Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve00007
How about playing better in the other hands that he didn’t suffer a bad beat in? We’re actually hearing very little about what goes on when he plays. Any Vegas reg, even the bad ones can give you a list of bad beats they suffered if they want to make themselves look unlucky. It means nothing.
As you said, you're hearing very little about them. You can't ask for better play when you don't know what you'd even be talking about, unless you're going to assume.
Quote:
Actually it has a lot to do with it. If a poker player doesn’t study, what are the chances that his decisions are going to be as good as the decisions of a player that does study? It certainly explains why he struggles at 1-2 NL.
Actually, it has nothing to do with it. A hand played in the past is over with. It was either played properly or it wasn't. A decision to reshove 40BB with 99 from the BB against a button open and SB 3bet all-in will not become any more correct if the player spends 1000 hours in the lab later that year. Practice affects future performance and decision-making.
Quote:
But you’re talking about someone that has been successful in the past. If Negreanu never had success in tournaments, still only played 1-2 NL in the last year and struggled for years to move beyond 1-2, of course it would make sense to say he sucks.
Past results don't determine future performance. And I was kidding.
As Doyle Brunson said, poker isn't about whether you win or loss, it's about making the right decision.
Assuming that he's relaying the details accurately, which I have no reason to believe isn't true, it seems like he's getting deep into a lot of these SNGs and is coming up short on the good side of flips when the stacks dictate that it's shove/fold time. Given a large enough number of trials, you're printing money if that's the case.