|
|
#1
12-29-2006, 08:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Big Laydowns at High Stakes Poker (specifically Daniel Negreanu)
The TV Forum is quite fun but usually lacking in strategy discussions. This is a strategy question geared towards those who play at levels I probably never will reach which is why I post it here. I love lurking here and seeing how High Stakes players think and you can hopefully shed some light on something that's intrigued me.
I was watching replays of GSN's High Stakes Poker when Daniel Negreanu recieved his infamous succession of coolers - flopping big hands, often enough the absolute nuts, and then getting beat on the turn or river. Negreanu seemed to know he was beat however he still made every single crying call. I was under the impression that one facet of being a great player is the ability to make big laydowns when you are beat. Not to say that every hand he called was obvious but on one of the hands in particular announcer Gabe Kaplan even said that that one was relatively easy, one that Daniel would realize later on. I remember reading a baseball pitcher say something like, "People think that a pro pitcher can just put the ball wherever he wants on command but it's not like that at all" as a way of pointing out that the pin-point accuracy that some baseball fans might feel is a given is vastly overstated. In the same vein am I putting unrealistic expectations on the High Stakes professionals (on the show and in the Big Game)? Does a pro really need this in their arsenal to be a profitable player or do they view such crying calls as a part of the game? Or do pros really do possess the ability to make big laydowns but what I saw on TV is too small a sample size, one possibly brought on by players not wanting to get bluffed on TV? 
|
|
#3
12-30-2006, 01:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Laydowns at High Stakes Poker (specifically Daniel Negreanu)
Copy it and re-post it yourself. I think he's awful btw. Bad beats aside and maybe because it's TV, but the guy is an ATM who refuses to fold.
|
|
#5
12-30-2006, 03:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Laydowns at High Stakes Poker (specifically Daniel Negreanu)
NYCNative,
per the defition of a strong player via HSNL standards, i think the only players that would meet that criteria from the first 2 seasons would be Alaei, Esfandiari, and to some extent Laak. the others are simple either bad or lack a lot of experience from NL cashgames bc they play big stakes LIMIT. ofc other players are good, obv, (ie harman, brunsons, hansen) but that lineup is generally very soft when compared to the strongest 25/50+ online players like BlD, RekRuL, aba20, Antonius (the latter 2 are in HSP 3 lol). dont assume bc they are on TV playing big stakes zomg that they are superstars, esp Negreanu. he made so many bad plays and calldowns it was hilarious. i dont think he made a single river fold or non-retardedly loose flop/turn peel.
|
|
#7
12-30-2006, 07:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Laydowns at High Stakes Poker (specifically Daniel Negreanu)
[ QUOTE ]
NYCNative, per the defition of a strong player via HSNL standards, i think the only players that would meet that criteria from the first 2 seasons would be Alaei, Esfandiari, and to some extent Laak. the others are simple either bad or lack a lot of experience from NL cashgames bc they play big stakes LIMIT. ofc other players are good, obv, (ie harman, brunsons, hansen) but that lineup is generally very soft when compared to the strongest 25/50+ online players like BlD, RekRuL, aba20, Antonius (the latter 2 are in HSP 3 lol). dont assume bc they are on TV playing big stakes zomg that they are superstars, esp Negreanu. he made so many bad plays and calldowns it was hilarious. i dont think he made a single river fold or non-retardedly loose flop/turn peel. [/ QUOTE ] interesting. wonder if his book will be worth reading.
|
|
#8
12-30-2006, 06:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Laydowns at High Stakes Poker (specifically Daniel Negreanu)
[ QUOTE ]
NYCNative, per the defition of a strong player via HSNL standards, i think the only players that would meet that criteria from the first 2 seasons would be Alaei, Esfandiari, and to some extent Laak. the others are simple either bad or lack a lot of experience from NL cashgames bc they play big stakes LIMIT. ofc other players are good, obv, (ie harman, brunsons, hansen) but that lineup is generally very soft when compared to the strongest 25/50+ online players like BlD, RekRuL, aba20, Antonius (the latter 2 are in HSP 3 lol). dont assume bc they are on TV playing big stakes zomg that they are superstars, esp Negreanu. he made so many bad plays and calldowns it was hilarious. i dont think he made a single river fold or non-retardedly loose flop/turn peel. [/ QUOTE ] You have to acknowledge that it probably takes some skill to be widely regarded as one of the best poker pros alive according to media and poker stat sites. It takes some skill to routinely win several WSOP bracelets. It takes some skill to win a few million dollars in tournamnet money alone. It takes some skill to get to play on TV in front of millions of viewers. Then it also takes some ... decide for yourself what it takes... to assume that tv companies are charitable organizations or they have many other ways to attract the audiene other than big names, big pots, bad beats and cocktail waitresses to assume that someone who makes a fortune out of this game is making kiddy moves on tv because hes ignorant or amateur to assume that a bunch of hardcore poker pros in a high stakes full ring game would see the flop like 40 percent of the time ... like for real to assume that the way you see they play on tv is the way they really do
|
|
#9
12-30-2006, 11:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Laydowns at High Stakes Poker (specifically Daniel Negreanu)
First realize that in limit poker, a bad laydown is considerably more expensive than a bad call. So if you're going to err, you almost always err on the side of calling the last bet.
That said, great players even in limit games are capable of some remarkable laydowns. This is especially true when they are against other not-so-great players who they can easily read. I don't watch TV, but I suspect that Negreanu's opponent was a competent player in his own right. Meaning, Negreanu can be almost certain he's beat, he can't be sure enough given the pot odds he's getting to call. There is also meta-game considerations. I will sometimes pay off a river bet more for the purpose of letting an opponent know that I won't be bluffed. Lastly, it's entirely possible that Negreanu was on tilt. When you're getting hammered like that, even the best players can lose their composure for a hand or two.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
