The Philosopher
There are all kinds. From Aristotle to those nut cases that show up pledge week. Then there’s today mix of both. Yes, it is our friend and all-around nice guy, Daniel Negreanu.
You can tell why he’s a gambler as your read his blog. He has a roulette personality. But, instead of 1-35 the slots are named. They are Vegan, Golf, God, et cetera. He that bouncing ball that is always landing in a new position.
I like his small ball ideas. When I concentrate on it, I do better. He seems to bring up topics that aren’t those typical chapter heading in yet another poker book.
While playing in the game Howard brought up something I found interesting enough to share my viewpoint on. Howard is notorious for showing up 2 hours late for all events. Lots of players do that, and I think in many cases it probably is a great idea, especially in the limit events where the first two hours are close to pointless. In no limit, though, I disagree with his view about the early levels being pointless.
I think it really depends on the type of player you are. For a tight, conservative player, playing 50-100 with 30,000 in chips seems like a waste of time. As Howard said, "It's like just waiting for a cooler either way." In Howard's case that may be true because his approach to the early levels is a conservative one, electing to not gamble in marginal spots, and instead waiting for the antes to get in there so he can come over the top of people, etc.
If you are a player like Alan Goering (perfect example), Tom Dwan, Phil Ivey, or any aggressive player accustomed to playing deep stacked NLH, then those early levels offer an excellent opportunity to take some chances and look to either bust players, or chop away and build up a lead for the ante stage of the tournament. I'll use an example to illustrate:
OK, I’ve plagiarized enough. Go read the rest and give the poor kid a page hit.
You know I’ve been playing limit tournaments of late. To a degree, the idea works in them too. Especially, on line where there's a more rapid blind/ante progression. Quality of play is a lot lower. Yet, the idea he promotes developed into an important part of my play. Not so much the first level or two; but, certainly the first hour. That’s probably the equivalent of a couple and change live.
When worked right, it is a way to builds a little cushion. Daniel thinks it out more. I keep it simple. My tournament starts with 500 big bets and it does seem close to worthless to get 10 big bets from mixing it up. But later it can cover the cost of an advanced move like his later example mentions. That little cushion lets you play (or try to) a better game later. Like what’s-her-face says, “It is a good thing.”
No related posts.
Small ball works well for Negreanu because he reads players so well. I wonder if it works better live than online, or equally well at both?
I think it goes beyond the read. It is also a survival skill. NL players — especially online ones — tend toward aggression when the odds aren’t that favorable. What small says to me is that being 60-40 or a bit more isn’t the one to stake all or a considerable portion of one’s stack on. I’ll also recognize there are any number of alternatives. In the low stakes tournament that many of us favor, it viable to push where players are weak to build a stack or leave without hours invested for zip. The larger the field the more i tend toward such play. That isn’t necessarily +ev but it a rational choice.
I haven’t notice them recently but they used to graph players stacks through the tournament. Big pot players show up in yo-yo fashion. They may both reach the same stack but the paths are quite different. Gavin Smith’s recent win certainly support the play it hard view.