Daniel Negreanu's Latest Cardplayer Article

[Eponymous]

Maybe I took DN's intro to his article too literally, but I thought it did an excellent job of explaining why pros play in the big game when they can easily make a comfortable living at lower levels. He used the Larry and Johnny examples to illustrate his point well. I would like to see more of these kinds of articles from him.

The reading-between-the-lines insight I got from Daniel is that a lot of Johnny's take shots at the big game, most of which dump some bankroll and leave. This allows the regulars in the big game continue to play in it profitably.

Daniel: Is the above correct? I think when most people ask you the question about playing in the big game, they are wondering how the top players can make money if they all stay in the big game. It must that those taking shots at the big game sustain it, correct? Maybe an obvious conclusion, but unstated in your article.

[ProfessorBen]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question. Isn't one problem with moving up in stakes without adequate bankroll a risk simply because it takes some time to know if you can, or cannot, beat the game at the higher stakes?
Without an adequate bankroll, one or two bad sessions might convince you that you cannot beat a game that you can in the long run. OTOH one or two good sessions might convince you that you can beat a game that you cannot in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you've noted, it's very difficult to determine your winrate after a few short sessions. It's also an accepted piece of 2p2 lore that it's impossible to ever accurately determine your winrate in the long run because by the time you have a large enough sample size, the game have likely changed, so you never know your winrate to even within 1BB/100(LHE).

In higher limit games, players are often pushing tiny edges and trying to crank out a tiny winrate at a large limit (.5BB/100 at $100/$200+ LHE, for instance), so it is very difficult to even discover whether you are a winner.

Rather, aware(not necessarily good) players can tell whether they are by just looking at the game for a few sessions, evaluating play, and pointing out the weak spots. If you can't tell, it means that the game probably isn't beatable, as I'm inclined to believe that most players overrate their own ability, so you should pick a better spot(see point #2 on my list). I don't think this is a big issue.

These examples are all limit-based, but I think they apply to NL and other games.

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
The reading-between-the-lines insight I got from Daniel is that a lot of Johnny's take shots at the big game, most of which dump some bankroll and leave. This allows the regulars in the big game continue to play in it profitably

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting how in HSP Chris Ferguson made sure he wasn't one of those guys. Didn't do anything very interesting, but also walked away ahead. Might be the overall smartest gambler in the world.

[Franchise 60]

[ QUOTE ]

Interesting how in HSP Chris Ferguson made sure he wasn't one of those guys. Didn't do anything very interesting, but also walked away ahead. Might be the overall smartest gambler in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

You couldn't be any farther from the truth...Ferguson is a great tournament player who has marketed himself very well, but implying that he is the smartest gambler in the world is ludicrous.

[pyedog]

Was anyone else annoyed by the math in this article? The player is making $2K per week playing 5-10 NL as the best player at that limit (which seems low considering the best player could expect a winrate of $50-75/hr at those stakes). Then he moves up to 10-20NL against much better players (thus obviously his earn rate shouldn't even double, but should only increase by about 50%) and all of a sudden he's making $10K per week?

It seems like those figures were pulled out of nowhere just to glamorize the player who is taking a shot at the higher stakes. But I did think it was an interesting article nonetheless. As you can probably tell, I'm a nit, in both senses of the word.

[CardSharpCook]

pye, I noticed that too.

[otter]

Yes I was too

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Was anyone else annoyed by the math in this article? The player is making $2K per week playing 5-10 NL as the best player at that limit (which seems low considering the best player could expect a winrate of $50-75/hr at those stakes).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, 40 hours a week at $50 an hour is $2000 a week. Now, a $75/hour winner would make $3000 a week at 40 hours per.

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Was anyone else annoyed by the math in this article? The player is making $2K per week playing 5-10 NL as the best player at that limit (which seems low considering the best player could expect a winrate of $50-75/hr at those stakes).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, 40 hours a week at $50 an hour is $2000 a week. Now, a $75/hour winner would make $3000 a week at 40 hours per.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah you're right, $2K per week seems like a pretty good earn estimate for a really good live 5-10 NL player. Averaging close to $10K per week for a 10-20NL player seems absurd though. Even at an amazing 10 PTBB/100 he'd need to play over 70 hours a week. So maybe this theoretical shot taker developed some impressive stamina when he moved up in stakes to the higher games.

Damn imagine how hard it must be on DN's wife to be supported by someone who seems to be willing to put up a good percentage of their net worth on something that he's terrible at like golf. I mean for the spouse of a grinding style pro poker player there are good times and bad of course. But you wouldn't normally have to deal with someone who wants to bet most of their savings on a whim. None of my business of course, but hopefully Danny sticks to betting on stuff that he's good at and for hopefully less than 5% of his net worth at a time. I find it bizarre that someone with those traits is writing advice columns to other gamblers who err too much on the side of caution (like me). Personally I'd rather be getting advice from someone who exhibits a happy medium of taking some intelligent gambles without risking most of his savings.

[mattnxtc]

Pyedog...

Any proof to back up ur assertions that DN bets a good percentage of his net worth?