Daniel's N. latest blog.... playing in the dark at 10-20 NL

[elmitchbo]

from the latest blog...

"I headed over to the poker room to schmooze for a while and then played a friend of mine's chips in the 10-20 blind no limit hold'em game.

He had about $5000 in front of him, and since I was feeling frisky I decided to play in the dark- never looking at my hand unless I was faced with a huge bet.

I've done this before and as sick as this sounds I'm actual a big winner to it. Even sicker, I genuinely believe that I could win in that game without ever looking at my cards. Provided nobody knew that of course. This one hand I went a little nuts, but it was all in good fun:

One player limped for $20, another player made it $140 to go and I saw that he had about $900 left. Two people called and it was up to me on the button.

Now remember I have no idea what I have at this point! I decide that I feel like gambling with the initial raiser and I didn't feel like the callers would call a $5000 bet. "I'm all in." I said as the gathering crowd looked on in shock.

The initial raiser called as expected and the other two players agonized over the situation until they finally folded against my blind raise. No guts, no glory!

The player turned over his hand, K-K. Oh well, I guess I'll need a lot of help. The flop came 2-4-5 of diamonds and my opponent didn't have a diamond. Now I have no idea what I have, but I'm guessing that this might be a great flop for me. The turn card brings a jack, and on the river another 5 hit.

So now it was time to sweat my cards. I peeked at the side of the card and noticed that is was "two across" meaning it had to be a 4 or a 5. I didn't decide to find out just yet as I looked to see what was in store with my other card. I peeked again and noticed... two across! That meant I couldn't lose, I have to have him beat. I either had 4-4, 4-5, or 5-5 which makes a full house either way.

I turned up pocket fives and raked in the pot. I proceeded to play in the dark for another 45 minutes or so and put together a nice little win. Of course when I quit everyone in the game decided that the game was no fun anymore and they all threatened to quit."


is that just blind ass luck? could he really beat a 10-20 game without ever looking at his hand? as big a fan of Daniel as i am, i am more than a little skeptical. i don't really know what to make of this. comments?

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
is that just blind ass luck? could he really beat a 10-20 game without ever looking at his hand? as big a fan of Daniel as i am, i am more than a little skeptical. i don't really know what to make of this. comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's probably true -- it's also pretty asinine. There's absolutely no skill in what he did. At first I thought the story was going to be about his vaunted player reading skills and how he was able to discern that nobody had a hand (which is probably the spin he'd have put on it had the guy not had KK), but winning against KK with his (unseen) 55 was just blind assed luck.

[memphis57]

Well, I suppose he's just rephrasing the "play the players, not the cards" line, and maybe he could win the majority of the time, but I think his all in story shows he can't win *every* time.

The part that gets me is he did this with a friends chips, not his own. I think I'd be careful about asking him to play my chips....

Still, from my very limited exposure to no-limit, I do think the cards are largely irrelevant much of the time.

[PairTheBoard]

Yea, cards don't really matter much in NL. I don't bother looking at my cards even when I'm playing online.

oops, gotta go. The Donald is calling me into the Boardroom for some silly reason again.

PairTheBoard

[elmitchbo]

i think the cards matter a helluva alot at a full table. when it's heads up it's a different story. i just watched a replay of the WPT legends final when Doyle beat lee watkinson. it was an intersting mix of the cards do/don't matter. several times it came down to the best kicker, but usually it was about who played the hand more aggressively or cleverly.


despite that.. 55 unseen over KK with someone elses chips is sketchy.

[disjunction]

Not as lucky as one might think. He made a read that everybody except the raiser would fold. He put in 900 to win 2200, so his random hand would need to hold up 40% of the time. Presumably he put the raiser on a range of hands, he either made a misread or he was *unlucky* to see KK. Now I don't know whether his play of a random hand against the given range having 40% equity was correct or not, but it ain't bad for not looking at your cards!

I guess the "theory" question is this. Suppose you "crossbook" against Daniel N (hope I got the terminology correct), or any excellent player, in a game which he's not looking at his cards. What kind of odds are you willing to give?

[JKDStudent]

Not quite the same thing, but this is the only thread where I feel I have a chance to tell this mini-story.

I'm at a home poker game, nl tourney. It's down to my friend's fiance and myself. The blinds are 400/800, and I only have around 1200 in chips. I'm the big blind, and before I get my cards I announce that I'm going all-in blind. Nicole looks at her cards and calls. She flips up pocket jacks. You know that when she looked down and saw those cards, she thought, "Ok, game over. I've got this one." That is until I flipped my cards over and revealed pocket queens.

Now THAT'S putting someone on tilt. She still won the game on a later hand, leaving me 0-4 in heads up against her. But that was a beautiful hand.

[elmitchbo]

in my home game there's a guy who enjoys calling/ raising blind from time to time. i've seen him go all in blind and catch a pocket pair more than once. he thinks he's gus hansen.... i still can't tell if he's a winning player. there are just to few hands, and he has such wild swings that it's hard to tell.

[pzhon]

Many people would like it to be true that you don't need to play the cards, only the other players. The fact is that Negreanu got $900 in as worse than a 4:1 underdog, and exposed $5000 to a similar risk. A random hand is a big underdog to an average early-position raiser, particularly one with a short stack.

Oh, but he won. Next time, maybe he won't catch quads, but if you are results-oriented, think about how much he would have made with a flopped top set if he hadn't chased out the deep stacks.

Negreanu might not care about these stakes. Don't try to extract deep lessons from his play here or in rebuy tournaments.

[muck_nutz]

[ QUOTE ]
from the latest blog...
He had about $5000 in front of him, and since I was feeling frisky I decided to play in the dark- never looking at my hand unless I was faced with a huge bet.

I've done this before and as sick as this sounds I'm actual a big winner to it. Even sicker, I genuinely believe that I could win in that game without ever looking at my cards. Provided nobody knew that of course.


[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't clear to me if people knew Daniel was playing blind with his friends chips or not. It sounds like they did which coupled with the later statement about being able to win playing blind iff others didn't know sounds like an upfront admission that he knew he was gambling.

[ QUOTE ]

One player limped for $20, another player made it $140 to go and I saw that he had about $900 left. Two people called and it was up to me on the button.

Now remember I have no idea what I have at this point! I decide that I feel like gambling with the initial raiser and I didn't feel like the callers would call a $5000 bet. "I'm all in." I said as the gathering crowd looked on in shock.

The initial raiser called as expected


[/ QUOTE ]

contraditions here. The crowd in shock almost sounds like they don't know he is playing blind.

"as expected" implies to me that he thought he didn't have any fold equity which would imply they did know he was playing blind.

If he were playing without others knowing he wasn't looking then part of this type of play (the big raise part) is fold equity when you think others are weak. OTOH you have a player raising a limper which isn't usu. a weak play.

[ QUOTE ]

The player turned over his hand, K-K. Oh well,


[/ QUOTE ]

"oh well"? I guess this fits with the earlier comments sounding like he thought he had no fold equity, but given the overbet and how tight the 10-20NLHE has been the few times I've played in it I wouldn't expect much less. Esp. after he has told them he is playing blind and assuming they have some sense he will play aggressively.

Additionally the fact there were multiple players in doesn't sound like they were completely aware he was blind/aggressive.

[ QUOTE ]

is that just blind ass luck? could he really beat a 10-20 game without ever looking at his hand? as big a fan of Daniel as i am, i am more than a little skeptical. i don't really know what to make of this. comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

Possible. Although I would think he would have a better chance in a shorter game. And of course he had better not tell them what he is doing.

FWIW most of the comments below have focused on the fact that he was called by KK. Thats not the point. If the read of the situation was serious (and I don't think it does given the limper, etc.) and the bet less super-over-potish then you have to consider what hands the opponents would fold in order to compute the equity of the play.

I think Daniel's blog is interesting. But sometimes his stories sound like he might have taken the same creative writing class that Tommy Angelo took.