Daniel Negreneau Verifies His Agreement With Me

[Shandrax]

This whole chipvalue debate still makes me wonder about something. What is the chiplead, that ability to threaten the whole table with elimination, worth? Can we quantify it somehow?

If chips lose value the more you have of them, but having the chiplead gains you some sort of different value in terms of bully-steroids, what's the ratio between these aspects?

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
When I bumped into Daniel at the Bellagio today I double checked with him about his view on gambling high proportions of his stack (without a big edge) early in a no limit holdem tournament. And of course he was against the idea, for him and all excellent players. Just as I said he would be.

I think the reason beginners and players with weak reading comprehension skills are under the incorrect impression that Daniel disagrees with me on this subject is that when I say to avoid big confrontations early, they incorrectly translate that into "play tight", and when Daniel writes that he "plays loose" they incorrectly assume that he means for big money as well as small.

Yes Daniel is an advocate of trying to build your stack up early. But only by playing "small ball" for the most part. With weak players starting the tournament, good players should get involved in a lot of pots if they can get in cheaply. And they should take small risks to double or triple their stacks in the first few rounds. Some pros don't do that and Daniel and I agree that they are wrong. But we also agree that if you have tripled that starting stack early you have no way tripled your equity if you are a good player. So big gambles with small edges are not part of the game plan.

If you still don't understand, (as apparently Arnold Snyder doesn't), you have no hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the reason why we think they disagree with you is because players like Paul Phillips, William Chen, Matt Matros, Greg Raymer and Dan Harrington have stated they they disagree with you (or at least make statements that contradict yours).

I don't many here regard Danial as a great poker theorist.

[FortunaMaximus]

I'm not certain, and let me toss in a few more variables to make it interesting. The chip lead at a table would have to be of a decided advantage to any other stack at the table.

And in any HU confrontation, the advantage would need to be at least 2.5-1 to assure the table CL a valuable advantage over the table average, even after losing the hand. This could create a scenario in which the CL could knowingly assume slightly -cEV post-flop expectation so he would be able to limp or call with a wider range of hands.

[FortunaMaximus]

I don't disagree, however, he's not the most articulate of writers when it comes to describing how he plays.

But you can't take away from the fact that he is consistently one of the better tournament players on the circuit. And when it comes down to it, he steps up his game to a level that no fundamental theorist can really quantify or even match in a tournament.

Let's be frank here. Given a 100-tournament comparsion, Negreanu's going to come out ahead in +$EV valuation over Harrington, even if Harrington's consistency will assure him of a more accurate estimate on their comparable ROI's.

[alphatmw]

what's the over/under on how many threads sklansky will start regarding this topic? because i would like to take the over, regardless.

[FortunaMaximus]

As much as is necessary to update TPFAP, perhaps? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
what's the over/under on how many threads sklansky will start regarding this topic? because i would like to take the over, regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]As many as it takes, I hope. I think this is a very useful discussion and I'm glad he's starting these threads.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't disagree, however, he's not the most articulate of writers when it comes to describing how he plays.


[/ QUOTE ]

He has also been known to have gigantic swings in his chips stack during events.

I would like to know how many times he has actually folded a hand to an allin when he thought he had an edge.

Some things are that being missed here are any discussions of pot sizes and % of stack already committed.

Perhaps in a dry pot with nothing committed he would fold, but in a pot where he had 15% or more of his chips already in play he would call even if the estimated EV where the same.

Maybe David had bad breath and Daniel just gave him an answer he thought would shut David up so he would leave him alone?

No one that plays poker for a living "likes" getting all in without a big edge at any point, but that doesn't mean they will fold it either. Look what happened to Helmuth when it became known he was an easy fold target.

Harrington's KJs hand is a good example from his first book or gambling early on.

[David Sklansky]

"I think the reason why we think they disagree with you is because players like Paul Phillips, William Chen, Matt Matros, Greg Raymer and Dan Harrington have stated they they disagree with you (or at least make statements that contradict yours"

About successive chips being worth less? I don't think so. And it would only matter if William Chen did.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think the reason why we think they disagree with you is because players like Paul Phillips, William Chen, Matt Matros, Greg Raymer and Dan Harrington have stated they they disagree with you (or at least make statements that contradict yours"

About successive chips being worth less? I don't think so. And it would only matter if William Chen did.

[/ QUOTE ]

All five of the players mentioned have a better understanding of the mathematics and strategy of MTTs than Negreanu. Why do most of their opinions not matter but Negreanu's does? Negreanu is a better tournament player than any of them, but he is not a better strategist.