Daniel Negreanu's Latest Cardplayer Article

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
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.



[/ QUOTE ]

lol

I'm pretty sure Greg was playing higher than 40/80 before his ME win.

Now is probably a good time to stop.

[technologic]

[ 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)

[/ 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 ]

[xxx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.



[/ QUOTE ]

lol

I'm pretty sure Greg was playing higher than 40/80 before his ME win.

Now is probably a good time to stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hachem and Raymer would win this bet. You are probably right about Moneymaker, Gold and Yang.

[mused01]

[ 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)

[/ 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 ]

LOL PAGING EMILE

[Victor]

2p2 archives ftw

[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).

[CardSharpCook]

I've played in cash games with Raymer and Moneymaker and tourneys with Hachem. All 3 of them are legitimately good at poker. Raymer, IMHO, is the best of the three, but that might be because I have more respect for Limit players. Suggesting that Raymer can't beat 10/20NL or 40/80L at the Commerce is laughable. I mean, really, that's absurd.

[jeff329]

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