Negreanu disrespects Chen

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ 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.

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
hey guys i know lets keep DN involved in the 2p2 community by continually involving him in things that dont matter


[/ QUOTE ]

That seems to be working, LOL. Actually, there are a few reasons that I don't spend time on 2+2 unless someone lets me know another fire has been started:

1) I absolutely hate the set up of the forums. I find it difficult to navigat through these forums, more so than any other site. I'm probably in the minority there, but just call it a personal preference.

2) Many of the posters on here wouldn't ever give me a chance to contribute without finding something bad to say. I can live with it, but it's pretty clear that a lot of the posters on here don't like me for various reasons.
That's unfortunate, because I don't think many of them actually know me. They think they do, from watching a few episodes on TV or from reading posts of mine on the internet, but they don't really know what I'm about or why I do the things I do.

3) Time. I spend a lot of time on the FCP forums, and even there I have little time for the strategy forums although I do throw out a quiz question every once in a while.


Sometimes I think that I could add a fresh perspective on poker theory on this forum, but so many of the posters wouldn't allow themselves to look past their hatrid long enough to realize that they could learn something from me.

[MikeyPatriot]

Daniel,

I'm a fan of yours, etc. etc. etc. The fact that you come on this board to explain/defend yourself is very admirable and I appreciate your openness and honesty.

I haven't heard the interview in question, but I have heard you on earlier episodes of the Circuit and on one of the WPT commentaries. While there are definitely "math players" that are exploitable and don't adjust well to the game they're currently playing, it's very annoying for you to label these people that way. The way it comes off to the viewer/listener makes it seem like using a mathematics base for your game is undesirable.

It's obvious that you have a lot of respect for players that have a firm grasp of the math and logic behind the game. It definitely doesn't come off that way is some of your interviews, etc.

While I maybe have your attention...what are some good restaurants in Vegas for a couple of vegetarians?

[New2NL]

ZOMG YOU MISPELLED HATRED!!!

I do appreciate you taking the time to give thought out posts though.

BTW use Flat mode not threaded.

[Dry Riser]

[ QUOTE ]
ZOMG YOU MISPELLED HATRED!!!

I do appreciate you taking the time to give thought out posts though.

BTW use Flat mode not threaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

and just click on 'show all'

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the posters on here wouldn't ever give me a chance to contribute without finding something bad to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

As an extremely well-known and successful player, I think that your contributions would be valued extremely highly on 2+2. I suspect that many posters would pay close attention to every post you made, and I think you would get a lot of thoughtful responses to basically anything you said.


[ QUOTE ]
I can live with it, but it's pretty clear that a lot of the posters on here don't like me for various reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the Internet, there are a lot of members, and you're very famous in the poker world. Statistics dictate that there are going to be some people who say negative things.


[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I think that I could add a fresh perspective on poker theory on this forum, but so many of the posters wouldn't allow themselves to look past their hatrid long enough to realize that they could learn something from me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's false, and I think you know that there are far more posters who would be thrilled to hear poker theory from you. If you don't want to post, of course you don't have to, but I don't think this is a good reason.

[MicroBob]

I would be very interested in hearing more of Daniel's perspective around here.

we've been hearing a bit more from players like Alan Goehring and Blair Rodman in the tourney-circuit forum.
Barry Greenstein was posting here every once in awhile too but doesn't seem to as much anymore. Perhaps got frustrated by the problems DN describes.

And even 2+2's very own Greg Raymer takes some bashing on here now and again...but then usually the basher gets sshouted down by the vast majority of 2+2'ers who have a lot of respect for him and his accomplishments.
Of course, this happened with a couple of DN's comments on Raymer as well and I'm not sure we're completely past that.


sigh, I don't know. Some 2+2'ers are pretty silly sometimes (me included). But I would hope your appearance here again is a sign that you're willing to give it another shot and see how it goes.


Regarding the forum-navigation: maybe I'm just used to it but I like it a lot better than most other forums I've been to.

[TheWorstPlayer]

Daniel,

Why don't you try making a post in the strategy forums and see how it works out? I think you'll find that a lot of the people who flame you when you post here don't even read the high stakes strategy forums and that the people who read the strategy forums don't ever bother to watch poker on TV. If you can add fruitfully to the discussion, you would of course be respected as a valuable poster, no matter any tv antics or political views or whatever.

And lately there have been some very high stakes posts (e.g. 300/600 NL) which I'm sure people would love to hear your take on.

- TWP

[Off Duty]

[ QUOTE ]
1) I absolutely hate the set up of the forums. I find it difficult to navigat through these forums, more so than any other site. I'm probably in the minority there, but just call it a personal preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. The worst BB software and layout I've ever used.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
but it's pretty clear that a lot of the posters on here don't like me for various reasons.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Daniel !!, the majority of the posters in this site do like you.

Well, I'm pretty sure the good ones do [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

David C