Daniel Negreanu's Latest Cardplayer Article

[davmcg]

There really are some idiotic views in this thread. If someone doesn't care about going bust their attitude to the risk of that event is irrelevant. Sklansky's advice I imagine is directed at those who have made a decision to be financially self reliant and wish to progress in poker. If you want to ignore it fine, choosing to follow it doesn't make you a nit.

[PairTheBoard]

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

PairTheBoard

[chesterboy]

IMO the nature of internet poker makes risk taking and shot taking totally unnecessary. Just grind the hands out and building a bankroll the safe way doesn't take very long.

[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 ]

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"hree years ago when these players were all nobodies many did take big risks, relative to their br, by playing all the 10k events and big live games. the ones that found success now enjoy great endorsement deals"

taylor, i dont think this is a good argument that the risks these guys took were reasonable simply bc no one had any idea that poker was gonna blow up and make big tourney winners celebrities.

and really, if they suspected poker would achieve mainstream popularity, there were far better poker related investements for the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

no one knew about it in 2003 when moneymaker won, but after this it was pretty widely known that winning a WPT event or getting far in the main event would lead to endorsements and fame. there was a two year period where basically any "pro" who won anything could expect to see a ton of cash and possibly an endorsement deal for doing anything noteworthy in poker.

i agree about the business aspect. however, most people that were drawn to the poker lifestyle (before the boom) are not the types of people that have the forsight to realize this and/or have what it takes to succeed in business. the smart ones simply bought a piece of companies but most didn't even do that.

tc

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, moneymaker was 4 years ago. i didnt realize but ya, your points are very valid. gawd it feels like yesterday.

[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 !!!

[murph0110]

I feel that David’s post has a lost of jealously in it.

We all know David to be an excellent teacher (the best), and a "good" player.

Daniel is, on the other hand, an "excellent" player, and (at best), an average teacher...

But now, with Daniel’s current article, which is right on, David feels intimated. That is why he has criticized Daniel, and started the post in the first place.

Daniel is learning to be a better teacher at a quicker rate than David is learning/has learned to be an excellent player, and it scares him.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]

"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."

I think this is quite ignorant. If you are a kid playing for fun or playing for ego, sure, push yourself as much as you choose. If it is your career, you should play within your comfort zone. Undoubtedly you will have pushed yourself outside of it on your way to making it your career. But once there, to say it is sad to be responsible and have your job have some kind of stability is just pathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good lord, this is all wrong.

Your "comfort zone" is determined by your bankroll when you play professionally. If you are a winning player, the stakes themselves shouldn't matter to you if you are staked properly. David's point was (I believe) that from time to time you should step up and find out if your "comfort zone" was perhaps an underestimation of your talent (assuming the games get tougher as the stakes get higher, of course).

Your reaction was a drastically overstated defense of an incorrect notion of "comfort zone."

Odd, quite honestly.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
OP This coming from the guy that runs around chasing girls that could be his daughter. You know the best way to gamble yet you run around chasing young chicks like a retard in a window licking contest. So we should trust your skills at gambling looking at how smart you are when it comes to chasing woman. LOL good one

[/ QUOTE ]

QFLOL