[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
Most haven't read it yet and those who haven't should reserve comment until they have. The jist of it is that he puts poker players into two categories, basically grinders and risk takers, and he then gives the pros and cons to both approaches.

I'll elaborate on my objections later on. But for now I would simply like to say that there is nothing that forces you to choose to be in either extreme category. Daniel claims that risk avoiders will never be found above 80-160 or 25-50 NL. Nonsense. He also implies that the highest players are making good decisions when they play against each other rather than play smaller and win more in the long run with less risk. And that there are good reasons to take big risks regarding going broke. Again nonsense.

I completely agree that those who never push themselves past their comfort level are somewhat sad cases. If you can afford it, play in higher games than you are used to if for no other reason than it will help your game. If things work out you just may move up the stakes ladder for good. Don't just think of poker as a steady job if there is any chance at all you have not reached your peak. But you can do all this without being a sucker.

[/ QUOTE ]

What has happened here is that your "jist of it" description misses the mark as to what was actually written. For example, NOWHERE in the article do I say that there are only two types of poker players. The article deals with two types of mindsets held by many professional players. It doesn't even address various other types of players. I also NEVER stated in the column that you are forced to either extreme category, obviously the example I used dealt with two extremes, but never in the column do I even imply that it's either "all or nothing" or "be a nit." In fact, I mention the importance of knowing your own level of competence and how that's difficult for most players to do. Realizing that the level they've reached is as far as their talent level will take them is a poker skill in itself.

You are also wrong about their being any professional playing risk avoiders above the 80-160 limit. You say nonsense, yet you are 100%, completely, and utterly dead wrong. Your definition of a risk-taker, I suppose, could make you right, but I'm definitely not wrong.

David, can you name even one professional poker player who started his poker career above the 80-160 level? I doubt it. With that being true, every single player that moved up in limits from lower limits, regardless of how they approached it, took risks to increase their bankroll and hourly earn. Some do it safely, some do it recklessly, but none of these players, by definition, could ever be a Larry.

The second "nonsense" comment I got from you was way off also. Twisting what I wrote isn't going to change the fact that I didn't actually write what you say I did. If your bankroll gets to the point where you are excessively comfortable at any given limit, testing your skills at the next limit IS a good idea, even if you are uncertain as to whether or not you are +EV in the game. Again, I never said you should do that until you go broke as you say I did, what I said was that taking a shot can be beneficial to your long term earning power and skill level as a poker player.

For example, if you could play 500 hours on a free roll with the big boys versus actually earning money in, say, a 10-20 NL game, you should absolutely do it, even if you think you are a huge underdog to win. In the long run, those hours will make you a better player and your learning curve will be escalated.

Of course, in the real world that's not going to happen, so you need to be careful with your "excess" bankroll when taking these shots and don't gamble with the comfortable bankroll for your bread and butter game.

If you re-read the article I wrote I think you'd find that you are actually agreeing with me completely, but your defensive goggles are blurring your vision a little bit.


Every high limit professional player is more of a Johnny than a Larry. Even you, you big ol romantic wild west, guns a blazing gambler you...