Daniel Negreanu's Latest Cardplayer Article

[SuperUberBob]

Found it guys

Card Player article

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Found it guys

Card Player article

[/ QUOTE ]
you're not even trying

[SuperUberBob]

Since dids will be banning me soon...I figure that I provide the actual link.

Not a rick roll

[LGs0pHT]

Just read the article, DS is right that DN is wrong. Maybe the article was written to get people to gamble more, so that the poker economy could profit.

[ProfessorBen]

LOL at the Comm 40/80 comment. L-O-Fing-L.

[TrueBritt]

I disagree with DN's categories. The fundamental distinction that I see in poker players is between the gamblers and the grinders.

Gamblers are a dime a dozen. They love action. They play pit games. They gamble on sports. They play too many hands and go too far with them. They don't know what money management is. 99% of them are losing players. If they just play for recreation, that's fine...they can just go back to their job and make back the money they lose. If they are trying to play poker for a living, they are in trouble. They are deluded. To paraphrase Dan Harrington, they think they are Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein or Doyle Brunson, but in reality they are Larry, Curly or Moe.

As I said, virtually all of these players are losing players. However, perhaps 1% of them are winning players, presumably on account of a gift for hand-reading. These few players crush the game. But there is a good chance they lose it all in the pit or the sportsbook anyway, so it doesn't do them much good. Even if they avoid those leaks, they are probably still doomed on account of the Peter Principle. That is, they might be the proverbial 5th best player in the world, but since they play against the best 4 in the world, they are destined to go broke. They are in a boom-and-bust cycle and constantly in and out of debt.

Players I would tentatively put in this category are DN, Eric Lindgren, and TJ Cloutier.

Juxtaposed with these gamblers are the grinders (I realize that techically grinders gamble too, but they only gamble with the best of it.) Grinders have a deep commitment to positive expectation. They never gamble in the pits or the sports-book. They play very few hands and readily let go of them. They fold for hours on end. They have the patience of a saint.

A negative word for a grinder is a "nit," just as a negative word for a lesbian is "dyke," and a negative word for a black person is a "[censored]". These negative words add judgement to a description, and therefore also add inaccuracy.

I am a grinder myself, and I would never not take a shot at a bigger game if I had the bankroll for it. In fact, I don't know of a single other grinder that wouldn't take a shot if they had the bankroll for it. That's why I think DN's breakdown isn't very accurate.

Players I would tentatively put in the grinder category are John Juanda, DS, Barry Greenstein, Chip Reese (except when he first started out), and David Grey.

[David Sklansky]

In defense of Daniel, I remind you that his article starts out by talking about the super big game. A game that is both tougher and at least five times bigger than the next largest game. To take the plunge into that game you pretty much really do have to be a "Johnny" willing to do it underfinanced and with the expectation that you won't start out with the best of it.

Since Daniel relates to that Johnny he didn't realize that the same philosophy need not apply to those who go up the ladder in smaller games.

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What has happened here is that your "jist of it" description misses the mark as to what was actually written. For example, NOWHERE in the article do I say that there are only two types of poker players. The article deals with two types of mindsets held by many professional players. It doesn't even address various other types of players. I also NEVER stated in the column that you are forced to either extreme category, obviously the example I used dealt with two extremes, but never in the column do I even imply that it's either "all or nothing" or "be a nit." In fact, I mention the importance of knowing your own level of competence and how that's difficult for most players to do. Realizing that the level they've reached is as far as their talent level will take them is a poker skill in itself.

You are also wrong about their being any professional playing risk avoiders above the 80-160 limit. You say nonsense, yet you are 100%, completely, and utterly dead wrong. Your definition of a risk-taker, I suppose, could make you right, but I'm definitely not wrong.

David, can you name even one professional poker player who started his poker career above the 80-160 level? I doubt it. With that being true, every single player that moved up in limits from lower limits, regardless of how they approached it, took risks to increase their bankroll and hourly earn. Some do it safely, some do it recklessly, but none of these players, by definition, could ever be a Larry.

The second "nonsense" comment I got from you was way off also. Twisting what I wrote isn't going to change the fact that I didn't actually write what you say I did. If your bankroll gets to the point where you are excessively comfortable at any given limit, testing your skills at the next limit IS a good idea, even if you are uncertain as to whether or not you are +EV in the game. Again, I never said you should do that until you go broke as you say I did, what I said was that taking a shot can be beneficial to your long term earning power and skill level as a poker player.

For example, if you could play 500 hours on a free roll with the big boys versus actually earning money in, say, a 10-20 NL game, you should absolutely do it, even if you think you are a huge underdog to win. In the long run, those hours will make you a better player and your learning curve will be escalated.

Of course, in the real world that's not going to happen, so you need to be careful with your "excess" bankroll when taking these shots and don't gamble with the comfortable bankroll for your bread and butter game.

If you re-read the article I wrote I think you'd find that you are actually agreeing with me completely, but your defensive goggles are blurring your vision a little bit.


Every high limit professional player is more of a Johnny than a Larry. Even you, you big ol romantic wild west, guns a blazing gambler you...

[realjaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What has happened here is that your "jist of it" description misses the mark as to what was actually written. For example, NOWHERE in the article do I say that there are only two types of poker players. The article deals with two types of mindsets held by many professional players. It doesn't even address various other types of players. I also NEVER stated in the column that you are forced to either extreme category, obviously the example I used dealt with two extremes, but never in the column do I even imply that it's either "all or nothing" or "be a nit." In fact, I mention the importance of knowing your own level of competence and how that's difficult for most players to do. Realizing that the level they've reached is as far as their talent level will take them is a poker skill in itself.

You are also wrong about their being any professional playing risk avoiders above the 80-160 limit. You say nonsense, yet you are 100%, completely, and utterly dead wrong. Your definition of a risk-taker, I suppose, could make you right, but I'm definitely not wrong.

David, can you name even one professional poker player who started his poker career above the 80-160 level? I doubt it. With that being true, every single player that moved up in limits from lower limits, regardless of how they approached it, took risks to increase their bankroll and hourly earn. Some do it safely, some do it recklessly, but none of these players, by definition, could ever be a Larry.

The second "nonsense" comment I got from you was way off also. Twisting what I wrote isn't going to change the fact that I didn't actually write what you say I did. If your bankroll gets to the point where you are excessively comfortable at any given limit, testing your skills at the next limit IS a good idea, even if you are uncertain as to whether or not you are +EV in the game. Again, I never said you should do that until you go broke as you say I did, what I said was that taking a shot can be beneficial to your long term earning power and skill level as a poker player.

For example, if you could play 500 hours on a free roll with the big boys versus actually earning money in, say, a 10-20 NL game, you should absolutely do it, even if you think you are a huge underdog to win. In the long run, those hours will make you a better player and your learning curve will be escalated.

Of course, in the real world that's not going to happen, so you need to be careful with your "excess" bankroll when taking these shots and don't gamble with the comfortable bankroll for your bread and butter game.

If you re-read the article I wrote I think you'd find that you are actually agreeing with me completely, but your defensive goggles are blurring your vision a little bit.


Every high limit professional player is more of a Johnny than a Larry. Even you, you big ol romantic wild west, guns a blazing gambler you...

[/ QUOTE ]


lol Pwned...

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]

Players I would tentatively put in the grinder category are John Juanda, DS, Barry Greenstein, Chip Reese (except when he first started out), and David Grey.

[/ QUOTE ]

That list is pretty funny:

John Juanda: Video Poker and Craps lover
Chip Reese, Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey, Bobby Baldwin, Chau Giang, David Benyamine, Patrick Antonius, Gus Hansen: All gameble huge, on anything, best of it or not, for sick amounts of money.
David Grey!!!: This one is really good, lol.

Doyle Brunson once said something on television I thought was pretty funny, but also accurately describes him and most of the big game players, he said, "We are all degenerate gamblers, we just got lucky enough to find something we could win at."

This may be impossible to beleive, but the likes of Doyle, Ivey, and Benyamine make me look an absolute conservate gambling tight wad.

When a football game comes on the television when we play, you know how they bet it? Seriously? One guy says, "what's the line? You pick a side." The other guy picks the side and an amount, and voila, you have blind action. Flipping coins for ridiculous amounts.