27 replies to this topic

[Allie]

I just read something in the Daniel's Blog forum that I thought was interesting....and thought maybe some people hadn't seen it because of where it is. Scroll down to the post by newbie "billybobq6q".Doesn't matter which side of the debate you're on....it's kind of interesting. Don't flame me or I'll cry!! :wink: http://fullcontactpo...pic.php?t=32245

[missIdaho]

Hmmmmmm......that is interesting. I'm skeptical of this particular statement though:I am a well-know poker pro who wishes to remain anonymous (for now). I do not wish to get into a big exchange with Daniel (a la Barry G).I just don't see many well known respected pro players feeling the need to start off their post like this. But I could be wrong, as is often the case.

[LuckyMcCatcher]

This guys post is still way off base. He neglects to mention the most important part of the argument. Poker is not scored by the number of winning sessions you have. People are saying that DN had an advantage because he had more money negates the fact that properly rolled indviduals would make a killing in this game if DN showed up everyday to play like this. Any decent player knows this. ANyone who focuses on the results of one session is not a poker player he is a fish. You cannot ask for more in big bet poker than to be getting a 100 percent return on your money when you are a favorite. If your roll cant withstand a few bad beats than you are in the wrong game period.

[Socko669]

missIdaho said:

Hmmmmmm......that is interesting. I'm skeptical of this particular statement though:I am a well-know poker pro who wishes to remain anonymous (for now). I do not wish to get into a big exchange with Daniel (a la Barry G).I just don't see many well known respected pro players feeling the need to start off their post like this. But I could be wrong, as is often the case.

Good point. I think this guy is full of it.

[Allie]

missIdaho said:

Hmmmmmm......that is interesting. I'm skeptical of this particular statement though:I am a well-know poker pro who wishes to remain anonymous (for now). I do not wish to get into a big exchange with Daniel (a la Barry G).I just don't see many well known respected pro players feeling the need to start off their post like this. But I could be wrong, as is often the case.

Yes, hard to say right now if he's legit or not. But he says remain anonymous "for now"....so we'll see if he ever comes out of the closet, so to speak. lol.

[Allie]

LuckyMcCatcher said:

This guys post is still way off base. He neglects to mention the most important part of the argument. Poker is not scored by the number of winning sessions you have. People are saying that DN had an advantage because he had more money negates the fact that properly rolled indviduals would make a killing in this game if DN showed up everyday to play like this. Any decent player knows this. ANyone who focuses on the results of one session is not a poker player he is a fish. You cannot ask for more in big bet poker than to be getting a 100 percent return on your money when you are a favorite. If your roll cant withstand a few bad beats than you are in the wrong game period.

But I think that's kind of the point. Daniel isn't there every day playing with them like that. Sure in the long run you'd beat him if he played that way every session....but in the short term he can suck out on any given hand and bust you. Daniel talked in his latest blog about how if a BAD player sat at the table with a huge roll like that, that he wouldn't have an advantage over you...how you'd be a favorite to win etc. But is WASN'T a bad player sitting there doing that. It was Daniel. Great player, with a huge roll. NOW who's got the advantage? Sure, he was playing goofy....but he also said in his first blog that he could beat that game with his eyes closed. He won a big pot after flopping the nut flush, trapped with it, and out played them because they had just seen him be goofy with the hand before. Playing loose and goofy maybe...but calculated goofy. I understand the concept of 100% return on your money when you're a favorite....and sure I'll take that all day long, because in the long run I'll win. But this situation isn't the long run. It was one brief session, where not only was Daniel presumabley the best player at the table (playing silly or not), but he also had the advantage of a huge overhelming roll.

[justblaze]

wow, mr. well respected poker pro is kind of a moron. This statement is true. You can beat it playing this way not because of your superior skill, but because of your huge stack. More specifically, it doesn't matter if someone is "taking at shot" for $2,000. The stakes are high enough to make players in that game care about the money at risk. $125,000 means must less to you than $2,000 means to these players. That is the key. If they had say $30 at risk and you played this way, they would never fold and your style would not overpower the game. You're counting on the fact that the money matters to them and a loss would affect them. For this "blind" style to work, the stakes need to be high enough for the other players to value the money at risk here we see mr. poker pro ignoring the fact that money is relative. just because $2k means something to one person has no bearing on its relative worth to another. for some, $2k is a piss in pot, for others, $30 is a fortune. It is this same concept that prohibited Doyle, Jen, Howard, et al from playing Andy Beal much higher than they did. They knew Andy wanted to play high enough to put the pros in an uncomfortsble position, thus reducing if not eliminating their edge. Andy's bigger bankroll and the pros style adjsutments due to the very high limits would work to Andy's favor. The pros acknowledged all of this, thus their insistence on setting these limits. actually the concepts are completely unrelated. The high stakes that andy wanted wouldnt reduce the corporations edge, it would merely make it more likely that variance would wipe them out before they could realize the edge. Casinos don't set table limits to slowly rake the players. They do it to prohbit what you're doing. The game can be overpowered. An analogy would be the table limits set in the pits. If there were no range of bets allowed, only a mininum bet at Blackjack say, the game could easily be beaten by a millionaire just by using the double your bet method. (just keep doubling your bet when you lose, until you win eventually. As long as you don't go broke you will beat the casino.) again, way off base. the casinos interest in table limits at a blackjack table is far more direct than their interest in table limits at a poker table. I really shouldnt have to explain why. not to mention hes ignoring the fact that the casino DID NOT SET A LIMIT in this game, making the whole point moot. also, you would think a pro gambler would know the names of the betting systems hes describing. martingale betting is a fairly widely known concept. Daniel, I like you and think you are a great player and a fine person. Players with your character have advanced poker and its perception. But you will never be included with the true elite until you're above sitting in this type of game for amusement. Doyle, Chip, and Johnny would never do this. Tiger Woods would never appear at the local public course and play blind-folded.Tiger woods plays pro-am tourneys. he plays charity tourneys. he goofs off in these events. the comparision, once again, is not only useless, but is based on misinformation.

[No_Neck]

2k is the small blind in the big game.

[iveyfan30]

missIdaho said:

Hmmmmmm......that is interesting. I'm skeptical of this particular statement though:I am a well-know poker pro who wishes to remain anonymous (for now). I do not wish to get into a big exchange with Daniel (a la Barry G).I just don't see many well known respected pro players feeling the need to start off their post like this. But I could be wrong, as is often the case.

nh

[maxstud]

missidaho makes my jeans tight

[acesfullmike]

justblaze said:

wow, mr. well respected poker pro is kind of a moron. This statement is true. You can beat it playing this way not because of your superior skill, but because of your huge stack. More specifically, it doesn't matter if someone is "taking at shot" for $2,000. The stakes are high enough to make players in that game care about the money at risk. $125,000 means must less to you than $2,000 means to these players. That is the key. If they had say $30 at risk and you played this way, they would never fold and your style would not overpower the game. You're counting on the fact that the money matters to them and a loss would affect them. For this "blind" style to work, the stakes need to be high enough for the other players to value the money at risk here we see mr. poker pro ignoring the fact that money is relative. just because $2k means something to one person has no bearing on its relative worth to another. for some, $2k is a censored in pot, for others, $30 is a fortune. It is this same concept that prohibited Doyle, Jen, Howard, et al from playing Andy Beal much higher than they did. They knew Andy wanted to play high enough to put the pros in an uncomfortsble position, thus reducing if not eliminating their edge. Andy's bigger bankroll and the pros style adjsutments due to the very high limits would work to Andy's favor. The pros acknowledged all of this, thus their insistence on setting these limits. actually the concepts are completely unrelated. The high stakes that andy wanted wouldnt reduce the corporations edge, it would merely make it more likely that variance would wipe them out before they could realize the edge. Casinos don't set table limits to slowly rake the players. They do it to prohbit what you're doing. The game can be overpowered. An analogy would be the table limits set in the pits. If there were no range of bets allowed, only a mininum bet at Blackjack say, the game could easily be beaten by a millionaire just by using the double your bet method. (just keep doubling your bet when you lose, until you win eventually. As long as you don't go broke you will beat the casino.) again, way off base. the casinos interest in table limits at a blackjack table is far more direct than their interest in table limits at a poker table. I really shouldnt have to explain why. not to mention hes ignoring the fact that the casino DID NOT SET A LIMIT in this game, making the whole point moot. also, you would think a pro gambler would know the names of the betting systems hes describing. martingale betting is a fairly widely known concept. Daniel, I like you and think you are a great player and a fine person. Players with your character have advanced poker and its perception. But you will never be included with the true elite until you're above sitting in this type of game for amusement. Doyle, Chip, and Johnny would never do this. Tiger Woods would never appear at the local public course and play blind-folded.Tiger woods plays pro-am tourneys. he plays charity tourneys. he goofs off in these events. the comparision, once again, is not only useless, but is based on misinformation.

vnh

[LuckyMcCatcher]

Allie said:

LuckyMcCatcher said:

This guys post is still way off base. He neglects to mention the most important part of the argument. Poker is not scored by the number of winning sessions you have. People are saying that DN had an advantage because he had more money negates the fact that properly rolled indviduals would make a killing in this game if DN showed up everyday to play like this. Any decent player knows this. ANyone who focuses on the results of one session is not a poker player he is a fish. You cannot ask for more in big bet poker than to be getting a 100 percent return on your money when you are a favorite. If your roll cant withstand a few bad beats than you are in the wrong game period.

But I think that's kind of the point. Daniel isn't there every day playing with them like that. Sure in the long run you'd beat him if he played that way every session....but in the short term he can suck out on any given hand and bust you. Daniel talked in his latest blog about how if a BAD player sat at the table with a huge roll like that, that he wouldn't have an advantage over you...how you'd be a favorite to win etc. But is WASN'T a bad player sitting there doing that. It was Daniel. Great player, with a huge roll. NOW who's got the advantage? Sure, he was playing goofy....but he also said in his first blog that he could beat that game with his eyes closed. He won a big pot after flopping the nut flush, trapped with it, and out played them because they had just seen him be goofy with the hand before. Playing loose and goofy maybe...but calculated goofy. I understand the concept of 100% return on your money when you're a favorite....and sure I'll take that all day long, because in the long run I'll win. But this situation isn't the long run. It was one brief session, where not only was Daniel presumabley the best player at the table (playing silly or not), but he also had the advantage of a huge overhelming roll.

Yes it is the long run your making the mistake of confusing DN the good player w/ DN the fish. In this situation he is the live one, just like any live one that you would want to sit in this game. Calculated goofy? If DN raises me blind and Im holding a top ten hand he will not get a chance to outplay me post flop. All the money will go in when I have the edge. Thats all I can ask for. Same as if a fish were doing the same thing. You gamble when you have the edge and the bankroll.

[FREDDIE MERCURY]

I wish DN wouldn't try to defend his play anymore. I know he cares about the posters here but he doesn't need to explain anything. That's like someone coming into your house and complaing about the way you have decorated it, if they don't like it then get the heII out!!!!!! Same goes for the site.

[The Enforcer]

justblaze said:

martingale betting is a fairly widely known concept.

I've never really thought about this, but if you had an unlimited bankroll, wouldnt this method always result in a win?

[TS Clark]

Justblaze's comments are spot on. I only have a quibble with one part.The "pro's" comments about Beal's desire to play out of the financial comfort level of the Corporation members is, from what I've read, pretty true. Beal felt like it reduced the edge the pros had, because it inhibited their natural aggression and made them tentative -- the effect of which was to reduce the edge the pros had over him (since Beal himself felt no such financial hesitance). Judging from the reaction of some of the pros while playing Beal for these stakes, one might conclude it did have some modest impact on their natual edge in this game. We can't say for sure, of course, but it was an interesting strategy employed by Beal and seemed to have some effect at times during those ultra-matches. Of course, Blaze's comments relating to variance in association with the Beal matches are 100% true. But I think it is probably inaccurate to say it didn't have the effect Beal desired to some extent.

[getarealjob]

You're all missing the point. If you could pull your heads out of his Romanian a$$ for two seconds, you'd see the point billybobpro was trying to make.The pro was trying to elegantly explain that Negreanu is an arrogant p.o.s. that will never become world-class until he grows up.

[missIdaho]

getarealjob said:

You're all missing the point. If you could pull your heads out of his Romanian a$$ for two seconds, you'd see the point billybobpro was trying to make.The pro was trying to elegantly explain that Negreanu is an arrogant p.o.s. that will never become world-class until he grows up.

Thank you so much for signing up to share your opinion. Now please go away.

[getarealjob]

You're welcome. Anytime.

[justblaze]

The Enforcer said:

justblaze said:

martingale betting is a fairly widely known concept.

I've never really thought about this, but if you had an unlimited bankroll, wouldnt this method always result in a win?

problems being a) if you had an unlimited bankroll, why would you need to gamble (or care if you won) and B) casinos realize this. Thats why there are maximum bets in any game played against the house.

[getarealjob]

If you had an unlimited bankroll you'd be doing something more useful or meaningful with your life.