Daniel Negreneau Verifies His Agreement With Me

[David Sklansky]

"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."

You don't know what you are talking about. Obviously if he had 15% of his chips in the pot, to call 85% more means he is getting at least 115-85 odds. So he would call with some hands that he would fold getting even money. But there is no way he would call early in a tournament if his stack is reasonable and his positive EV is small (in this case say a 47% shot). If Raymer, Harrington, Phillips, Chen, or Mattros do it, they are either confused or think they have little playing edge against their opponents.

As to Daniel saying what he thinks I want to hear, you should know that he gave permission for me to write what he said. Not something he would do if he didn't mean it.

[FortunaMaximus]

Well, of course. More so than table selection, choosing when and where to apply your edges in a deepstacked MTT simply comes down to recognizing situations instead of pushing every edge.

He doesn't assume, he knows his postflop edge is much bigger than that of the aforementioned players. I wouldn't be surprised if he busted out of very few tournaments in the early stages, but that his busts occurred when he was trying to build a gigantic stack. And he has such huge expectation with the style he plays, in which his core game revolves around implied odds and the ability to take massive hits to his stack and rebuild...

That is a style that works for a rare, rare breed of players. It may even be mathematically wrong, but I'm not sure you can contradict his results. He simply goes for the win. Every tournament... Of all theortical opponents, I think that kind of limpaggro opponent is the hardest to adjust to and play against, especially since it's incredibly difficult to induce mistakes from him postflop.

[andyfox]

"Why do most of their opinions not matter"

Because David believes that William Chen may be the smartest poker player alive.

[alphatmw]

i'm surprised he left paul phillips out of the "opinions mattering" post though.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm surprised he left paul phillips out of the "opinions mattering" post though.

[/ QUOTE ]

read his MIT thread from way back. reputation >>>>> truth.

though he is right on the substance of his claims this time around.

[alphatmw]

i don't know what thread that refers to. link?

wasn't paul phillips listed as sklansky's 10th smartest player? it's always seemed fairly obvious to me that paul phillips has a brilliant poker mind, and if he actually disagreed with sklansky, i would be very interested to hear the arguments.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
"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."

You don't know what you are talking about. Obviously if he had 15% of his chips in the pot, to call 85% more means he is getting at least 115-85 odds. So he would call with some hands that he would fold getting even money. But there is no way he would call early in a tournament if his stack is reasonable and his positive EV is small (in this case say a 47% shot). If Raymer, Harrington, Phillips, Chen, or Mattros do it, they are either confused or think they have little playing edge against their opponents.

As to Daniel saying what he thinks I want to hear, you should know that he gave permission for me to write what he said. Not something he would do if he didn't mean it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually, you dont know what I am talking about.

[Beavis68]

[ 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 ]

I think most of these arguements are more about semantics than substance. I would like to see some specific examples of what is being discussed.

William Chen wrote a pretty good article in a "intelligent gambler" issue on the edge needed for taking a chance for all your chips.

I think on RPG you even agreed with him that in large field tournaments that chip EV is pretty close to $EV in the early stages.

Unfortunately, I have not been following all of your posts on the subject, so I do not know what kind of overlay Daniel agreed to, and I really do not know why you care so much about Daniel agreeing with you.

Does this mean if he disagrees with you elsewhere that is proof you are wrong?

[2461Badugi]

Tournaments Negreanu plays in =/= tournaments Snyder plays in. One would think this is ridiculously obvious.

By and large none of the big pros are going to agree, because the big pros play in much less repeatable events with extrinsic value, and it makes sense to try to maximize one's individual event finish in that circumstance.

Snyder's advice is specifically tailored to B&M dailies/weeklies, repeatable events with no extrinsic value. If you're playing in those, the only appropriate measure of success is hourly rate, and taking early coinflips will increase that.

[David Sklansky]

"Snyder's advice is specifically tailored to B&M dailies/weeklies, repeatable events with no extrinsic value. If you're playing in those, the only appropriate measure of success is hourly rate, and taking early coinflips will increase that."

Finally a correct statement. It WILL increase your hourly rate. That's of debatable importance if busting out early means you go home early. But is important if you will stay to play either a side game or another tournament. Concepts I mention specifically in my book. (Does Snyder?)

The problem is that it is completely off the subject. The ONLY thing that I'm discussing here is that Snyder wrote tons of words about how I was wrong when I say that smaller stacks, above a certain threshold are worth more per chip than larger stacks. Given you arebetter than most of the field. That's stupid even in winner take all events. Stupider still when there are multiple prizes. And when you add in that he claimed that smaller stacks are worth less than than their rightful proportion in head up games you are moving beyond stupid (because the disproof is so elementary and ironclad.)