Negreanu
 

I like the guy. he does his thing without being obnoxious or cocky, like some of the other players. I also used to be in Poker School Online and he was an instructor, before he went on his tear this year.

but what was he doing in the main event? he played terribly. he took a stab at every pot they showed, often with nothing (Q2s on a coordinated board). he called a huge overbet with KQ. I really thought that last hand was atrocious. preflop he says to the guy that he thinks he has a medium pair (I assume that it's due to the big bet), which basically announces that he has KQ or AQ. then the flop comes wiht a 9 and an 8 and he bets the turn when he spikes a Q, and he calls an all in bet (I guess he was pot committed) with KQ when he basically told his opponent what he had preflop?

I generally hate TV poker and all these TV poker posts, but I just thought he played really poorly. he tried to bully his way through the early stages against loose players in a 2400 player field. I honestly feel like, based on the hands we saw on tv, that he deserved to go out in day 1.

Re: Negreanu
 

I dont know what youre talking about. I always go all in when I put my opponent on a set.

Re: Negreanu
 

He was short-stacked, you can't fault the guy for trying to make something happen with a good hand. He said previously that he should have just played just straight forward because the novice players are "Unbluffable". Who really cares about the main event anyways, Dan showed his poker prowess by winning the best all around award. Yes he didn't play well in the main event but he still made money this year at the WSOP AND his is #1 player of the year on cardplayer list.

Re: Negreanu
 

I definitely agree that he played very poorly, from what we saw. But we didn't see everything. They seemed to show him whenever he was going to lose the hand. I recall later in the day, he had made a poor play that cost him most of his chips, and by the next time they showed him, he had most of them back.
He did say after that he didn't play well. He knew he made a lot of bad plays, especially on the bluffs. I think a lot of the big guns had trouble with that field. They had 4-5 players at their tables that were amatuers. Impossible to bluff, call every hand down, type of players.

Re: Negreanu
 

Yeah he admitted straight after he played like a tard.

Re: Negreanu
 

I thought the same thing after watching.

In the end, the action at that table I felt perfectly summed up this year's apparent theme of pro vs. internet player. It'll be interesting to see what side of that coin they cast Greg Raymer on.

In Negreanu's case, I think what he probably better realizes now is that it's not that internet players are "unbluffable". Most have just played so many tournaments that they're willing to put their whole tournament on the line early on if they feel they have the correct odds to do so.

Reminds me of a section in TPFAP, where Sklansky talks about bypassing a slightly +EV chance that could get you knocked out, because you'll have greater +EV chances later. For most of the internet players, you can't really assume you will outplay everyone later, so I think a lot of them just went for it when they thought it was the correct play, and if they got knocked out, so be it.

The hand vs. Men the Master that's talked about in another thread is a great example. I think a lot of pros, even if they knew exactly what Men had, wouldn't want to put their tournament life on the line on a draw so early in the tournament.

Re: Negreanu
 

A think a lot of the pros did not expect the level of play to be as bad as it was on day one. As Hellmuth would say, this is the World Series, ferchrissakes! It seems Negreanu should have known not to try and outplay bad players, though.

Re: Negreanu
 

Maybe they should just remember that the typical world series lasted 4 days in the past. With 4 days left, the play was probably pretty good by all players, barring exhaustion factors. You just have to weed out the bad players in the first two days.

Re: Negreanu - Could you risk the Championship for 4-1 odds?
 

You make some good points in your post. There are some interesting theories about when it is correct to risk your whole tournament on a hand. I think I am now convinced that Phil Helmuth folding his top pocket pair when he thought the raiser had a lower pair was incorrect. He stated "I am such a great player I don't need 4.5-1 odds". But then I remember a player I have more respect for, Bob Ciaffone, playing at the 1987 WSOP with three players left:

Bob has just taken the chip lead (and has almost 40%), and then tangles with Johny Chan on two hands and is out. The second hand he had (I think) a pair and a flush draw, made a bet and called all-in on Chan's raise while knowing he had to make that flush or trip-up to win. Well, that was crappy odds to risk your tournament on, but he figured if he folds he just has 15% of the chips, and if he spikes, then he has 80% and the odds were just about right to call.

How many of us would fold and try to rebuild the 15% stack, or call and hope for the 4-1 spike? 4-1, win or lose?

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Re: Negreanu - Could you risk the Championship for 4-1 odds?
 

I think there is a difference between the first and last day of the tournament when making these decisions. On day one, payouts do not really even come into the equation. Your probability of cashing is pretty low whether you fold, or double up on day one. When you are down to the final 3 and face a payout ratio of 4:2:1, other decisions come into play.

Re: Negreanu
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who really cares about the main event anyways

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

ummmmm....nearly every card player out there. Are you trying to say that he just played poorly because he didn't care??

Re: Negreanu - Could you risk the Championship for 4-1 odds?
 

Here was my plan going in and I mentioned it to one top level pro "he said there really is little difference the way you approach a big field compared to a little field", I don't agree. But he likely isn't all wrong either.

Here is a hand I encountered, I had Jd8d on the big blind to a 3 bet very early. I call and the flop comes 7h 8h 10, I bet 3/4 of the pot which was about 350(guessing truthfully) and got 2 callers. Next card brings a 9c, here is where I played it differently than many did. I bet 3/4 of the pot again. Many players were overbetting the pots because of the calling stations in an attempt to muscle them out. I wasn't necessarily concerned with the right or wrong price at this point. I just didn't want to be overcommitted to players that were more than likely to draw to whatever they were drawing no matter how much I bet.

River brought a K of diamonds. Second guy to bet makes a pot sized bet. I folded. Wounded but not desperate. Wasn't happy about the hand at the time but against the same field under the same conditions, I would play it the same way. That pot brought me below 8,000. I got to 5,000 at one point but I ended the day with 42,000. You can't win if you aren't in and many top players got frustrated and let the bad players dictate the action too much.

In alot of ways it was the easiest tournament I have ever encountered, live, but in their were many mine fields that were tough to avoid.

Re: Negreanu - Could you risk the Championship for 4-1 odds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think I am now convinced that Phil Helmuth folding his top pocket pair when he thought the raiser had a lower pair was incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is beyond question.

Re: Negreanu
 

No I'm saying that the Main Event this year had 2600 people in it and even the best pros in the world would have trouble winning it. If I were Daniel I wouldn't feel bad about the main event, because he won the AAPA, which he felt was more important.

Re: Negreanu
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who really cares about the main event anyways, Dan showed his poker prowess by winning the best all around award. Yes he didn't play well in the main event but he still made money this year at the WSOP AND his is #1 player of the year on cardplayer list.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone cares about the main event.

What you said is like saying, "Tiger Woods is #1 in the world and has already won the Tostitos Open and Weedeater Invitational this year, so who cares if he tanks it in the US Open."

-- Homer

Re: Negreanu - Could you risk the Championship for 4-1 odds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bob has just taken the chip lead (and has almost 40%), and then tangles with Johny Chan on two hands and is out. The second hand he had (I think) a pair and a flush draw, made a bet and called all-in on Chan's raise while knowing he had to make that flush or trip-up to win. Well, that was crappy odds to risk your tournament on, but he figured if he folds he just has 15% of the chips, and if he spikes, then he has 80% and the odds were just about right to call.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I have a pair plus a flush draw on the flop, I'm going all-in if I must. I'll try to be the aggressor so I can get some folding equity, but I'm figuring I'm ahead, albeit marginally so. If he put Chan on top pair (do you recall what Chan actually had?) then he is a favorite to win the hand unless Chan's kicker was the same as his.

No way I'm letting this go getting even as good as 1.5:1 odds, let alone what Ciaffone was getting.

Just throwing that in...

Re: Negreanu
 

Daniel is my new favorite poker player. People want to watch him, and that is what the game still needs, figures who people enjoy watching.

GO NEGREANU

Re: Negreanu
 

Good or bad, I respect him a lot for blaming himself for not adjusting to the "unbluffable amateurs" instead of blaming the amateurs for playing poorly. Every time I see a pro whining about bad players I want to slap them around.

Re: Negreanu
 

People like Negreanu (or at least I do) because he seems to have more _fun_ playing poker than anyone else. All the other pros always look vaugely unhappy.

Re: Negreanu
 

I enjoy watching Dan N. play every time I see him on TV. The way he played in the main event wasn't great, but you can't blame him for playing bad once with the way he performs the rest of the time. His Card Player articles are great to read too.

Re: Negreanu
 

I agree with this. He's fun to watch because he's having fun. And I admire his ability to play total crap profitably. I have the playing total crap down part - just working on showing a profit.

NT

Re: Negreanu - Could you risk the Championship for 4-1 odds?
 

I had to dig-out the DVD to see the hands: it was Chan: AJ diamonds Bob: 76 spades

Flop: 6 7 J two spades

Bob bets the flop, Chan raises $125,000 and puts Bob to the test - call all-in and take just less than 4-1 odds from the pot, or fold and play his 100,000 left in chips against two opponents that have $1.4 million.

Now that I see how low he was in chips, the call looks easier, I suppose you have to take this draw at this point.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Re: Negreanu - Could you risk the Championship for 4-1 odds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I had to dig-out the DVD to see the hands: it was Chan: AJ diamonds Bob: 76 spades

Flop: 6 7 J two spades

Bob bets the flop, Chan raises $125,000 and puts Bob to the test - call all-in and take just less than 4-1 odds from the pot, or fold and play his 100,000 left in chips against two opponents that have $1.4 million.

Now that I see how low he was in chips, the call looks easier, I suppose you have to take this draw at this point.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure you got this right? You can't flop two pair and a flush draw.

Re: Negreanu - Could you risk the Championship for 4-1 odds?
 

how could he have 67[s] and the flop turn up 2 spades with a 6 and a 7? only 1 spade is possible there right?

Re: Negreanu
 

His main event play seemed like some of the worst I've ever seen from a professional. Conversely, his play on the Fox Sports tournament at the Plaza was nearly flawless. Fortunately for him, this sort of erratic performance is not all that bad for a NL tournament player.

Re: Negreanu
 

My question though is on what hand that was on tv did we see daniel's opponent play bad on?
Every time the other player had something good and really had pretty easy decisions.
Daniel put himself in a lot of bad decisions calling with bad cards.
I do think Daniel is about the best there is. The WSOP was the first time you really saw him play bad.
He was calling with Q5 (he even looked sheepish while doing it), A5, KQ vs a reraise.

Re: Negreanu - Could you risk the Championship for 4-1 odds?
 

"Here is a hand I encountered, I had Jd8d on the big blind to a 3 bet very early. I call and the flop comes 7h 8h 10, I bet 3/4 of the pot which was about 350(guessing truthfully) and got 2 callers. Next card brings a 9c, here is where I played it differently than many did. I bet 3/4 of the pot again. Many players were overbetting the pots because of the calling stations in an attempt to muscle them out. I wasn't necessarily concerned with the right or wrong price at this point. I just didn't want to be overcommitted to players that were more than likely to draw to whatever they were drawing no matter how much I bet.

River brought a K of diamonds. Second guy to bet makes a pot sized bet. I folded."


Did you mean to say K of hearts? I'm confused. You hold 8-J
on a board of 7-8-10-9-K, no flush draws, what are you afraid of?

Re: Negreanu - Could you risk the Championship for 4-1 odds?
 

QJ. Obviously. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Negreanu
 

I keep hearing the comment that the amatuers were impossible to bluff, but of the hands they showed on TV, Negreanu kept on bluffing into players who had the goods with modest bets. No player, amateur or seasoned pro would lay down these hands to his bets.

Re: Negreanu
 

I agree he did play poorly but it almost seemed as though he wasn't "into it" for whatever reason becuase on other broadcasts the guy is usually flawless in his play. Daniel is a class act all the way, he seems like he would be fun as hell to hang out with and his CardPlayer mag articles are always very entertaining.

Re: Negreanu
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who really cares about the main event anyways?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of about 5 million reasons to care about the main event! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Doc JS

Re: Negreanu
 

[ QUOTE ]
he seems to have more _fun_ playing poker than anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

well...is he having more fun because he's winning or is he winning because he's having more fun? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Doc JS

Re: Negreanu
 

I have only read a couple of the post and I didnt get to see the wsop episode but from what ive seen and read about Daniel N. is the he's a smart and guy and knows what he's doing plus who knows how many hands of his we actually got to see. Anyways hes not just going to keep playing poorly. If the players were truly unbluffable he would have figured that out before he busted out imho anyways.

Re: Negreanu
 

To: sthief09. I agree with you. He probably thought all of the other players were trying to bluff him, and he, one of the biggest bluffer's, (besides Gus) just didn't want to be out-bluffed. He played like this was his first poker game. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Re: Negreanu
 

[ QUOTE ]
No I'm saying that the Main Event this year had 2600 people in it and even the best pros in the world would have trouble winning it. If I were Daniel I wouldn't feel bad about the main event, because he won the AAPA, which he felt was more important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse Me! The AAPA was more important than the WSOP? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Negreanu
 

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse Me! The AAPA was more important than the WSOP?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep that's exactly what I'm saying. How many events did Fossilman place in before the main event? Nothing against Greg, he must have played fantastic in order to win, but as far as the WSOP as a whole, Daniel played the best. His main event was pretty bad, but he won a bracelet and had multiple final tables.

Re: Negreanu
 

In a large multi-table tourney (any tourney whether it be the world series or an online tourney) the laws of physics (good poker theory) do not hold good until about after 1/3rd of the time when 2/3rd of the players have been eliminated. Basically, the game is somewhat of a crapshoot until such a time when good players prevail over the bad ones and poker regains its sanity and the laws of physics are in command again. Therefore, it is no surprise when A-A loses to J-3 two pair made on the river or a set losing to flush made on the river. We all (the Internet pussies) know this and it is a shame that old hand poker pros did not know this. During this early stage of the game (which I call the Dark Ages) a player has to learn to lay down even a winning hand in there is a chance that it is likely beaten.

Of course, one could always ask the question who the hell are you to judge the great masters?! Well, I feel it is just a matter of time before the Internet players will shine with the old hand pros in equal luster at the final table. Just a matter of time. Perhaps, even the next world series when no pro will make it past us internet pussies to the final table...

Re: Negreanu
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Excuse Me! The AAPA was more important than the WSOP?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep that's exactly what I'm saying. How many events did Fossilman place in before the main event? Nothing against Greg, he must have played fantastic in order to win, but as far as the WSOP as a whole, Daniel played the best. His main event was pretty bad, but he won a bracelet and had multiple final tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

too bad you can't pay the bills with awards.(I realize that in order to win the AAPA you had to make a lot of money, but he didn't make $5 mil)
I would take the $5 million before the award.
Even pros(daniel included) would rather win the main event. They don't really need the money, but to be the "world champion" is what its all about. Compare the prestige of the AAPA to that of the main event bracelet. Not close. Daniel was on crack when he said hed rather win best all around player.

Re: Negreanu
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would take the $5 million before the award.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good for you. I'd rather be remembered as a great poker player than just winning the main event at the world series of poker.

Re: Negreanu
 

if you win the WSOP main event, you are "the man" in poker. You're called a World Champion for the rest of your life. If you win all around best player you can(usually) play a lot of games and a lot of games well. But if you never win the big one its kinda like going to 10 pro bowls in a row and being inducted into the hall of fame, yet never winning a super bowl.(maybe not the best example, because such a small % of players actually win the main event, but you get the point)