I'll throw in my 2 cents although its really nothing that hasn't already been said.

After hearing Scott Seivers opinion in that youtube vid about how dedicated DN is to learning new things. I think I have to agree that given some time he could be a winning player at these the highest stakes, but 2 weeks is just not happening. That just isn't enough time to observe what is working consistently and then to implement those things in your game.

I love DN's confidence in his game, its one of the many reasons I am a fan, but in this case he is writing a check that he can't cash. I would say that in 8 months to a year of putting in solid hours he could become a consistent winning player, but again 2 weeks just wouldn't happen, its almost laughable really. I mean no one is doubting he is good, he has been a consistent winner in poker for 20 years, but not exclusively or even primarily at HSNL cash games.

I think a lot of people are overlooking how insulting his statement is to the winning nose bleed regs out there to say "I could jump in and become a winner in two weeks." Its incredibly insulting really. These guys have worked and improved their games for years to get where they are and he thinks he can just jump in and do the same thing in just 2 weeks. Again I like the confidence he has in his game, but in this case I think his confidence crossed the line and became arrogance. Thoughts?

What is everyone's over/under on the amount of time it would take DN to become a winner at the nosebleeds playing 5 hours a day and studying and additional 4 hours a day? If it were just some random pro I think that saying 8 months is still insulting but again after hearing how dedicated DN seems to be when he wants to accomplish something and given his success at other areas of the game, i.e. live high stakes tourneys, that is the time frame I am going with.

Thanks man. Like I said I am just getting the hang of twitter.

If DN is as smart and dedicated as he claims to be he wouldn't play like a tampon every time he is on TV

Strange, I thought he played too loose on telly

Maybe DN should sit down at 25/50 for a couple of days to at least get a feel for how those games play in 2014 before he makes this statement.. LOL.

I don't think Lefort is incorrect talking about the best logical/deductive reasoners in the world. HS poker players are betting huge amounts of (often their own) money and therefore it could well be argued are under a lot more pressure than your high level maths bod who doesn't have the external pressures.

That being said, I'm not sure that's what he meant when he said that, but that is certainly a more correct way of looking at it.

Lol at all this.
I couldn't even comprehend what it takes to win at high stakes online these days. The best regs probably have a minuscule edge over the worst regs, otherwise the worst regs wouldn't be playing there, no? Surely everyone who gets to that level has a pretty good understanding of their edge? And the amount of fish is negligible. But Daniel Negreanu can make it there because he is 'dedicated to learning' LOL.

I wonder what ways Negreanu can possible feel like he can have a chance of winning vs these guys. Would be funny to hear him discuss this.

would be willing to put 50k min on this depending on the stipulations.

Though results show he's nobody's fool
And he's better than Viffer at pool
Those who purchased his book
For their Kindle or Nook
Also purchased a rope and a stool.

No, there is a world of difference in ability. The hs regs are obviously extremely intelligent people, but to call them among the best problem solvers in the world is far fetched. To give one example, quants deal with extremely sophisticated mathematical modeling and computer programming in a game that is much more complex than poker, and trade many times the amount wagered with the same (up to lot more) pressure.

I am willing to bet 25k on this, please guys let me know if that happens.

If it is ZOOM, I would bet that after 50000 hands DN would be a winner at those stakes.

He will beat nl5k, but ...... in zoom game.
He is poker celebrity, many players want to play with him. Not for real earning, just about 20-30 hands, to make big bluff etc. There will be middlestakes players, sng regulars, player who just won hot2.20 etc.

In nonZoom table with seatingscripts he has no chance. (after 2weeks studying).

Very true. I chalk it up to jealousy.

I put in a complaint to pokerstars. I am so sick of seeing DN used on all their promotional stuff.

DN, Lets see you give this a go! Personally vs the likes of forhayley, kanu etc etc I couldnt see him winning over a long term sample.

Cool.

Any other mathmos or finance people wish to comment on this?

For the record, and to be positive, here are some amazing people who are the elite problem solvers (best of the best). It might be very interesting or boring but nonetheless here:

2014 Fields Medalists Profiles, with videos on their life and work:
1.The Musical Magical Number Theorist
2.Tenacious Explorer of Abstract Surfaces
3.Grand Vision for the Impossible
4.In mathematical noise, one who heard music

Nothing personal against Daniel but this is one of the times I wish I hadn't stopped playing stars 2 years ago so I could have a bit more money to bet here. Still with the right sample size and stipulations I would bet 100k or more against. Are we getting close to that million?

Thanks for this.

Obviously he's super confident after having such a successful WSOP. He's on cloud 9 and feels like he's the greatest player on earth.

I've worked in finance and play some poker. There's brilliant people in every field. Perhaps it's a bit of an overstatement to say that poker players are some of the best at 'elite problem solving'.
But the point of Lefort's post remains. Some very smart people have worked hard for years and it's offensive when DN says he's so brilliant he can do the same working a few hours a day for 2 weeks.

A lot of finance stuff is similar to poker & DN too. Getting in soft games is more important than being brilliant.

can u post the reply when possible? would be a funny read i think xD

Hi Ansky:

I'm not out of touch. It's my opinion that if something like this was to happen, there would be a great deal of publicity, and there could also be some changes, perhaps at Negreanu's request, with the way things are done. However, if no changes were to take place, then you are certainly correct.

Best wishes,
Mason

Daniel's ego is slowly surpassing hellmuth's.. At least hellmuth is still entertaining about it
Seriously, is there any humility left in this little man?