Negreanu poker journal about the 4k/8k game

[jcmack13]

here (http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-journal.php?subaction=showfull&id=1109752683&archi ve=&start_from=&ucat=&) is the most recent journal entry from negreanu about playing in the 4000/8000 mixed game. He was down one point three million at one point. I can't see how ANYONE can handle swings like that. 7 figures in a session. even for Danny, that has to represent a huuuge chunk of his total bankroll.

The best part of the journal entry, however, is Phil Ivey being nonchalant about being "stuck a million."

[NLSoldier]

Where in San Diego were they playing?

[jcmack13]

Your guess is as good as mine. Better, actually, since I've never been to SD. At any rate, I couldn't determine the place from this or other journal entries.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi jcmack13:

I have a comment on this which I think is fairly interesting. Sometime last year Daniel attended the local Wednesday discussion group and apparently told everyone there that he was averaging two big bets an hour in the ultra big game. (I wasn't present but several people have told me this. Perhaps Howard Burroughs can confirm.) So what happened?

Well, some poker games can be highly fluctuating. But this doesn't necessarily mean that you win one day and lose the next. It can mean that you run very good for a fairly long period of time and then disaster can strike.

Now I'm not being critical of Daniel's poker ability in any way. But these very high limit games against very good players can be quite tough and swings like this don't surprise me. This can be true even after you have come to believe that you are a consistent winner in the game.

Best wishes,
Mason

[lowroller]

They were playing at Harrah's (there for the WSOP circuit).

[Sluss]

I think in this game if Daniel has been playing for over a year and this was his first time being stuck a million he is doing very well.

[Howard Burroughs]

That's the way I remember it as well. Though I do believe he was talking about the $1000/2000 (or something very similar) and not the $4000/8000. I think the $4000/8000 goes mostly during the big side action games during big tournaments (ie San Diego, WSOP time, etc).



BTW, Many thanks to you (Mason), Ed (NPA), Daniel and other poker big shots, who have been nice enough to stop by and talk shop on Wednesdays over the years (when you have had the time). Much appreciated!


Best Wishes

Howard

[Kevmath]

In a previous post, they mentioned they were using $1 chips for each $1,000, since they trusted each so much. Talk about not seeming to care about money.

Kevin...

[randomchamp]

If they were all losers when Daniel came back 1.2 Mil I'd hate to think about how stuck the other two were.......

[PokerPaul]

I hope i am never at the stage where my reality is so warped:

[ QUOTE ]
by hour number 25 I was within about $900,000 of being even

[/ QUOTE ]

thats a very optimistic way to look at it to say the least

[johnnycakes]

[ QUOTE ]
In a previous post, they mentioned they were using $1 chips for each $1,000, since they trusted each so much. Talk about not seeming to care about money.

Kevin...

[/ QUOTE ]

How can they manage this?
I mean, how do they figure who owes who what since people are sitting down and getting up throught the day/night?

[boedeker]

or maybe the game is just a joke. for publicity.

[turnipmonster]

the thing that I don't understand is, on here, we talk about 10k hands being a very negligible sample size. probably almost every limit player has had streaks of breaking even and/or running unsustainably well over that many hands. 10k hands is a lot of B&M play, several hundred hours at least. seems to me that his results are pretty short term, although he's clearly a great player.

--turnipmonster

[phish]

And it seems that these big game players are gamblers first and foremost. Because even if you think you're the best player at the table, who of that lineup is really a big enough fish to make the game worth playing? For someone who cares about game selection (i.e., who is first and foremost there to make money rather than for the action)a big game like that without a real fish is not playable since your edge would be too small relative to the variance.
Who knows, maybe they all thought Gus Hansen was the fish and they're all feeding off him.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
And it seems that these big game players are gamblers first and foremost. Because even if you think you're the best player at the table, who of that lineup is really a big enough fish to make the game worth playing? For someone who cares about game selection (i.e., who is first and foremost there to make money rather than for the action)a big game like that without a real fish is not playable since your edge would be too small relative to the variance.
Who knows, maybe they all thought Gus Hansen was the fish and they're all feeding off him.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't all have to be gamblers to be playing at the big game. Even if a particular player just makes .5BB per hour, he is making much more than he could anywhere else.

[voltron87b]

He wrote in his journal the NL game is 1K/2K with a 1K ante and 100K cap. That seems strange to me, so much in the pot (13K) and only 50 BBs.

[voltron87b]

Another factor is they must play so few hands that there is short term variance to the extreme. I read a few of Daniel's blogs and he talks about multiple, multiple capped pots.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
He wrote in his journal the NL game is 1K/2K with a 1K ante and 100K cap. That seems strange to me, so much in the pot (13K) and only 50 BBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a 100k cap as in the most you can lose on a given hand is 100k. Not the buy-in, but how much each player stands to lose on a hand by hand basis.

[voltron87b]

So its like having 100K max stacks. Which is 50BB. If you can only play with 100K on a given hand the stacks are perpetually 100K.

[Edge34]

Yeah, I guess so. I was just making sure you were on the same page with me. Fair 'nuff.

[34TheTruth34]

amazing. who is Eli Elezra?

[Kevmath]

Watch tonight's WPT event, he shows up there.

Kevin...

[scarr]

I read this and I am having a hard time believing it is true. I don't know any reason why Daniel would be stretching the truth here, but these things did go through my mind when I read it:

1) Why play high stakes poker at a table with known experts?
2) How much is Negreanu worth where a $1 million swing is taken so non-chalantly.
3) Why play at a casino? To put on a show perhaps?

I respect Negreanu and his poker playing abilities, however I am having a hard time believing this to be true.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
They don't all have to be gamblers to be playing at the big game. Even if a particular player just makes .5BB per hour, he is making much more than he could anywhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and that might explain why someone like Negreanu would want to sit in game with Ivey, Brunson, Hansen, Reese, etc., if some of the other players are expected losers....but I'm not sure that explains playing hour upon hour short handed at these stakes with Ivey and Hansen...(though wanting to get unstuck does)....

[tolbiny]

"Two, it would be tough to take the tournament seriously since just last night I was flipping coins at $100,000 a pop while first place in the PPT is $225,000"

Jesus.

You said it man- notbody [censored] with the jesus.

[Moyer]

From what Barry G has said on his website and on 2+2, not all of the WPT celebs are great ring game players. Gus Hanson, for instance, was apparently a big donator in their game. I'm sure big swings are fairly common for all of the players there.

Of course they play at a casino. Where else are they going to find that kind of security to be playing w/ 100K stacks?

[Don Olney]

Daniel was talking about the 1500/3000 game not the BIG GAME

[LargeCents]

Playing 4k/8k, being down 1.2 million is basically 150 BB. It's a nasty session, but I think anyone who's played for any length of time can tell a similar story, despite the level of competition being much different. Luck runs in cruel cycles. Just wait.

[andyfox]

I think the blinds are 4,000, 8,000 and they play pot-limit. At least I believe that's what I saw Hanson and Ivy playing 3-handed at Commerce.

[andyfox]

One of the funny things about it was that they listed the game on the board. I can imagine somebody coming in and saying, "Hmm, I was undecided whether to play 20-40 or 40-80, oh, wait, there are a bunch of seats open in the 4,000-8,000 pot limit game, maybe I'll sit there for a while. Good thing they put it up on the board or I might have missed it, what with the velvet rope and all."

[CanIPlay]

That is a very disturbing post. When you like GambOOOOOOOOling with the boys too much to play in the tournaments that made you famous, that is not healthy.
I agree about the table selection I would be recruiting Dot-comers and oil sheiks to play not Phil and Gus SHed.