Daniel Negreanu - Great Insider Gossip - Page 10

adanthar · #91 05-01-2007, 12:09 PM

there's no such thing as a 'great gambler' IMO. it's clearly possible to be a 'great poker player'. a 'great gambler', however, is (depending on your definition) either someone that will die in a gutter or a hustler. neither of those things is good and one of them isn't even pitiful.

7n7 · #92 05-01-2007, 12:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
there's no such thing as a 'great gambler' IMO. it's clearly possible to be a 'great poker player'. a 'great gambler', however, is (depending on your definition) either someone that will die in a gutter or a hustler. neither of those things is good and one of them isn't even pitiful.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement surprises me a little. Do you really believe this? You actually believe that there are no gamblers out there that won't end up face-down on Las Vegas blvd. or have to hustle for a living? Or am I falling for a good leveling here?

Peter McDermott · #93 05-01-2007, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
there's no such thing as a 'great gambler' IMO. it's clearly possible to be a 'great poker player'. a 'great gambler', however, is (depending on your definition) either someone that will die in a gutter or a hustler. neither of those things is good and one of them isn't even pitiful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the poster meant he's a great gambler in the same sense that Nick Dandalos was a great gambler. So what if he lost millions playing with Johnny Moss and died busto? Degenerates everywhere see a little bit of themselves in Nick 'the greek' Dandalos, and I for one am happy for them to cling to the illusion that men like that are 'great gamblers'.

David Sklansky · #94 05-01-2007, 02:20 PM

[ 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.

David Sklansky · #95 05-01-2007, 02:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A great gambler isn't always going to get the best of it. Maybe that's why you can only write books using your lessons from grade school english and no top pro thinks you can play at a high level. Maybe that's why you are afraid to make correct plays at final tables because you are afraid the viewers will think you look stupid. Gambling doesn't always mean winning. It means gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've been watching too many movies.

Johnny Hughes · #96 05-01-2007, 03:00 PM

When I first went to Las Vegas in 1960, Nick the Greek was a daily fixture shooting dice at the mobbed up casinos. Rumor had it that he was broke and owed all the joints money. They gave him chips to shoot. He was a glorified shill. I was thrilled to see him and my partner touched him for luck. He'd shoot dice awhile and then take a taxi to another casino. That was when he was very old. He couldn't have been all that great a gambler or he would not have held on to Johnny Moss so long. Given some of his partners, such as Titanic Thompson, I'd guess he cheated.

You tell a great trapper by the furs on the wall.

A great gambler is going to try to get the best of it every time he makes a wager.

AAmucked · #97 05-01-2007, 04:10 PM

Every time I see a post like this it seems like it's always just spew trying to illicit a response from a famous person

samsdmf · #98 05-01-2007, 04:41 PM

[ 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?

BostonMetro · #99 05-01-2007, 05:35 PM

I am interpreting your posts to mean that you think Negreanu is lucky to not be flat broke right now. And by flat broke I mean into a bunch of people for a lot of money. I'm assuming you think he's a very good poker player who has thrown a lot of luck and money down the drain. I don't think anyone, including Negreanu himself, would disagree with that. The question is, why should he be criticized for it? At least it's entertaining.

Fly · #**100** 05-01-2007, 05:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel Negreanu is one of the great gamblers of our time. He offered to play anyone for up to $10 million dollars head-up in any game (about ten different games twice). He willingly got beat out of a million dollars playing seven-card stud (which he is terrible at) against Barry Greenstein. He played (and lost big... and admitted it) the best LHE players online HU at his poker site because he believed in it. He lost a million dollars playing high stakes golf even though he probably couldn't shoot under 100 tomorrow. He lost a million in the big game and admitted it in his blog, even swallowing his pride saying that he's afraid to play that high anymore. He liberally backs players he believes in. He writes and even films a [censored] blog to let people see what his life is like. He's so weird that you know he's not just making that blog for the money aspect. There's nothing to hate about him. He's just a weird guy. Would you rather he be boring as hell and have great money management skills? Yay! I wish he was more like Greg Raymer! Gavin Smith is a complete wackjob and flat broke right now and no one says a damn thing bad about him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please remove yourself from the gene pool.