Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein's worst game

[Wintermute]

[ 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]

[sy_or_bust]

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.

[Wintermute]

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.

[Mendacious]

First and foremost:





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.

[Ironman]

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

[Mendacious]

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.

[Cooker]

[ 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.

cavalier~ i agree here.

[Mendacious]

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.

[Wintermute]

[ QUOTE ]
First and foremost:



[/ 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.



[ 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.