Daniel Negreanu's Latest Cardplayer Article

[Daniel Negreanu]

I guess I should also add that there are obviously varying degrees of Larry and Johnny. Some are at the etreme, but most fit somewhere around the middle. We'll call it the Larry scale, the lower the number (1-10) the more of a
Larry:

Roy Cooke: 2
Brian Townsend: 10
Phil Ivey: 10
John Juanda: 6
David Sklansky: 4
Myself: 10
Jennifer Harman: 5
Barry Greenstien: 8
Ming Ly: 10
Chau Giang: 10
Allen Cunningham: 8

you get the point...

[Pete H]

[ QUOTE ]

And that there are good reasons to take big risks regarding going broke. Again nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're very wrong. For most of us there's much more in life than money.

Some people want to be the best in the world because it's a challenge.

Some people love the fame and that's the reason they try to make it to the highest ladder.

But most risk takers just love the action.

The rush you get from risking all (or at least more than you can afford) of your money is amazing feeling.

That's the reason winning players started the game and the reason why losing players keep coming back.

Ian "Lemmy" Kilmister describes it well on Motörhead's classic Ace Of Spades:

[ QUOTE ]
If you like to gamble, I tell you I'm your man,
You win some, lose some, all the same to me,
The pleasure is to play, makes no difference what you say

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know I'm born to lose, and gambling's for fools,
But that's the way I like it baby,
I don't wanna live for ever

[/ QUOTE ]

Grinding with a secure bankroll is extremely boring and no fun at all.

To make it fun again you have to take risks.

NP: Warlock - East Meets West

[KingGeedorah]

wow alot of these posters need a reality check

[mephisto]

Why do you say it is possible that Johnny goes broke though? Why does he have to?

I just finished the article and in the middle it seems that Johnny knows something about setting aside a BR to take shots and will go down if he has to. However in the closing paragraphs you state that Larry may need to stake Johnny from time to time.

If you could explain this that would be great because I see nothing wrong with Johnny's more aggressive approach IF he leaves something aside to be rolled at lower levels if things go bad. However, there is no excuse for going broke other than a lack of discipline and an over-hyped ego.

[lapoker17]

haha - you rule daniel.

sklansky, lol.

[realjaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
haha - you rule daniel.

sklansky, lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

[eurythmech]

wtf, aba as the "who's playing? oh...i bet one meeeeellion...what's the rules of this game again?" kind of degen gambler?

[Sparks]

I guess I'm a DN fanboy -- I liked the article. If he gets into all other possibilities and sub-catagories, the article loses its punch and is 5 times as long.

Perhaps DS could write a similar article, in 10,000 words, which would be more "accurate."

[KSOT]

How is David more of a Johny than a Larry if his rating is 4?

How is Jen a 5 when she plays the big game?

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you say it is possible that Johnny goes broke though? Why does he have to?

I just finished the article and in the middle it seems that Johnny knows something about setting aside a BR to take shots and will go down if he has to. However in the closing paragraphs you state that Larry may need to stake Johnny from time to time.

If you could explain this that would be great because I see nothing wrong with Johnny's more aggressive approach IF he leaves something aside to be rolled at lower levels if things go bad. However, there is no excuse for going broke other than a lack of discipline and an over-hyped ego.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it is possible that Johnny doesn't always leave himself enough of a roll or move down fast enough. He might not even be wrong. If he is confident he can find Larry or someone else to stake him then his EV may be best to not move down as fast knowing that if he does go broke it just takes him a couple of months to win the bankroll for playing the lowest level rather than just moving to the lowest level directly.

Personally I find the toughest skill is being able to play your A game after moving to a lower game. I find it hard to concentrate and play my best game when playing a level that is like 5X less than the level I've gotten used to playing.

The thing that still isn't perfectly clear from DN article is why the top pros in the big game play in the big game against one another in the absence of a whale or donor. It could be because they want to improve their game and the article is saying they are right to do this. It could be because they are degenerate gamblers who have been lucky to have the best of it and/or been lucky so far in poker (like Doyle's quote), in which case they are probably wrong to do so. It could be because they haven't adequately learned their true limit like DN mentions in the article. It is probably a mix of all of the above.