Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

Daniel's Poker Forum

Daniel has been blogging about the big game recently and had a story where an "unnamed" player made a very dubious check raise.

He then decided it would be fun to run a little contest to see if his readers could figure out who it was.

It definitely looks like a bad play by Barry. I was just wondering what Barry was thinking and if he would care to comment.

Others comments are appreciated as well.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

Here's the hand in question from Barry's POV...

[ QUOTE ]
David Benyamine raised in first position. Negreanu called in second position, and Eli Elezra called on the button. Barry defended his big blind with J-J-7-3 badugi (meaning no flush draw). The flop came down Q-10-6 rainbow. Everyone checked to Eli who bet from the button. Barry decided to raise...

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I'm way out of my league critiquing the big game, but whatever. I don't think it's so bad. No one has showed any interest in this hand post-flop. The button's bet doensn't necessarily mean strength due to his position and the fact that no one else has bet. Barry might think a raise was worth the risk since it's a raised pot and no one other than the button has shown interest in the pot thus far. Barry has the JJ blockers, if it folds back around to the button then Barry has a decent chance of outplaying the button on the turn or river if a scare card folds. A lot of things have to go right for this to work so it's definitely a gamble and a risky play, perhaps -EV but I don't think it's terrible.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

I think the better move (if you're determined to bluff at it) is to lead out with a bet. It's a high card flop with only one low. So go ahead and put pressure on the low draws.

It just seems that investing two bets on this bluff is -ev. If he bets first and runs into resistance he can still get away from the hand.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the better move (if you're determined to bluff at it) is to lead out with a bet. It's a high card flop with only one low. So go ahead and put pressure on the low draws.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with leading is that Barry's hand has just about no value. Nor does he know yet that the pre-flop raiser nor anyone else doesn't like their hand enough to bet. Leading out for a bet will offer his opponents something like 10:1 to continue. Barry's hand is pretty miserable and betting out has little/no fold equity. I don't like that play at all. I assume Barry would have check-folded if the flop action had transpired in any other way, and he decided to get a little tricky and check-raise only because everyone else checked to the button who bet.

Edit: I'm only saying Barry's play is not terrible because I'm assuming the players in the big game are solid enough to fold a lot of hands for two bets cold. The crux of the play is the fold equity his raise generates from the players in the middle and also the button. If this was a PartyPoker $0.50-$1 table, then check-raising is suicide. In the big game, I'm guessing it's reasonable.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the better move (if you're determined to bluff at it) is to lead out with a bet. It's a high card flop with only one low. So go ahead and put pressure on the low draws.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with leading is that Barry's hand has just about no value. Nor does he know yet that the pre-flop raiser nor anyone else doesn't like their hand enough to bet. Leading out for a bet will offer his opponents something like 10:1 to continue. Barry's hand is pretty miserable and betting out has little/no fold equity. I don't like that play at all. I assume Barry would have check-folded if the flop action had transpired in any other way, and he decided to get a little tricky and check-raise only because everyone else checked to the button who bet.

Edit: I'm only saying Barry's play is not terrible because I'm assuming the players in the big game are solid enough to fold a lot of hands for two bets cold. The crux of the play is the fold equity his raise generates from the players in the middle and also the button. If this was a PartyPoker $0.50-$1 table, then check-raising is suicide. In the big game, I'm guessing it's reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worth noting that even if this play is slightly -EV right now, it will probably pay dividends on future hands where he actually has a hand and the same action occurs.

I'm not sure that's the case, but it's something to consider.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's worth noting that even if this play is slightly -EV right now, it will probably pay dividends on future hands where he actually has a hand and the same action occurs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo. Daniel's thorough categorization of Barry being a weak O8 player based on just a handful of hands where he sees Barry's cards is IMO a great example of how advertising can be beneficial in poker. Although Barry probably did not think to himself "I think I'll make a crazy play here because the long-term advertising will make the whole thing +EV" at the time, I'm sure he intuitively had something like this in mind.

I also don't think that the advertising applies only to O8... I get the feeling from much of DN's banter that he eagerly seeks reasons to believe Barry is a weaker poker player than most give him credit for. Barry would be wise to foster DN's habit and reinforce his perhaps misguided evaluation of Barry's skill level, because this should be beneficial for Barry in a range of games he plays with DN.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming the players in the big game are solid enough to fold a lot of hands for two bets cold. The crux of the play is the fold equity his raise generates from the players in the middle and also the button.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be careful about this. It's more likely that these players are good enough to do the opposite - call 2 cold with 'mediocre' hands, understanding exactly what is happening to them a fair % of the time in a 4-way raised pot. The DN analysis linked even estimates that either he or Grey will call 2 cold ~50% of the time - fairly staggering. Grey did call - getting ~6:1 for high with a gutshot, one pair, and a backdoor flush draw.

To make the raise Greenstein did, you have to assess the situation in a completely different way. The Button needs to be betting a huge range of hands, and your raise needs to make it heads-up (or win the pot outright) a much larger % of the time. This is a huge discrepancy, so it is logical that one would call the other's play non-optimal in this spot. Without knowing nearly enough about all the players and head games at this level, I wouldn't delve too deeply into the play here - little of it will apply to small/middle limit O/8, IMO.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

Hmmm. I do think Daniel disrespects Barry for some reason, but I really don't see this as purposeful false advertising. Wasn't this in "the big game"? Moreover, I think these two have now played at least 3 of Negreanu's $500k challenge matches, (with Negreanu winning twice) so its not like Dan has only seen a few of Barry's plays. I expect through both television and much more live play Dan has seen tons of Barry's plays. Moreover, it doesn't make sense for Barry to advertise solely for the purpose of perpetuating Negreanu's mental impression of him at a full ring game, when they have played 3 half million dollar matches already heads-up.

I think it was just a case of taking a shot, missing, and hoping your low was good, (which it was). Pretty LAG for Barry, especially in a limit game, but you have to mix it up or you won't get paid.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. I do think Daniel disrespects Barry for some reason, but I really don't see this as purposeful false advertising. Wasn't this in "the big game"? Moreover, I think these two have now played at least 3 of Negreanu's $500k challenge matches, (with Negreanu winning twice) so its not like Dan has only seen a few of Barry's plays. I expect through both television and much more live play Dan has seen tons of Barry's plays. Moreover, it doesn't make sense for Barry to advertise solely for the purpose of perpetuating Negreanu's mental impression of him at a full ring game, when they have played 3 half million dollar matches already heads-up.

I think it was just a case of taking a shot, missing, and hoping your low was good, (which it was). Pretty LAG for Barry, especially in a limit game, but you have to mix it up or you won't get paid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your last sentence is exactly what I'm talking about. Advertising is a consistent thing, it's not a one-time shot, and it's not necessarily directed at a single player. (I mentioned this in the context of DN since that's where the discussion started. However, the value of a play like this is certainly because multiple players see a weird mistake-play.)

I mean, if you truly think that Barry mistakenly thought that this was the best EV play he could make in this particular hand (which I don't believe you are, but it sounds like DN just sees this as an isolated poker *mistake*), I think you're fooling yourself.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

Well that begs this question-- How often do you concientiously make clearly -EV moves STRICTLY to mislead players at the 1000/2000 level? And in this case, for the move to achieve its alleged purpose as "false advertising", it commits Barry to seeing this crappola hand to showdown AND showing it when he loses, for no apparent purpose.

This means Barry has already committed to dumping probably $20K into this hand for this "ad" when he makes his retarded -EV re-raise. Seems like very little bang for his buck to me. Moreover, if for instance no low came and a straight or flush was made and Barry showed his ridiculous JJ hand, nobody would take that at face value. Honestly I don't think you have thought the ramifications of what would be involved in this particular ad at all WM.

PS Smash says "good luck"

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well that begs this question-- How often do you concientiously make clearly -EV moves STRICTLY to mislead players at the 1000/2000 level?[/b]

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you know the meaning of this word? I suspect you meant to use the word "consciously". And the answer is that I never make a play that is "STRICTLY" advertising--there is always a semibluff-ish component to it, see below. Also, this goes for all levels, the size of the buyin is meaningless for this discussion.

The point is that when I reflect on why my style of play is successful, I conclude that I get paid off in many situations because I've taken an aggressive line with and shown down speculative hands that I "misplayed" in the Sklansky EV-sense of the word. Frankly, I don't expect you to have an innate understanding of this... a chalk-on-blackboard understanding of the value of advertising is trivial, but you have to experience its benefits firsthand to fully understand why it works IMO (and I'm speaking from experience). That will require you to adopt a style of play that you in particular would never try.

Again from experience, I can tell you that there are many poker players who know my results well, yet openly mock the way I play and truly believe I'm just lucky. It doesn't bother me, just gives me a glimpse that my approach is valid and effective.

[ QUOTE ]
And in this case, for the move to achieve its alleged purpose as "false advertising", it commits Barry to seeing this crappola hand to showdown AND showing it when he loses, for no apparent purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
In all instances, these advertising plays have a semi-bluff quality. Frequently, especially in a split-pot game, a semi-bluff advertising play like this will actually earn money. It's not the case that there's no apparent purpose even within the hand itself.

[ QUOTE ]
This means Barry has already committed to dumping probably $20K into this hand for this "ad" when he makes his retarded -EV re-raise. Seems like very little bang for his buck to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong and wrong. He won money on this hand, albeit luckily, but he did not put chips in drawing dead. If the money got divided by EV, players who played by the book would never get frustrated and fall off their game. Fortunately, for players who understand how to take advantage of this, the component of luck can be used to one's advantage. He almost definitely gets bang for his buck, not only immediately in the result of the hand but also in similar scenarios where he hold top set on this flop, and takes many bets from Eli who is drawing dead for the high.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, if for instance no low came and a straight or flush was made and Barry showed his ridiculous JJ hand, nobody would take that at face value. Honestly I don't think you have thought the ramifications of what would be involved in this particular ad at all WM.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have, as you can see. Barry also would not likely have made it to showdown if the rest of the hand proceeded as you mentioned. An advertising play does not always work out, and there is a clear line to be drawn between advertising with discretion, and spewing chips. I'm not so obtuse to be unable to recognize this, I assure you.

[ QUOTE ]
PS Smash says "good luck"

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

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

Making a "STRICTLY" -EV move is terrible, and not what Greenstein would be doing. For one, if you are misleading tough players you see regularly, inducing them to think a certain way and understanding exactly what you are doing, that isn't -EV. On top of that, there's the possibility that this weird, seemingly bad play might pick up the pot as well.

I'd encourage everyone to head over to Mid-High Stakes LHE and check out this thread, mostly towards the end. It's about a high stakes player (one of many) who makes occasional plays that appears simply bad, and certainly unorthodox. Yet he is a significant winner over a large sample, and there is some interesting discussion on how that might be. It's important to note, also, that the bigger online games get, the more and more they feature regular players who are tough and cognizant at the table.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

The post I like best from that other thread is some guy pointing out that maybe making a *definitely*-losing call on the river will prevent opponents of the player in question from ever running a legitimate bluff against him. He's trading a BB here and there for an entire pot when his opponent fails to bluff him off a weak winner.

Totally different kind of advertising ploy than we're debating here, but in similar spirit.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

First and foremost:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a2...aby-crying.jpg



1) Conscientiously IS the word I intended to use and it means MUCH more than merely consciously which implies only awareness and not necessarily a governing greater PURPOSE.

2) You seem to need to condescend when you are wrong-- which is a sign of youth and insecurity. You have no idea what plays I make and how frequently I make them. For instance, I don't have to have more than a chalkboard understanding to know what dumping 40 buy-ins at NLHE is. You seem to think that being cavalier with money gives you an insight unknowable to others. I respect your play (except where noted) but on this point I find your opinion too attenuated to be plausible.

3) This is NOT a semi-bluff, it is a stone cold bluff with three other opponents that Negreanu (whose experience dwarfs yours in every respect) implies would not fold.

4)Your last points about how the hand develop completely undermine your main point that his raise had misleading advertising intent. In order for this to reach fruition Barry must commit to a course of action which in all likelihood loses him $20k, but also most probably results in a CALL in which if he shows his sorry ass losing hand it is readily apparent that the whole thing was contrived.

This was nothing more than a doomed bluff attempt by a good player, and good fortune that runner runner came and Barry having the good sense to realize that his poor low was good because he had probably chased the other low draws.

I will grant you this... Frankly, I think Negreanu was just pissed because he had to fold his far superior low draw which would have won. To the extent that this move DID make enough of an impression on Negreanu for him to post it, it must have put him on some type of tilt so it was in that respect FAR more succesful than Barry could have reasonably anticipated.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

Not sure if this helps the decision making process of making a bluff at this pot but if you go back to the original article, Dan lists the games that they play.

They are playing Omaha H/L...not Omaha 8. When they are playing "8" (like stud or Omaha) he says they are playing "8". So, Barry has a two way hand. Even if it isn't a strong one.

So, he doesn't have to worry about two more low cards coming to make a low potential.

Dave

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

Are you certain of this? While I know Stud Hi/lo and Stud/8 are both played, and mean two different things, I have never seen Omaha hi/lo mean anything other than Omaha/8. Are you certain that he is making this distinction in the case of Omaha, because it seems really unlikely, especially since unlike stud, he ONLY mentions Omaha Hi/Lo, and not Omaha/8.

Moreover, if it were true, Negreanu NEVER folds his A2 to a re-raise, and most likely raises through the roof pre-flop.

Frankly, I think having no "8" qualifier and the requirement that you use exactly 2 cards in your hand would make Omaha "Hi/Lo" a ridiculous game that low cards would dominate too severly.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]

1) Conscientiously IS the word I intended to use and it means MUCH more than merely consciously which implies only awareness and not necessarily a governing greater PURPOSE.


[/ QUOTE ]

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Conscientiously:

1. Guided by or in accordance with the dictates of conscience; principled: a conscientious decision to speak out about injustice.
2. Thorough and assiduous: a conscientious worker; a conscientious effort to comply with the regulations.

This word has nothing to do with awareness at all much less something more purposeful than awareness. I think you are being stubborn here, because I think this word as you orginally use it doesn't make any sense at all. I suppose you could argue that your use may fit under definition one, but then you must believe that Barry Greenstein feels that he must make advertising plays out of principle. If you say this is what you originally meant, I won't believe it.

[ QUOTE ]

2) You seem to need to condescend when you are wrong-- which is a sign of youth and insecurity. You have no idea what plays I make and how frequently I make them. For instance, I don't have to have more than a chalkboard understanding to know what dumping 40 buy-ins at NLHE is. You seem to think that being cavalier with money gives you an insight unknowable to others. I respect your play (except where noted) but on this point I find your opinion too attenuated to be plausible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree here also. I think WM also condescends when he is correct. I also think being fairly cavalier with money is useful to a poker player.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

cavalier~ i agree here.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

As I explained, I meant governed by a greater and more thoughtful purpose. If you don't like the word choice that is fine with me. I think it applies to what I meant, you don't. I did not mean merely "conscious". I hope you understand now what I meant. And feel free to use the word conscientious as narrowly as you like, and/or repost this thread in a grammer/vocabulary forum for more expert opinion.


With respect to being "cavalier" with money you are correct, however, the act of repeatedly disrepecting it through poor play does not provide one with "special insight".

If I go to the 1cent/2cent tables and blow through 40 buy-ins I don't believe that will not give me some type of epiphany and license to pontificate, but if it will give me a more than "chalkboard' understanding of the greatness of LAG play which I am presently lacking, I'll go do it immediately.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
First and foremost:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a2...aby-crying.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] OK, if you say so... I'd interpret the post you're using the crybaby in reference to as just a pure thrashing--not a whine.

[ QUOTE ]

1) Conscientiously IS the word I intended to use and it means MUCH more than merely consciously which implies only awareness and not necessarily a governing greater PURPOSE.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see others have pointed this out already, but this isn't what the word typically means. Maybe the way you're using it does match a 6th or 7th line definition in OED... but it's a stretch. Anyway, I know what you meant, so I suppose that's all that matters.

[ QUOTE ]
2) You seem to need to condescend when you are wrong-- which is a sign of youth and insecurity. You have no idea what plays I make and how frequently I make them. For instance, I don't have to have more than a chalkboard understanding to know what dumping 40 buy-ins at NLHE is. You seem to think that being cavalier with money gives you an insight unknowable to others. I respect your play (except where noted) but on this point I find your opinion too attenuated to be plausible.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm curious what you think the meaning of the word "attenuated" is... but besides that, I condescend because it's fun. I do it all the time, and I am seldom wrong, so I'm not sure how you crafted this rule of thumb about me. However, I can assure you that I am not insecure, and I'm 27--not so young. I gauge the way you play based on the relatively tight stats you've posted as well as your intention to play a reduced-variance style by passing up +EV drawing situations on the flop at the $200 level, mentioned in your blog. I cannot see a player with that description having a full experiential understanding of the value of advertising as we are discussing here.

As for the 40 buyins, I don't consider that as even being cavalier with money. That's $1000, big fkin deal. It may seem like a lot of money when you consider the amount of groceries it could buy or something, but in comparison to usual swings in my BR, etc, it's not terribly significant. Anyhow, I'm not sure how a one-time drunken fun shove-fest NLHE session relates to the issue at hand.

[ QUOTE ]

3) This is NOT a semi-bluff, it is a stone cold bluff with three other opponents that Negreanu (whose experience dwarfs yours in every respect) implies would not fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are wrong about this not being a semibluff. It is a stone cold bluff only if Barry is drawing dead. Also I never said (nor implied, IMO) that I have any greater experience or skill than DN. It was a nice lawyer trick to put words in my mouth, or find some bizarre literal interpretation of some idiom I used to try to make me look bad. At this point, you're one step away from screaming "If Chewbacca comes from Andor, you must acquit!" and then hoping my head explodes.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a2...chewbacca2.jpg

[ QUOTE ]

4)Your last points about how the hand develop completely undermine your main point that his raise had misleading advertising intent. In order for this to reach fruition Barry must commit to a course of action which in all likelihood loses him $20k, but also most probably results in a CALL in which if he shows his sorry ass losing hand it is readily apparent that the whole thing was contrived. This was nothing more than a doomed bluff attempt by a good player, and good fortune that runner runner came and Barry having the good sense to realize that his poor low was good because he had probably chased the other low draws.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have a grudge against Barry too? Do you even know the guy?! Anyway, I'm afraid you're completely missing the point of my post. The semibluff aspect of this play is what makes it effective. Nothing drives home the impact of an advertising play more than when it WINS. If you shove with the worst of it and suck out, it is indelibly etched into the opponent's brain, whereas if you simply lose with garbage, opponent might just have a chuckle and move on. Having outs is a double-benefit. Makes the play less incorrect in raw EV sense, and potentially more effective in terms of advertising. We really ought to dump this hand into 2dimes and see just how much equity "stupid Barry" had in this play.

[ QUOTE ]
I will grant you this... Frankly, I think Negreanu was just pissed because he had to fold his far superior low draw which would have won. To the extent that this move DID make enough of an impression on Negreanu for him to post it, it must have put him on some type of tilt so it was in that respect FAR more succesful than Barry could have reasonably anticipated.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree on both notes. I don't think DN was pissed at all--he's smart enough to dump his backdoor low on that flop whether Barry raises or not. He was done w/ the hand either way. I think DN just posted the hand because he saw a raw EV mistake in Barry's play and wanted to expose it; he failed to account for the advertising value of the play, however. Also, the point of this kind of advertising was not to put DN or others on tilt in the given session, rather it is intended to create an image that will tip the balance from an opponent's near-fold to a near-call in a future situation where the opponent has a mediocre hand and Barry has the nuts.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
With respect to being "cavalier" with money you are correct, however, the act of repeatedly disrepecting it through poor play does not provide one with "special insight".

If I go to the 1cent/2cent tables and blow through 40 buy-ins I don't believe that will not give me some type of epiphany and license to pontificate, but if it will give me a more than "chalkboard' understanding of the greatness of LAG play which I am presently lacking, I'll go do it immediately.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two nights ago, in a live NLHE game, an opponent called my all-in (worth $400 since I covered him) into a $700 pot on the river, JT876 board with three to a flush, with Jacks up. How did I get him to pay me off with two pair when a flush, one-card straight, or set was staring him right in the face, as obvious as could be? Because he'd seen me make two suckouts in situations where EV would dictate that I lose money, and show multiple bluffs, both successful and losing. Granted, one of my suckouts was so bad that the advertising value did not merit it, but this kind of situation--getting paid off by virtue of advertising--happens *all the time* for me. It's naive to think my opponents are always "just bad".

So your suggestion of playing ultra-LAG at some cheap tables is IMO not a bad one. You will probably find it fun, and illuminationg. BTW, DN himself played like this from time to time during his poker development. Once a month or so he raised every two cards he was dealt PF in a limit HE game, and then tried to play good poker postflop. He won big every time. So if you think it's silly to experiment with uncomfortable styles, just consult your poker idol's history and you may reconsider.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

I am going to see Barry Greenstein talk tonight. If I get the chance I will ask him about this play. If he says anything illuminating I will post it here.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

You want me to reply....you NEED me to reply!!

1) Attempting to correct vocabulary when someone disagrees with you IS whining.

2) "Attenuated" in this context means thin or barely connected reasoning. That is its common usage by the way, at least in legal circles.

3) Inaccurately clipping a line about how I intend to play my highest limits tables over the next month does not fairly generalize my play, and I think no one would look at my often posted numbers 25 VPIP 1.8 PF Aggression and say I am a nut peddler. Nor did I say I was passing up +EV drawing situations, just playing them slower at the higher limits for awhile. It is total hubris to presume that others don't understand what you do-- and a HUGE sign of immaturity. Twenty Seven is precisely young enough to lack that particular wisdom.

4) On semi-bluffs, and stone cold bluffs, I suppose you are right. But I think the crux of this is the fact that the "semi" part of the bluff was done with very small pot-equity. I think I will run it on 2 dimes to have a look at how small his equity was.

5) Johnny Cochran, Chewbacca and South Park, I concede whatever point you were trying to make with this. Clearly it is FAR easier for you to spot "advertising" plays at the $2000/$4000 level from a hand history than Negreanu with the benefit of actually playing in the game.

6) I actually love Barry (in a non-homosexual way-- so no Estrada pics please). I completely agree that real devastation is winning with crap, but that is begging the question, for it assumes that Barry had a reasonable expectation of winning at showdown at the time he made his re-raise, and in my view he did not, so I don't think the original re-raise was made for the purpose of showing down a crappy winner and altering the tables perception of him.

7) I don't see any logical reason whatsoever for Negreanu to expose a "raw EV" mistake by Greenstein. Clearly he was motivated by something other than pure poker x's and o's (to mix metaphors). Moreover, educating Barry about his weaknesses and poor play is clearly a -EV play by Negreanu as a stand alone proposition. So, I think it was a combination of dislike, a desire to feel superior (with which you should be familiar-- as it seems to be the motivation for most of your posts) a little bit of tilt, and or a desire to irritate Barry into playing outside his game when they play again.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
I actually love Barry.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a2...drago_ieri.jpg

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

You are entering the Ribbo zone of self-deception if you don't see the difference between DN's thoughtful experimenting with raising every 2 card combination and then playing well afterwords and your blowing through 40 buyins and $1000 as an excercise in devaluing money and juvenile satifaction of your own superiority complex at the expense of people who give a [censored]. I'll grant you the entertainment value in it, but NOT any insight or wisdom that you claim flows from it.

It seems lost on you that I could perfectly well understand the purpose and value of advertising-- and do it myself from time to time, but STILL not think that was the purpose behind Barry's play.

By the way, when I want to play UltraLAG, I do it at $5 NLHE tournaments with a friend that plays this level seriously (he's that cheap). And I do everything humanly possible to put people on tilt. Usually I finish in the money, and I think it both helps AND hurts my play for when it really counts.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

Damn you Wintermute! You have too many homosexual pictures for me to specify all of them. Frankly a picture of Barry himself superimposed over Eric Estrada's body would be the shizzle. Yank yourself away from terrorizing the kiddie NL tables and do it right!

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are entering the Ribbo zone of self-deception if you don't see the difference between DN's thoughtful experimenting with raising every 2 card combination and then playing well afterwords and your blowing through 40 buyins and $1000 as an excercise in devaluing money and juvenile satifaction of your own superiority complex at the expense of people who give a [censored]. I'll grant you the entertainment value in it, but NOT any insight or wisdom that you claim flows from it.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] WTF? At whose "expense" did I blow off a grand in the $25 NLHE game? Surely nobody but myself, no? Please explain to me how that incident hurt anyone who "gives a censored". And I didn't claim to gain any insight from it--there was nothing gained at all, except sheer entertainment (and reinforcement of my superiority complex, evidently... speaking of which, for the record I ended up ahead during that session since I was multitabling w/ 2k PLO8).

Simmer down, old man.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

My best approximation of the hands in two dimes says:

Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 528 enumerated boards containing 6s Tc Qh
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
9s Jc Ah 6h 152 214 309 5 0 0 0 0.351
Ad 9d 2d Th 13 32 491 5 115 0 0 0.156
Js 7c Jd 3h 6 20 508 0 61 40 0 0.082
Qs 9c 8c Td 176 257 269 2 0 0 0 0.411

Giving Barry a whopping .082 Pot Equity at the time of his re-raise.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

lol-- at the expense of their dignity.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

I was thinking more of the matchup once he gets others to fold:

Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 820 enumerated boards containing 6s Tc Qh
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
Js 7c Jd 3h 41 41 779 0 144 0 0 0.129
Qs 9c 8c Td 650 779 41 0 0 0 0 0.871

He has 13% equity now! Also, range of hands, etc.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol-- at the expense of their dignity.

[/ QUOTE ]
I assume you're talking about my opponents during that session? OK. Explain to me how I have harmed anyone's dignity by losing $1000 to a dozen or so players over the course of an hour, thereby presumably giving them a very strong winning session by their standards, bolstering their confidence, probably causing many of them to bang their wives/girlfriends a little harder that night, in turn making their sig others feel more loved, in turn causing their families to grow closer, etc.

Hell, I deserve a medal for my charity work.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, I deserve a medal for my charity work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would second this if you can show any of the banging happened in a Stormtrooper costume.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

The dignity remark (prefaced by lol) was a joke. You Stormtrooper clones have no sense of humor. Keep up the good work, and tell me next time you are playing. In fact play a few SNGs with me. I usually go for UB or Stars Turbos.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

No...I'm not positive about this. But he makes a very clear distinction by listing stud hi/low and stud 8 and Omaha hi/low on his list of games. If he meant 8 or better, he would have made that distinction.

Dave

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

I must break you!!

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

I hate to say this, but judging by other contextual clues i think you are dead wrong about this.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
getting paid off by virtue of advertising--happens *all the time* for me. It's naive to think my opponents are always "just bad".

[/ QUOTE ]

I can personally attest that I have paid off Wintermute on more than 1 occasion when I should not have. in fact, he was one of the few at the table who I would have paid off. And it's because I've seen him make big bets and raises with hands I was clearly ahead of.

The LAG style is a difficult one to play against, and it relies on meta-game, game-theory type considerations for its success. Which is why single-hand EV calculations are misleading when trying to assess the effectiveness of its overall style.

And its for precisely these meta-game reasons that trying to correctly assess the play of very good players who are playing many hands with each other is utterly pointless.

-g

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

I think much of the analysis in this thread is close to the way I thought about the hand. I thought it might be a -EV play in isolation, but I like to put pressure on my opponents, even though I may be way off at times.

You guys missed three important points.

1) Eli is a player who will bet most of the when a high flop comes if he is checked to. I took a shot at knocking out the other hands, which presumably have better back-door low draws, and giving me a chance to hit my emergency low some of the time.

2) How did my hand get shown?

I didn't have to show the hand, but I did it voluntarily after the winning hand was shown. Even though I had a few winning cards, my hand looked pretty sick against the hands I was up against, so I thought it might encourage some of the weaker players to see it.

3) I will never post about curious hands that my opponents play. I am happy to see them. I have no criticism about any plays Daniel has made, and I never argued when he posted that he knows things about short-handed stud that I don't know when we played our two heads-up seven stud matches. He said he was a clear favorite. I have no problem with him thinking he is better than me at all games. If he didn't think that, we probably wouldn't get to play against each other.

Barry

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
3) I will never post about curious hands that my opponents play. I am happy to see them. I have no criticism about any plays Daniel has made, and I never argued when he posted that he knows things about short-handed stud that I don't know when we played our two heads-up seven stud matches. He said he was a clear favorite. I have no problem with him thinking he is better than me at all games. If he didn't think that, we probably wouldn't get to play against each other.

[/ QUOTE ] I think this is an interesting point. What is Daniel's goal in posting all these misplayed hands? The triple draw hand he has on his website is just a typical bad play that you'd see in a 5/10 or 10/20 game. What possible benefit does he gain from belittling his opponents in public? This doesn't seem like good natured needling to me, but I don't actually know any of the people involved either.

Re: Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein\'s worst game
 

[ QUOTE ]
2) How did my hand get shown?

I didn't have to show the hand, but I did it voluntarily after the winning hand was shown. Even though I had a few winning cards, my hand looked pretty sick against the hands I was up against, so I thought it might encourage some of the weaker players to see it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you mean by this. According to Negreanu you had the winning low hand. Are you suggesting that there is a situation in which you would hold the winning hand at showdown and muck it?

Would you have shown the hand if no low had come, for "advertising" purposes?

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this thread.