of his blog posts about hands he's played. But then he goes on these radio programs and basically lies and gives terrible examples to prove his vague claim that small ball is the infinitely superior strategy in almost every situation.

Based on results it appears that Negreanu is a better player than Sklansky and most of the math players that he bashes, but I am glad that I learned from Sklansky's teachings instead of DN or else I would be broke. If I was listening to DN then I would think it's profitable to raise 90% of hands at a full table as he claimed to do at the WSOP this year (something which I don't believe could ever be profitable). And I would fold hands with a 10% winning chance getting 100:1 pot odds just because I somehow mysteriously "know" that I'm beaten. I would make these plays because he taught me that math is wrong so I should just use my "feel" to make decisions so I can gamble my life away at the craps tables with TJ. Unlike that sucker "math player" Sklansky who uses logic to make decisions and mysteriously seems to win money every year without taking reckless gambles.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFMFT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you misunderstood the point I was trying to make, or possibly, I did a very poor job in getting in across. The situation I was describing with TJ was that his approach to this hand was wrong. He basically said that if he felt he was beat he would fold. I'm sure he didn't exactly mean that, but the idea is flawed.

I pointed that out to him using an extreme example where he was 90% sure he was beat, yet should still call because he was getting the right price.

I wasn't taking a shot at math players at all, if anything, I was pointing out a flaw in TJ's old school approach.

I think mathematics and a fundamental understanding of the game is an excellent, no better yet, the best way to improve your poker game.

What I often question is whether or not "math players" are able to factor in the human element as much as they should. Based on talking with Bill and Chris Ferguson, they try to play poker in such a way that makes them impossible to exploit. That is a good strategy, but I could illustrate several scenarios where it wouldn't be the best strategy.

I'd go as far as to say that if you feel as though you may be an underdog in a certain game that applying a strategy that isn't exploitable might just be the best course of action.

However, if you are at a table where you are the best player at the table, you should be less concerned with your opponents exploiting you, and more concerned with taking advantage of holes in their game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some of your posts, re: smallball have been pretty terrible. However the post above is excellent, esp last 2 paragraphs.