Daniel Negreanu's Latest Cardplayer Article

[Brocktoon]

[ QUOTE ]
WHERE IS THIS ARTICLE? WHY CAN'T ANYONE GIVE THE LINK?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Link to article? The one on the Cardplayer site is about the WSOP...



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
link pls.

ToT



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is this article? I cant find it online is it released in the actual magazine?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
can't find the article. DN's August article is about his proposed changes to the Main Event.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
OP is Lame without link or information as to where the article can be found.

PairTheBoard


[/ QUOTE ]

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think I suggested you would have ripped off your investors, nor, from what I know of you, do I think you would have. There wouldn't have been anything to rip off, over time. You would have simply said, as almost all tourney horses end up saying, to their investors, "Sorry, I lost." Your children wouldn't have suffered anything worse than your absence, I'm sure. But, please, don't tell us you've had such a sheltered poker life that you're unaware of the degeneracy shown even by some of the better players, much less the worse?

And if you want to say "chose to" instead of "had to," go ahead. I don't borrow money or hustle up investors. But if I ever have to, I'm sure I'll also say I'm "choosing" to. It sounds so much better. I'll probably also get very defensive if anyone suggests that I didn't "choose" to seek investors, I "had" to.

You'll have fanboys who'll come on here now and say, essentially, "But he won the big one! So, like, he can't be wrong." And they'll really think your title means something. And you'll let them. And so, in fact, will I, now, because everyone capable of understanding why winning a tournament doesn't mean much of anything already understands why winning a tournament doesn't mean much of anything, and everyone who doesn't, at this point, won't get it upon one more re-explaining.

I organized my first post poorly, if it came across that I thought of you as a Johnny. You, in fact, are neither a Johnny nor a Larry. You're a Joe. An average Joe. You, and Moneymaker and Hachem and Gold and Yang, all average Joe poker players who won a poker lottery full of thousands of average Joe poker players. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not even an insult, unless you're such an egotist that you believe you were anything other than lucky.

And if we could set up the test (we can't) I'd be willing to bet none of you would be winners after a year of 40/80 limit or 10/20 NL at the Commerce. I'd be very happy to make that bet.

I wouldn't make that bet against a Johnny like DN, or a Larry such as myself. Only against a Joe.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. See below from Raymer's website about his staking arrangement. Could he have lost it all? Sure. Was he destined to leave his backers with nothing (lost it all as you say) without the WSOP ME bolt of lightning win? Doesn't sound very fricken likely.

I'm sure there are a ton of folks (paging Admo anywone?) who would be willing to take your prop bet on Raymer for any amount of money.

As far as fanboys defending him goes...From what I can tell on TV and what he's posted here Raymer seems like a pretty solid or better player. And from his posts here, he's also a classy guy. But its not like I'd want his autograph or anything.

[ QUOTE ]
As mentioned above in question #3, I had a deal with my wife where my bankroll was a fixed amount. By 2001, I was playing in some pretty big games, as my bankroll had grown to support it. For example, I would often play in the 75-150 mixed games at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, and occasionally these games played as high as 150-300. In 2002, I spent a big chunk of my bankroll on my family and house, more than I should have. I then went to the 2002 WSOP, and paid cash to enter the main event, as well as a couple of other events just prior to the main event. Unfortunately, I lost about $30,000 on that trip, and was left with a bankroll of only about $15,000. The good news was I still had plenty of bankroll to play poker, but the bad news was I could not afford to play in the big mixed game at the local casinos anymore. Since the next biggest game that was regularly available was 20-40 holdem, I decided I should see about getting some backers to add to my bankroll, as I felt that having a piece of my self in the big mixed game would be more lucrative than having 100% of myself in the 20-40 game.
.


Thus, I went out on the internet to raise money. I could’ve asked many of my poker friends personally, either live or by email, if they wanted to invest. However, I did not want them to feel any social pressure to do so, and did not wish to have any investors who were doing it because we were friends. I only wanted them to do it if they thought it was a good investment, and they had the bankroll to afford it. So, I put up a post on the rec.gambling.poker newsgroup, as well as on the 2+2 forums, laying out the deal and asking interested parties to email me. As you might imagine, I caught a lot of flack from the naysayers out there. Fortunately, I also found about $30,000 worth of interested investors, who bought anywhere from 1-10 shares each at $500 per share. I bought shares with my bankroll also.
.


The deal was simple, though we laid out a multipage contract to cover all the details. Each of us bought shares at $500 per share. I played poker within prescribed limits for the rest of 2002. If we lost, each share took a proportionate share of the loss. If we won, I got the first 35% of the win for my time and effort as the player, and each share then got it’s portion of the remaining 65% of the win. Since I owned about 1/3 of the shares, I was getting a bit under 60% of the win.
.


At the end of this deal, each share was worth about $488. We decided to renew the deal and do it again for the first half of 2003. Of course, there was some turnover, with a couple of investors who cashed out, and a couple who bought more shares (or new investors who came in). At the end of deal 2, each share was worth about $550. We did it again, and the shares were worth about $600 at the end of 2003. Finally, we renewed the deal in 2004, with the deal set to end as soon as I was done in the WSOP main event. At the end of the deal, each share was worth over $36,000. My largest single investor collected well over 1/3 of a million for his initial $5000 investment!

[/ QUOTE ]

[MyTurn2Raise]

personally, I go with something I've kind of gleaned from the work of Nicholas Nassim Taleb

I'm very conservative with about 90% of my funds and search for black swan events with the other 10%

[thedorf]

I enjoyed daniel's article much in the same way that I loved phil helmuth's book, "play poker like the pros." The reason is that both the article and book are written by top professionals who sometimes give very bad advice. Personally, I really appreciate the pervasive, dubious axiom that going broke several times is a prerequisite to top level play. It's one of the many things that helps keep players who have decent poker skills from populating higher limits.

There is one little discussed characteristic that separates good players from bad and that is the ability to weed out good sources of information from bad ones. I think it would be easy for many people to say, "okay, here's a guy who has made millions playing poker, he must be right." The temptation to accept their word as truth is exacerbated, at least in negreanu's case, by the fact that he often writes very insightful articles, especially when he recounts his thought processes during crucial hands in major tournaments. I think if all these celebrity poker players would just stick to that kind of analysis, they would do a lot more to help players improve their games. The few times that they deviate from commenting on their true expertise, they do serious damage to players who don't know how to separate bad information from good....and for that I thank them.

[jeff329]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WHERE IS THIS ARTICLE? WHY CAN'T ANYONE GIVE THE LINK?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Link to article? The one on the Cardplayer site is about the WSOP...



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
link pls.

ToT



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is this article? I cant find it online is it released in the actual magazine?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
can't find the article. DN's August article is about his proposed changes to the Main Event.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
OP is Lame without link or information as to where the article can be found.

PairTheBoard


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[shaniac]

The article OP referenced is in the new Cardplayer, so-far unreleased online, featuring none other than Brian Townsend on the cover.

[SuperUberBob]

I do not think Daniel's intent is no lump all players into two categories. He creates these two hypothetical characters to illustrate the difference between those who stick with the sure thing (beating low limits) and those who are willing to jump up to higher limits and hopefully take down more money.

The problems with this article is that he assumes risk-takers referred to in the article will always succeed and will show immediate results that will automatically surpass the more conservative, low-limit grinders. Some players go up to bigger stakes with high confidence, thinking they can beat the game and stay up there. Shortly after, their bankroll is gone before they knew what hit them.

Daniel further implies that those are unwilling to move up in limits are making a huge mistake. Again, I disagree. I'd be perfectly happy reeling in a six figure income by grinding it out at 5/10 NL games (if 2K is the weekly profit in those games as mentioned).

The players that Daniel talks about all risked being nobodies when they tried to break in to poker. Chip Reese sat down with his entire bankroll at a high limit table long time ago and made a killing. If he lost everything he had, we probably never would have heard of him. He would have just been a blip on the radar. Same applies to many other poker players. Some people don't want to be cash poor by taking such a huge risk, especially if they rely on poker as a primary income in their life.

I believe going up to "take a shot" on occasion is fine, especially now that poker has hit such a huge boom. If you win big at a higher limit and quickly work your way up, there could millions coming at you not only from poker, but from outside endorsements as well. The endorsements weren't there during the good old days. So taking those shots can become more profitable for you now than in the 70's.

[Cactus Jack]

A lot of poker players who came in during the boom are not traditional gamblers, while DN and the old school are all gamblers. Many of us who came to the party when the party was at its height started playing for the intellectual test, more than for the money. When we found out we could make money, we then went on to work at it to make money.

Not understanding the difference is where both DS and DN go off track.

[Cactus Jack]

Go the your nearest 7-11, the magazine rack, if you can get past Spin, Hip Hop Monthly, and People. Or, like a real poker player, pick it up in your card room.

You do know they still SELL magazines, right?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WHERE IS THIS ARTICLE? WHY CAN'T ANYONE GIVE THE LINK?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Link to article? The one on the Cardplayer site is about the WSOP...



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
link pls.

ToT



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is this article? I cant find it online is it released in the actual magazine?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
can't find the article. DN's August article is about his proposed changes to the Main Event.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
OP is Lame without link or information as to where the article can be found.

PairTheBoard


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[malo]

[ QUOTE ]
Go the your nearest 7-11, the magazine rack, if you can get past Spin, Hip Hop Monthly, and People. Or, like a real poker player, pick it up in your card room.

You do know they still SELL magazines, right?



[/ QUOTE ]

A couple months after the UIGEA came down, Cardplayer disappeared from the shelves at the local Borders and B&N, and hasn't been seen since. With no local indies selling mags, and no local cardroom, been stuck with the online version. Eventually will get around to subscribing, I guess.

Have no idea if this inavailaibility of the print version is widespread, or a local aberration.