Negreanu lumps Raymer w/ Moneymaker & Gold

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about that. If you go all in everytime you have AA, you swill still get called a good number of times and when your opponent folds, you basically steal the blinds plus the initial raise. Im pretty sure you AA will get cracked over the course of the ME. And what about all the times that you see you have a better hand than your opponent (AKs vs AQs,JJ,TT etc) many oppoenents may call your all in and there's no way your premiums can hold up over that many scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't go all-in based on your hand. You go all in when the remaining players do not have premium hands (and are not short stacked desperate)

[Python49]

[ QUOTE ]
Who else feels that Negreanu would get crushed in the online NLHE high stakes games?

[/ QUOTE ]
Uhh... I thought he already had? Oh, maybe that was high stakes LHE

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel: Would you say Raymers win followed by the deep run this year proves he can play well and didn't just get lucky? At what point does a ME winner prove themselves in your eyes and the eyes of other pros?

Not trying to be an a-hole, just generally wondering...I agree now that I've read what you had to say that it was taken the wrong way, but do you think that Greg has proved himself now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't base my view of an opponent's play based on a few tournament results. I base my opinion of their play based on how well they play the game. I think all of the recent WSOP champs have some talent, some more than others.
Some actualy play better than others, despite a lack of said talent. I truly believe that a guy like Moneymaker could become a good player. At the moment, I think he's taken so little time for the game that's it's hurt his focus. He has some raw talent, as does Jamie Gold.

Having said that, I think both Varkoni and Raymer play better on a consistent basis than those two.

[okterrific]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Daniel: Would you say Raymers win followed by the deep run this year proves he can play well and didn't just get lucky? At what point does a ME winner prove themselves in your eyes and the eyes of other pros?

Not trying to be an a-hole, just generally wondering...I agree now that I've read what you had to say that it was taken the wrong way, but do you think that Greg has proved himself now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't base my view of an opponent's play based on a few tournament results. I base my opinion of their play based on how well they play the game. I think all of the recent WSOP champs have some talent, some more than others.
Some actualy play better than others, despite a lack of said talent. I truly believe that a guy like Moneymaker could become a good player. At the moment, I think he's taken so little time for the game that's it's hurt his focus. He has some raw talent, as does Jamie Gold.

Having said that, I think both Varkoni and Raymer play better on a consistent basis than those two.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when are the $250k HU matches scheduled between you and Raymer?

How about 3 $250k HU matches. One NL and the other two matches can be one game of your choice and the other Raymers choice?

What say you?
That would be interesting. Pay per view? or some internet pay to view live feed? Maybe even the loser of the match can come out ahead $ wise.

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
The most ridiculous thing about Daniel's original article/argument is that it's insanely results oriented.

To claim that these guys :

Michael Mizrachi
Nam Le
Tuan Le

are better tournament players than these guys :

Greg Raymer
Chris Ferguson
Howard Lederer
Andy Bloch
Phil Gordon
Phil Laak
Erik Seidel

Is totally insane. And to claim that Gus or those guys play "small ball" is insane. There are only a few people who play small ball well, and they almost all get PWN3D in a true cash no limit (deep) game, because "small ball" is very easy to beat if you're good.

edit : basically DN says "people who have won a WPT event are better at wpt events than people who haven't". Wow, way to be the worst possible kind of poker thinker.


[/ QUOTE ]


Is this the norm here in these forums? Take something someone said, rip it apart completely taking, insert what you think they meant, and then rip them for comments they never made?

I never said those three players are better than the others in that post... but I will now! I have played with all of those players and I would GLADLY crossbook in any deep stack tournament those three against ANY three from your list. Grinder is for real, Nam is sick good, and Tuan ia also very dangerous. This is based on playing with them, not tournament results. You can have Erik Seidel, Howard Lederer, and Chris Ferguson in any deep stack tournament, and I'll take the Le twins and Grinder.

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
Alan, that tourney structure would be awesome but I fear if it existed alot of normal people wouldnt play and tourney donks would be out of jobs as cash game players would walk with all the money.

I realise current tourneys become shallow extremely early and thats why Raymer utilises a more math based approach. But its silly for danny to act condescending to those guys, especially when I have heard (obv. could be wrong) that Raymer is better at deep stacked poker, leaving danny an "expert" at exactly 30-60bb poker and nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get this stuff? LOL, seriously it's so bizarre to me that you "hear" this stuff and just assume it's true?

[Cardsofwood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alan, that tourney structure would be awesome but I fear if it existed alot of normal people wouldnt play and tourney donks would be out of jobs as cash game players would walk with all the money.

I realise current tourneys become shallow extremely early and thats why Raymer utilises a more math based approach. But its silly for danny to act condescending to those guys, especially when I have heard (obv. could be wrong) that Raymer is better at deep stacked poker, leaving danny an "expert" at exactly 30-60bb poker and nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get this stuff? LOL, seriously it's so bizarre to me that you "hear" this stuff and just assume it's true?

[/ QUOTE ]welcome to 2+2.

[restrikt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alan, that tourney structure would be awesome but I fear if it existed alot of normal people wouldnt play and tourney donks would be out of jobs as cash game players would walk with all the money.

I realise current tourneys become shallow extremely early and thats why Raymer utilises a more math based approach. But its silly for danny to act condescending to those guys, especially when I have heard (obv. could be wrong) that Raymer is better at deep stacked poker, leaving danny an "expert" at exactly 30-60bb poker and nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get this stuff? LOL, seriously it's so bizarre to me that you "hear" this stuff and just assume it's true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Danny, just wondering. Why AREN'T you playing the high stakes NLHE online games?

[happyhappyhappy]

[ QUOTE ]

Danny, just wondering. Why AREN'T you playing the high stakes NLHE online games?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I would GLADLY crossbook in any deep stack tournament those three against ANY three from your list.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since it's such a no-brainer, what kind of odds are you willing to lay?