Ahhh so he's not saying more rake is better for the ecosystem. He's just saying in a hypothetical scenario where the rake is already monstrously high then the rake is good for the ecosystem.

I didn't watch the video but was Danielle Negranu the one who got those videos from DP copyrighted?

Hi Everyone:

I wonder how many people Negreanu fools. At 1:30 he states "What I can promise you going forward with the rant is positivity ..." And perhaps this will be true. But it will be much different from his past. Here's an example:

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poke...46312&hl=mason

posts #34 and #35 are the best ones to read.

By the way, the charity promotion, which we wouldn't promote on 2+2, that Negreanu was so upset about turned out to be a scam, yet he's never apologized for his remarks.

Best wishes,
Mason

No I would *NEVER* do that! I have been playing poker for 20+ years and have never done anything like that! Doug lied about me ! He framed what I said to make it seem like I think high rake is good for the players when in reality all I said was that high rake scares away good players! Therefore its really good for rec players and I think pokerstars should adopt more of the high rake formats for the poker economy! See! Have I told you I've been playing poker for 20 years? All I did was talk to my long time pals at GSN group about Doug and let them know they should look into this illegal activity he is partaking in with using their content! I didn't take down his videos! In my 20 years or more in poker I have never even thought of getting dan polks videos removed. By the way check out my new live poker hand reviews I have been uploading to youtube, they are great and legal! I think I might call them Daniel Negreanus poker hands! Go check out beat the clock it's great for recreational players!



- Daniel Negreanu, probably





(I didn't watch the video can't stand listening to him, just read his replies on his vid of him telling everyone his 'credentials' a million times)

Rather than read someone else's interpretation of Negreanu's explanation of what happened, you'd be better off just going to 7:34 in the video and listen to it yourself.

Added $$ for the "rake free" games just jacks up the rake on the other games.

How?

Use to like the guy when I started playing poker. Now every time I hear him talk I cringe a bit.

always loved to see him lose even back in the day. Never forget the hands on hsp he lost to edog and gus.

http://fullcontactpoker.com/thoughts-rake/

time for therapy

From his story all I'm getting is that he doesn't understand game selection. He chose a low-rake all-reg game for himself then is surprised that a fish lost slower in a high-rake all-fish game across the street.

It does explain a lot of his comments over the past couple of years though - he actually doesn't understand rake and how it affects players.

"And Gus checks his quads..." One of my favorite Gabe quotes ever. Can't really gloat tho because it was an unreal cooler and Gus did set the hook like a master.

His reaction to Lindgren's shove is also an all-timer and is another good example of being understandably bent without blaming the opponent or the dealer.

I was a fan from the first time I saw DN play (on HSP or WPT I guess) because he both lost and won gracefully, never stalled for camera time and would poke the brats/mouths when they deserved it . My mom, who passed away, absolutely loved watching poker when he was on the show.

The past few years, his happy-go-lucky demeanor seems very forced but maybe that's just me. During his deep run in the Main Event a couple years ago his table banter was cringe-worthy.

He seems a real snowflake politically. His post-election tweets perpetuating hate crime hoaxes were despicable, especially in that I never saw him own up or go out of his way to make a correction, just double down on the hate.

All that being said, I would be more than thrilled to sit with him on a small table and see if I could avoid tells, his reads are mad crazy.

I liked his demeanor in old days much more. Somewhere along line he became kind of a douche. Watch him on HSP, he was much more laid back.

So sick of this guy. What a sell out.

Oh, Danny boy, the lies, the lies you are telling
From blog to blog, and in those podcasts too
The fish is gone, and all the lol live pro's falling
‘Tis you, ‘tis you gets paid with rake from fools

there's just no one in poker worse than Dnegs

Daniel used to be a real good Canadian kid but somewhere along the way he changed and really comes across as an entitled jerk sometimes.

I really thing some of these what can we call them? D List celebrities have really let the little fame they've had go to their heads... I can understand why though most of these players are millionaires and many of them have never really had a real job (has Daniel ever said if he even had a part time job as a teenager?) I remember one tweet a few years ago where I think it was Hellmuth said a bunch of them were playing a super high roller and discussing how they were all trying to change the world for the better with their ideas...ugh

hey dnegs, i know you check this thread at least twice a day. i'm planning to play a couple of scoop events and checking the schedule i realized that the rake is too low for the games to be good.

can i send some additional money directly to you? you could fix that cheapo hairjob of yours with it.

thanks in advance

Daniel, if it is actually you on your Twitter account and if you ever happen to read this or become aware of it could you PLEASE stop bastardising the way odds are expressed in sports betting.
You (or your social media assistant/friend) are using some weird hybrid style of expressing odds which I fear some of your flock may begin to adopt.
You have said numerous times that you took odds of +1.77 on Ottawa winning the current series v Boston. This was before the series started. Ottawa's chance of winning the series was generally perceived as around 35%, so I'm assuming the odds you obtained were either:
+177 (US style moneyline odds)
or
2.77 (European/Canadian (I assume)/Australian etc decimal odds)
You've done the same thing numerous times so I'm pretty sure this isn't a typo.
It's freaking confusing and it gets worse when you start talking odds of probabilities less than 50%, saying stuff like -1.56, which you also did today (maybe not exactly -1.56 but it was -1.something). In this case do you mean:

-156 (using the US moneyline odds format, which is approx 61% probability, or 1.64 in decimal odds format)
Or
1.56 (using the decimal odds format, which is approx 64% probability, or -179 in US moneyline format)
It's extremely tilting coming from someone who has made money from the sports betting community and who tries to come across as an expert hockey bettor who has, to paraphrase something written on your own website "..been watching hockey betting lines for 20 years.."
Wherever you have been watching them they are definitely not being expressed as +1.77

You might want to tweet a link to your post. He hasn't logged on for over a year.

Yes I know he could be lurking without signing in.

Cheers. Not sure how to do that but next time I'm on Twitter I'll try and direct him this way.

u can also PM him and he will get an email notification:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/members/391743/

The fact he is comparing private live games from 10+ years ago to micro stakes online games(which is what is largely being discussed) should tell you about the soundness of his argument.

Then there is this gem:

Which again may make sense in the context of a private live game, but is nonsense for a lot of online games.

If you really wanted to help recreational players there are steps that could be taken(table caps, anonymous tables). These things seem to work.

Thanks. Done.