A new theory on Negraneau challenge matches

[Tom Martell]

I haven't said a word about him, actually. I merely dispute you chiming in on the discussion without evidence. Also, how can you prove he has "blown big bankrolls"? He did it once. You are implying it was a repeated thing.

[Smoothcall]

Ok for arguments sake i will say he blew a fortune only one time that i know for sure, as he has written an article on it. Other times i'm not sure. Does that mean since he only did it once that he is a great player? Its the only thing that we have fact of to go by. If he had beaten the games and didn't go broke you would be using it as your argument. But you can't because he did lose all his money.

I chimed in with my opinion, and did not make anything up about him. I don't see why it offends you for me to have an opinion different than yours of daniel.

[Tom Martell]

You are misrepresenting the facts to support your opinion. That is what I disagree with. DN has acknowledged he was suffering from serious personal problems, including alcohol abuse, that led to him blowing his money. This took place three years ago. From this, you conclude that he is probably not a great player today. I find this a troubling logical conclusion, as

(a) he has overcome the personal problems and

(b) he could easily have improved over the three years to today become a good player.

So I find the facts you are using to support your argument to be unpersuasive.

[Smoothcall]

I haven't misrepresented any facts to support my argument. You asked for proof of him going broke which you thought i didn't have. I then give you proof and now instead of saying ok you got a point and sorry for making it sound as i thought you were making it up. You instead now now its true that he went broke but want to disregard it.

And sure he could have improved. Do you have proof he did improve? Ok assume i took a shot in the big game for a year and lost BIG. Now 3 years later i hit the lottery and play a few hours in it. Would you think i am world class now? Or would i have to prove i am through many hours first? At least i support my argument with facts. Your argument is well ok he did go broke but it was because he had serious perosnal issues but now he has improved. How do you know he has improved? This is not supported with facts. You want it to be right so you say it. But it is total speculation with no support. I support my points you don't. Thats the problem i'm having with your argument. Anyway we should move on. No hard feelings. I enjoy a good discussion. Just more enjoyable when people give you credit when you make good points. I wish daniel luck and hope he becomes the player you seem to think he is. I just need him to prove it before accepting that he is world class. A small amount of hours in the big game doesn't prove world class ability. Too bad he can't play in the big game so we coulda seen if he woulda beat the big game. Maybe he woulda you never know. Btw most poker players have excuses when they lose. Bottom line is he lost. Good discussion i enjoyed it!

[lgas]

[ QUOTE ]
Please define what you mean by +EV. It seems like you are saying they are actually -EV, but the money he is losing in EV he is actually consciously spending on utility (learning, fun, etc) such that it is a good expenditure. Therefore, his net utility is up, even if his expected return in dollars for his dollars is below even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that's basically what I was trying to say -- he will get value back from playing these HU matches in multiple ways -- at least 4 that I can think of:

1) Cold hard cash that he wins or loses;
2) Learning experience playing against the top pros
3) Promotion of the DN brand;
4) Promotion of his, for lack of a better word, "business partner", the Wynn Casino; or
5) Various other ways, e.g. some of the John Does that are now challenging him may be no where near his skill level, and may be just straight up highly +EV in the the sense of #1... he may eventually stop playing the top pros but find himself with an endless stream of nobodies that want to keep playing him forever.

So as an example, if he plays 20 of these matches and in the end is down say $2m in terms of direct losses in the matches, he has to make up $2m from other sources (but as a direct or indirect result of this HU match challenge) for them to be +EV overall in my mind.

If he had not played these matches but would've gone on to win ~$20m over the next 40 years of his life, then assuming the experience of playing these players in these matches improved his skill by about 10%, he would now go on to make ~$22m over the next 40 years instead, and they would've been +EV... even if it only increased his skill by 2% that's still $400k in value to offset his direct losses.

If he gets his contract with Wynn (whatever the actual dollar amount may be) renewed, or increased AND renewed, with Wynn, then that would add to his EV.

If he gets more endorsements, traffic to his website (assuming hes making money off ads on his site), etc. those are all value he has created.

If he makes another $500k from random John Doe challengers well after the primary matches are over, thats more value.

If you add all that ancillary value up, I'm guessing it could come out to a pretty big number.

Even if it doesn't actually wind up being that great of a number in reality, I don't think it's unreasonable for him, given his situation, to conclude that it will be.

[Smoothcall]

I'm surprised the banker(you know the texas billionaire that doyle and the boys play) hasn't taken him up on these challenge matches yet. He probably eventually will. Although it may be too small for the banker. He may ask for 10 million freezeouts so he can at least be interested.

[ggbman]

[ QUOTE ]
Let put it this way. If Dannyboy got in a full limit holdem ring game against the likes of lenny martin, david sklansky, abdul, mason malmuth, Roy Cooke, howard,lederer,jennifer harman he would eventually go home runnin to momma after he went broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seriously think the likes of Roy Cooke, who is mainly a 30-60 player, could even contend with Daniel Negranu who plays between 1k-2k and 4k-8k limit hold-em? Get real.

[Tom Martell]

[ QUOTE ]
You asked for proof of him going broke which you thought i didn't have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked for proof that he went broke multiple times, as you alluded to. You did not have said proof.

[ QUOTE ]
And sure he could have improved. Do you have proof he did improve?

[/ QUOTE ]

He is now regarded by other players, including BarryG, as being successful in that game.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok assume i took a shot in the big game for a year and lost BIG. Now 3 years later i hit the lottery and play a few hours in it. Would you think i am world class now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again these faulty analogies based on speculative logic... he didnt win the lottery. For a year, he repeatedly had top finishes in poker tournaments. Was it the same format? No. Are some of the skills applicable? Yes. The ability to read players is valuable in any form of poker.

How many hours has DN played in the big game? How many hands does that translate to? You must have these numbers to assert that DN has not played many hours.

[ QUOTE ]
At least i support my argument with facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you support it with speculation. What is DN's flop %? What is his preflop raise %? How many hands has he played? What is his current win rate?

You make statements like "DN is too loose to be successful" and "DN hasn't played enough hands". Define these terms. You just wave your hands and suggest that you have offered facts. These are not facts.

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument is well ok he did go broke but it was because he had serious perosnal issues but now he has improved. How do you know he has improved?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way you know he busted out previously. People watch him play, and he is sober. He states in his journal he no longer plays drunk. I have read of no references to him playing drunk. Therefore, I conclude, based on this body of evidence, that he is no longer playing drunk. I have the feeling someone would have noticed.

[ QUOTE ]
I support my points you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You hand wave through them. That isnt supporting them.

[ QUOTE ]
I wish daniel luck and hope he becomes the player you seem to think he is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do not misrepresent what I have said. I have never stated what I think of DN's ability to play poker. I have never called him a world class player, or even a good player. Do you even know what my argument is?

[Tom Martell]

I agree.

DN has a negative short term, match EV. But his long term EV may be larger. And even if it isnt larger, he is spending that loss in EV on utility, therefore it is a valid expenditure.

[Smoothcall]

I think i know what your argument is. You don't really have an opinion on daniel at all. Your argument is whatever i say you want to take the other side. No matter how many times i show more facts. You continually make it sound like i'm making things up. Like me saying he went broke. You thought i made that up. No it was fact! Now you think i made up the fact he has only played a few hours and that i don't reall know. Again i never make things up. i know the facts that i claim. He has said he has played a small amount of hours. I forget the exact number but around 50 to 70 hours(certainly not enough to make any judgements on whether he would beat the game or not). When i don't know somthing for a fact i will uusally stae it as my opinion or you can tell when i'm stating an opinion and not fact. I hope you at least give me credit for knowing it was asmall amount of hours. Instead of making it sound like i'm making all this stuff up.

I don't know if daniel is world class. Neither do you. But i think he hasn't proved anything yet. Is that fair?

Anyway not meaning to argue(in a sense of being angry with you) with you. But you seem to want to argue i think. Anytime i answer your questions that you seem to think i don't know i answer them. Then instead of saying ok you got me there. or ok thats a good point sorry for thinking you made it up you dismiss and ignore it and move on to somthing else. Anyway it was an interesting discussion lets move on to something else. Btw when i'm wrong and shown i'm wrong i admit it and say you got me. I am open to seeing the error of my ways if pointed out to me. i just don't think you made me see it here. But you tried hard. Anyway nice talking to you.