Daniel Negreanu's Latest Cardplayer Article

[David Sklansky]

Most haven't read it yet and those who haven't should reserve comment until they have. The jist of it is that he puts poker players into two categories, basically grinders and risk takers, and he then gives the pros and cons to both approaches.

I'll elaborate on my objections later on. But for now I would simply like to say that there is nothing that forces you to choose to be in either extreme category. Daniel claims that risk avoiders will never be found above 80-160 or 25-50 NL. Nonsense. He also implies that the highest players are making good decisions when they play against each other rather than play smaller and win more in the long run with less risk. And that there are good reasons to take big risks regarding going broke. Again nonsense.

I completely agree that those who never push themselves past their comfort level are somewhat sad cases. If you can afford it, play in higher games than you are used to if for no other reason than it will help your game. If things work out you just may move up the stakes ladder for good. Don't just think of poker as a steady job if there is any chance at all you have not reached your peak. But you can do all this without being a sucker.

[fraac]

I think it's decided in your first 15 years of life whether you're risky or nitty, and I think both you and Negreanu are a tad over-defensive of your own positions.

[David Sklansky]

I'm nitty when it comes to buying shirts. When it comes to gambling I take almost the exactly correct risks based on discretionary bankroll and the edge I conservatively estimate I have. The nit Daniel was describing in his article was not modelled after me. (More than twenty percent of my entire bankroll is in a highly specualtive stocks.)

Meanwhile your point about your risk tolerance being decided by age 15 is true but unacceptable. There is a theoretically correct risk tolerance. And if your own personal psychology pushes you too far away from it in EITHER direction, it behooves you to try to change.

[PartyGirlUK]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a theoretically correct risk tolerance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh?

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a theoretically correct risk tolerance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... This is very basic. Assuming you can match your utility in terms of dollarz.

[PartyGirlUK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a theoretically correct risk tolerance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... This is very basic. Assuming you can match your utility in terms of dollarz.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your utility of money function depends on......your psychology.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
More than twenty percent of my entire bankroll is in a highly specualtive stocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

this proves nothing.

[amplify]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More than twenty percent of my entire bankroll is in a highly specualtive stocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

this proves nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]
except for providing an interesting definition of bankroll.

[Daddy Warbucks]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm nitty when it comes to buying shirts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dogs playing poker? Really?

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile your point about your risk tolerance being decided by age 15 is true but unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I cannae change the heuristics of psychology.