Negreanu

sthief09 · #1 08-19-2004, 02:41 AM

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.

MarkL444 · #2 08-19-2004, 03:21 AM

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

TheJackal · #3 08-19-2004, 03:38 AM

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.

bomblade · #4 08-19-2004, 03:41 AM

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.

Tosh · #5 08-19-2004, 04:41 AM

Yeah he admitted straight after he played like a tard.

nolanfan34 · #6 08-19-2004, 01:00 PM

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.

TimTimSalabim · #7 08-19-2004, 01:09 PM

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.

drewjustdrew · #8 08-19-2004, 01:33 PM

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.

dogmeat · #9 08-19-2004, 01:55 PM

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]

drewjustdrew · #10 08-19-2004, 02:03 PM

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.