Daniel Negreanu's Latest Cardplayer Article

[MrMore]

I am probably the classic "Larry," and have to say I'm not the least bet offended by DN's characterization.

But I'm not a nit. A "nit" is a nitpicker. It's someone who's petty about the rules, without appreciation for what's good for the game in the long run. It's someone looking for little edges, like not risking taking the last blind before a game breaks up. It's someone who annoys live ones, rather than indulging them. Very, very few true winning players are nits. Just like very few are really tight. Most of the time, "nit" is now only used as a pejorative description of a solid player who annoys you by not losing to you, poor you. Oddly enough, it's now a term used mostly by...nits. The kind of nits who whine about opponents who play better than them. DN himself probably wrote the best article on nits ever, in CP many years ago. Maybe someone can find it.

But, as to DN's points about risk, I think he's right. I'd add a few things.

First, DN, like most of you, is single (or if he isn't, that just changed). You aren't in the same spot as a man with a wife, kids and mortage payment, like me. Going broke isn't an option for me. Period. It would be childish of me to take significant risks with my BR. It isn't nittiness. It isn't fear of risk. I play poker for a living. Hard to be more risk-embracing than that. But I'm not stupid. I don't have an ego that needs for strangers to know my name or respect my play. Especially considering that most of the fame anyone gets from poker is from people who don't know what the games' even about, and only admire players for having been on TV or having big stacks. You have to be good at poker to know who's good at poker, and the vast majority, even of poker players, much less lay people, aren't good at poker.

Second, at some point in that article he says there are many "Larrys." He's wrong. There are very, very few of us. There are many, many Johnnys. Tons. They're a dime a dozen, really. But guys earning a middle-class living without ever suffering the degradations and stresses of going broke are rare birds.

Third, of the Johnnys who make it big, most are just lucky. Most, really, hit a tourney streak at some point, got pumped up and maybe famous enough to freeroll from endorsements and stakes. But they aren't inherently better or different than the thousands and thousands of Johnnys who tried but failed.

Consider this approx. breakdown of live NL steps:
5/10
10/20
20/40, 25/50
50/100
100/200
200/400
500/1000
1000/2000

In truth, it's hard to find smooth delineations at a high level, or constant games, or have game selection, etc, but assume that you could find such a breakdown. Assume that you move up a level every time you double up. Assume that once at the highest level you have to double up 2 more times to really have made it.

That means that if you have the skills to average a 50/50 chance of doubling up before going broke at each level, there'll be about one Johnny making it big for every 1000 or so who fail. On luck alone.

And there are TENS of thousands of Johnnys trying this progression.

DN looks back at the climb as one of the Johnnys who made it, and thinks "What a good decision I made trying." Fanboys look at his climb and think, "See, I'm not crazy trying to do it, too."

The guys who've make it, that I've talked to, have respect for the Larrys, actually. BG, Todd B., Ted Forrest, and DN, too, I think, recognize that it's a choice, and further recognize that they aren't even necessarily better players than the Larrys. In return, most of us Larrys have respect for the Johnnys who've made it, and don't wish them poorly, don't gloat about the big-time bustos, and don't hate them.

But, unlike many of you, who are young, I've seen the lives of Johnny as they usually play out. I've seen the collateral (family and friends) damage. Consider at least Moneymaker, who had to borrow from family to afford the travel expenses, or Jerry Yang, who couldn't even afford a decent hotel room, or Raymer, who had to hustle up stakehorses online. The WSOP is full of stories like that WITHOUT the happy endings. Just, borrowed money never paid back, or spent at a kid's expense. That's life, and I don't blame poker for its human scale, but to glorify the mountain climbers as "risk takers," without seeing also that they're "risk-takers" and not "degenerates" only because of a spade on the river or a 4 on the turn or whatever, is to be childish.

Sometimes it takes courage to move up in stakes and risk your BR. But sometimes it takes courage not to.

[Nick-Zack]

[ QUOTE ]

Third, of the Johnnys who make it big, most are just lucky. Most, really, hit a tourney streak at some point, got pumped up and maybe famous enough to freeroll from endorsements and stakes. But they aren't inherently better or different than the thousands and thousands of Johnnys who tried but failed.


[/ QUOTE ]

[LuckySal]

[ QUOTE ]
I am probably the classic "Larry," and have to say I'm not the least bet offended by DN's characterization.

But I'm not a nit. A "nit" is a nitpicker. It's someone who's petty about the rules, without appreciation for what's good for the game in the long run. It's someone looking for little edges, like not risking taking the last blind before a game breaks up. It's someone who annoys live ones, rather than indulging them. Very, very few true winning players are nits. Just like very few are really tight. Most of the time, "nit" is now only used as a pejorative description of a solid player who annoys you by not losing to you, poor you. Oddly enough, it's now a term used mostly by...nits. The kind of nits who whine about opponents who play better than them. DN himself probably wrote the best article on nits ever, in CP many years ago. Maybe someone can find it.

But, as to DN's points about risk, I think he's right. I'd add a few things.

First, DN, like most of you, is single (or if he isn't, that just changed). You aren't in the same spot as a man with a wife, kids and mortage payment, like me. Going broke isn't an option for me. Period. It would be childish of me to take significant risks with my BR. It isn't nittiness. It isn't fear of risk. I play poker for a living. Hard to be more risk-embracing than that. But I'm not stupid. I don't have an ego that needs for strangers to know my name or respect my play. Especially considering that most of the fame anyone gets from poker is from people who don't know what the games' even about, and only admire players for having been on TV or having big stacks. You have to be good at poker to know who's good at poker, and the vast majority, even of poker players, much less lay people, aren't good at poker.

Second, at some point in that article he says there are many "Larrys." He's wrong. There are very, very few of us. There are many, many Johnnys. Tons. They're a dime a dozen, really. But guys earning a middle-class living without ever suffering the degradations and stresses of going broke are rare birds.

Third, of the Johnnys who make it big, most are just lucky. Most, really, hit a tourney streak at some point, got pumped up and maybe famous enough to freeroll from endorsements and stakes. But they aren't inherently better or different than the thousands and thousands of Johnnys who tried but failed.

Consider this approx. breakdown of live NL steps:
5/10
10/20
20/40, 25/50
50/100
100/200
200/400
500/1000
1000/2000

In truth, it's hard to find smooth delineations at a high level, or constant games, or have game selection, etc, but assume that you could find such a breakdown. Assume that you move up a level every time you double up. Assume that once at the highest level you have to double up 2 more times to really have made it.

That means that if you have the skills to average a 50/50 chance of doubling up before going broke at each level, there'll be about one Johnny making it big for every 1000 or so who fail. On luck alone.

And there are TENS of thousands of Johnnys trying this progression.

DN looks back at the climb as one of the Johnnys who made it, and thinks "What a good decision I made trying." Fanboys look at his climb and think, "See, I'm not crazy trying to do it, too."

The guys who've make it, that I've talked to, have respect for the Larrys, actually. BG, Todd B., Ted Forrest, and DN, too, I think, recognize that it's a choice, and further recognize that they aren't even necessarily better players than the Larrys. In return, most of us Larrys have respect for the Johnnys who've made it, and don't wish them poorly, don't gloat about the big-time bustos, and don't hate them.

But, unlike many of you, who are young, I've seen the lives of Johnny as they usually play out. I've seen the collateral (family and friends) damage. Consider at least Moneymaker, who had to borrow from family to afford the travel expenses, or Jerry Yang, who couldn't even afford a decent hotel room, or Raymer, who had to hustle up stakehorses online. The WSOP is full of stories like that WITHOUT the happy endings. Just, borrowed money never paid back, or spent at a kid's expense. That's life, and I don't blame poker for its human scale, but to glorify the mountain climbers as "risk takers," without seeing also that they're "risk-takers" and not "degenerates" only because of a spade on the river or a 4 on the turn or whatever, is to be childish.

Sometimes it takes courage to move up in stakes and risk your BR. But sometimes it takes courage not to.

[/ QUOTE ]


A+++++++

would read again and again !!!

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
But, unlike many of you, who are young, I've seen the lives of Johnny as they usually play out. I've seen the collateral (family and friends) damage. Consider ... Raymer, who had to hustle up stakehorses online. The WSOP is full of stories like that WITHOUT the happy endings. Just, borrowed money never paid back, or spent at a kid's expense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind being used as an example, but it is silly to do so when you have no idea what you're talking about. So, if you're going to do so again, please make sure you do so accurately.

BTW, your mistake is the word "had", instead of --chose-- to. Also, following it up with a suggestion that if I had not won in 2004 I would have ripped off my backers and spent money that should have gone towards my daughter is extremely offensive, and completely untrue.

So please don't make [censored] up to try and make your point.

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[murph0110]

lol....

damn dude, raymer just beat your head in....

hahaahhh

[Sportsfreak]

PWNAGE by Greg! [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
lol....

damn dude, raymer just beat your head in....

hahaahhh

[/ QUOTE ]
Next time why not use Stu Ungar as the archetype of the sad degenerate poker player? I assume you thought he was "lucky" too. At least he can't pwn you in the forums for slandering him.

[murph0110]

what are u talking about u loser????

really mo???

hhahahahha

[tr3cool]

Why is going broke a necessity for being a risk taker? I read somewhere in this post that a kid who would grind 1Mill online and head straight to bobbys rooms would either go broke and go back to college or, would become a poker legend, why don't the kid grind 1.5M and puts a million at risk if he goes broke he will have somewhere to land hehe...

The real argument here is the psychology involved in all of this, taking shots is more appealing to a certain type of person and for some reason this type of person is more focused in the shot itself rather than the outcome of it, what I'm saying is that the gamblers are more concerned about the gamble than it's effects, so going broke or winning doesn't matter.
And pushing yourself over your comfort zone is not taking a shot it's not even close to being at real risk and those who take this approach are normally the most successful (money wise) players. Handling your money properly is actually appealing for a certain type of person.

For me personally you can't actually categorize poker players, each player has their own reasons for their own boundaries and in this case IMO we can't even set a pattern or categories.

after all this time talking about gossip and making jokes at this forum I feel lame posting something sorta serious hehe...

[bustedromo]

Taking shots doesn't have much to do with genetics/upbringing.

It has to do with where you are in life. Younger the better, less responsibilities the better. There are few men with family responsibilities and no money (and no rich benefactors in the background) who can take shots.

It's no accident that so many online wizzes are so young. They can afford to blow up in life, and so they take a shot, and some small % make it.

Someone like Raymer wasn't taking a shot. Yeah, he played high, but he was already a very successful patent attorney with mid-6-figure income.

Yang, Gold, Moneymaker ... amateur poker players from other professions. Lottery winners. Not taking a shot.

Hachem was taking a shot. A family man and career chiropractor with no other source of income or family money in the background, he got injured, no longer could practice in his profession, turned to pro poker as his sole source of income, and battled.

Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, Men Nguyen, Scotty Nguyen, Johnny Chan, Daniel Negreanu, Huckleberry Seed, Phil Hellmuth, Carlos Mortensen etc. -- all these guys took a shot when they were young. In fact, 95% of the great players took a shot. Only very occassionally do you get a world-class player like Todd Brunson who didn't get there by taking a shot (AFAIK, maybe his pops said "You're on your own" when he was 18, I don't know).