Negreanu says....

[Daniel Negreanu]

This thread is really, really, silly. There is absolutely no question that Ted's check was the wrong play. Ted knows that full well and admitted it immediately after he did it.

The reason Howard was singled out, was that even after his commentary and the fact that I pointed out his mistake he still defended his position. That shocked me to no end.

It got me to thinking about how Howard could come to such a conclusion? The first thing that struck me was simply that he wasn't fully understanding the situation and was doing his "math" wrong.

It was a large all in raise by D"Agostino, and no, there was no way I could have one six in my hand. No way, no chance at all.

As for the term "conditional probability" can we be a little more anal? I mean seriously, I think the readers had the right idea as to what I was trying to convey. I'd never heard the term conditional probability before and I sure hadn't heard of Bayegosianish math!

You can nitpick the article all you want looking for terms that are used "improperly", but the fact remains that Howard came to the wrong conclusion because he wasn't taking into account the situation properly. Why? Because the simple fact that I wouldn't call with a six in my hand never crossed his mind. That's faulty thinking.

Ted realized he blew it right away. He just made a boo boo. Howard, on the other hand still defends the play and that's why he was singled out.

Finally, I realize that math guys, especially the good ones, take all things into consideration. However, if there is one area where they might have a weakness, it's generally in factoring in how an opponent approaches poker, or how they think.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is really, really, silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. But you found it necessary to respond.

[ QUOTE ]
There is absolutely no question that Ted's check was the wrong play

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the reason for this post. Didn't mention the right or wrong of Ted's play.


[ QUOTE ]
The reason Howard was singled out, was that even after his commentary and the fact that I pointed out his mistake he still defended his position. That shocked me to no end.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you felt it necessary to show up Howard Lederrer in CardPlayer magazine. I guess your purpose was to show everyone just how stupid Howard really must be. You were "shocked" to think that Howard Lederrer could defend his obviously way out there position so adamantly in the wake of your obviously (to you) correct assumptions. Anyone that has seen you on TV has heard you say that playing 6,4 is the way to go. You said that those authors that tell you not to play them are just way off. And you were going to show them when you wrote your book. Or am i making that up? Maybe Howard heard that broadcast. I believe it was after your Bellagio win. Again not the pont. The point of this "silly' post was to point out just how disengenuous it is to Howard and Ted to use them as some kind of "math type" scapegoat based on one somehwat arguable situation. Yes maybe it was just a "silly' post. I wanted to see if it would get any reaction from "math" guys like the wiz - David Sklansky.

Some people take themselves to seriously. I like to stir the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
You can nitpick the article all you want looking for terms that are used "improperly", but the fact remains that Howard came to the wrong conclusion because he wasn't taking into account the situation properly. Why? Because the simple fact that I wouldn't call with a six in my hand never crossed his mind. That's faulty thinking.

Ted realized he blew it right away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it interesting that in the heat of the battle two of the best poker players in the world came to the same conclusion and played the hand, according to you, incorrectly? Maybe, just maybe, their might be some right thinking going on with those two. Especially since you are basing your "he blew it" on the assumption that they "Must" conclude that Daniel Negreanu, the self proclaimed, "any two cards will do" guru was playing the hand. Or maybe you think that they thought that it was out of the querstion that you would check the nuts on the river.

Come on Dan, you didn't have to mention Howard Lederrer specifically or even Ted Forest to get accross the point that a good player takes a lot of elements in to consideration before making a poker play. Come on admit it your ego got pumped when you thought you had bested Howard. I mean after all "you were shocked" that he doesnt' get it!

Silly thread or not. The truth is the truth. And conditional probability is well...probability.

Daniel if this thread caused you any distress, I apologize. I did not intend that.

I believe you are a fine spokesman for Poker and have done a lot to fuel the ongong poker explosion. Keep up the good work.

Vince

The idea that there is literally a 0% chance of a world-class no-limit HE player like Daniel holding a single six is absurd. In this situation (shorthanded, against other world-class players) there is great value in deception.

If the other players are able to eliminate certain possibilities completely, Daniel would be giving up a significant edge. Forrest knows this.

The probability of Daniel playing 7-6 or 6-5 or 8-6 or even A-6 is non-zero. I think it is quite low, maybe 10%, but it is definitely non-zero.

Perhaps, by telling the world that he would "never" call pre-flop with a single six under those circumstances, Daniel is hoping the other top players will believe him. That might allow him to make this kind of play in the future with complete deception.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that there is literally a 0% chance of a world-class no-limit HE player like Daniel holding a single six is absurd. In this situation (shorthanded, against other world-class players) there is great value in deception.

...

The probability of Daniel playing 7-6 or 6-5 or 8-6 or even A-6 is non-zero. I think it is quite low, maybe 10%, but it is definitely non-zero.


[/ QUOTE ]

To me, it seems a bit silly to think that Daniel would call a large all in raise with a suited connector. You are saying that it is more probable because of it's deception. When calling a large all in bet, you are pretty much throwing up the flag of "I'm trying to eliminate him too", not "I can't wait for this side pot, sure I may triple up a "World Class" player in the process, but playing against Ted's unknown hand is much more important."

Considering the structure, players, and situation, it is incredibly less that 10% for Daniel to call with any 6 there. I would say that it is indeed zero.

Fact of the matter is that Ted REALLY dropped the ball on this hand, and like mentioned before, he understood that as soon as he checked.

As far as Daniel's poking at Howard, the fact that he defended Ted's play, knowing that Ted admitted fault INSTANTLY, makes it an obvious blunder in Howard's explanation. How can you defend somebody else's action when even they disagree with they did?!

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DN likes to play a lot of junk hands, so you could argue he would be as likely to hold a six as an ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the 6's came on the turn and river this is obviously not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

how does the run of cards on one hand have any relevance to what cards a player is likely to play, _generally_?

[Smoothcall]

Daniel Negreanu is a world class nl player? Where do you guys get this stuff?

[Smoothcall]

How do you know Ted actually disgrees with his play? Maybe he told Daniel that to play with daniels mind for future confrontations. Not saying he did but we(including Daniel)don't know if Ted really believes that. Only person who knows that is Ted.

I have to agree with others that Daniel again uses his power to insult and discredit people that might irk him. I remember Howard wasn't too happy when daniel attacked Annie duke years ago on another poker forum. I'm sure they smoothed things over through the years, but feelings like this sometimes reemerge. Only difference is Howard doesn't discredit Daniel in public. He has too much class for that.

I agree with Vince when he says he likes Daniel and he's good for poker. I think Daniel is a good guy. But like most young people that gets rich and famous they start to believe the hype and think they are a bit better than everyone. He needs to be a little humble if he doesn't want to rub people the worng way imo.

[David Sklansky]

"The first thing that struck me was simply that he wasn't fully understanding the situation and was doing his "math" wrong."

The key sentence. There was nothing wrong, however, with using math RIGHT to get to the best play.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
There was nothing wrong, however, with using math RIGHT to get to the best play.

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading this sentenace I must admit that there is some truth in what Daniel says about "math types". Of course, as usual, I have much difficulty and in this case and unable to discer just what in the futch you are talking about. Please for the idiots like me reading the forum, ELABORATE...just a little. Oh I get it. You think that this thread is about math. Hmmm. Maybe I was wrong to ask you to look at this thread.

Vince

I would say that it is pretty certain that Ted was disappointed with his play. He did check down AA on a checked around 6 A x 6 6 board.

I think that everybody is also neglecting the fact that if Daniel did hold a 6, he would probably have bet the turn, trying to take down the pot where he most definately was beating Dags in the process.

If he WAS being Deceptive, check the river in a checked down hand?! No way. He would have to put Forrest on an Ace, (or AA) to be able to check-raise quads on the river, and that would be a HUGE risk, whereas it WAS possible of Forrest checking it down. I would say to check the turn/river with any 6 (Except 6 6, which would have quad'ed on the turn) in that spot is bad tournament play. As I am not Daniel, this is only hypothesizing, but I am confident that it would be played this way.

Again, if you really think that checking Aces full in that spot is the best play, you have to seriously re-inspect your play.