Is it boredom, or superstition, or some type of randomization??

Pretty sure those ads aren't actually there IRL and the editor is editing those ads in.

I say it's boredom.

Its just a thing that mixed games players do. They like to sweat their card nice and slow. See the pips on the side to get an idea before seeing it.

0 across = A,2,3
2 across = 4,5
3 across = 6,7,8
4 across = 9,10
paint = paint


He did talk about how in NL Single Draw it helps him profitably bluff in spots where he doesn't even know what he has, so he cant be read.

In a spot where you are drawing 1 with 2345 and your card is a "3 across", then that means you either have a 7 for the nuts, an 8 for the 5th nuts or 6 for a straight. In that spot he can size his bet perfectly so his opponent only breaks even by calling 33% of the time. He doesn't know what his hand actually is, he just knows that 66% of the time he is betting for value and 33% of the time its a bluff.

Not only it's annoying because it's slow it's also bad for environment. You can see so many marked cards on his vlog because he uses his nails when peaking. Those decks need to be changed constantly and cause so much unnecessary plastic trash.

Antici ............ pation

possible, yeah.
but if so, then very well executed.

Duh of course they are, and if you watched all the vlogs there is one episode where he talks about it.

Did you really think “Club GG” was actually on the Sun Coast Casino marquee every time he was stopped at a light there? LOL.

Well, apparently it's so well executed that yes, i actually thought that

I watch every blog basically but dnegs is so tiltin. I don’t want to see him lying on the couch or playing with his dogs or talking about his fantasy hockey league I wanna see him bantering and joking around at the table with Matusow Hellmuth Barry Schulman and other poker personalities and he was sitting beside all 4 I mentioned and put barely any footage in with them talking together

Also in years past I loved watching him with Amanda and she’s barely been featured at all this year

I think he is trying to take 'the poker' at the table a bit more serious this year IMO .. and not worry about vlog content as much. When I was at the Rio he was not doing any railing with fans .. all business at the table.

Amanda keeps a much different schedule than he does and he's mentioned it a few times. One, women don't like to be shown to the world in their natural state and two, there are too many trolls out there who will comment at every little whatever they can create from a spot. GL

negreanu is currently down $90k at the WSOP according to his BLOG but in 5th place in POY rankings. If he somehow manages to win POY but loses money at the series, would that tarnish the title of POY?

Nah, the high roller bracelet events basically blow that whole idea out of the water. Basically, if you're gonna play those, your profitability is heavily leveraged to that handful of high rollers.

a POY without a bracelet win would be more problematic than any ROI concerns.

Also .. He's not going to win POY by min cashing his way there this year. He's going to need a couple of top 3 finishes which will bring 'plenty' of cash along with them to offset the accumulated losses.

A top 5 in the PPC would probably bring 200k min?

This is always part of the 'all time' money list discussion .. we don't know their BI totals.

Schwartz and Zinno .. as well as PHell will keep plugging away. I think the standings are updated with DNegs in 5th after the latest 2-7 points. GL

he could win a $1500 tourney for $200k. Play the $250k high roller lose etc.. i could easily see him down $100K+ being POY. Would look pathetic imo

I don't like this logic personally. Zinno could make two more final tables, bust the PPC/250k/100k and end up with two bracelets, negative ROI, and POY. And I think that would be fine. His average ROI would be extremely high despite actually losing money

Just because you don't cash in one high roller tournament means you shouldn't be POY?

Dnegs deep diving on the pips at the beginning of todays vlog (and I still have no idea what's he going on about and why not just look at your damn card. It's like he is talking about your opponent also knowing how many pips are on your card and odds you making the hand vs pot odds to call, it makes no sense. And good lord his Kem cards are warped to s***.)

The Big One is 1 million on its own. If you enter that and dont cash, then you arent going to have a profitable series, even with a few bracelets in $10k Championship events.

So only the people who cash the highest buyin NL tourneys are eligible for POY?

It's pretty simple.

Imagine you are drawing one card. A 6 or a 7 is really good for you, an 8 is really bad. All three of these cards have a common design - a row of three of the suit down the side (what he calls a "three across"):



If you look at your card and you see this row of three, you know there's approximately a 2/3 chance you've made your hand, and approximately a 1/3 chance you're dead. In this case, you can bet, knowing that sometimes you're bluffing and sometimes you're value betting, but you don't know which one this *specific* bet is.

Now, the math of why you can overbet the pot here and it's profitable is a question for the wizards or Sklansky, but at a minimum the concept is by not looking he accomplishes two things:

1) Balancing bluffs/value bets with true randomness - rather than relying on himself to properly randomize and potentially introducing bias
2) Avoid giving tells (extremely important in a game like 2-7 TD)

I get not giving tells but he never ever mentions this when talking about it. And in his bust out hand at 7:50 of this video........he does it again, so just for the sweat.

And can he not bluff if he sees paint?

He talks about his opponent calling or folding when Dnegs is 66% winning hand or 33%......but with his opponent not seeing his cards how does this even matter

Yea you’re missing the point. If he’s drawing to a 3 across, and expert opponents will probably know this, and 2 of those 3 across cards help him, and 1 is death, than just betting pot the opponent would be correct to call every time, cuz you’re offering 2-1 odds. However if you bomb pot with overbet 1.5 or 2x pot, it’s a mistake to call, unless your opponent has a 7 or something himself.

Basically, knowing you drew a card that 2 of them help you and 1 doesn’t, allows you to bet big and theoretically should get a fold, and all the while you don’t really know if you’re bluffing (33%) or value-betting (66%), because you haven’t looked at entire card.

fair enough, sometimes he does it just for the sweat

He can bluff any time he wants to whether he looks at the card or not. The idea is that in this specific scenario, he avoids bluffing either too frequently or not enough. Everyone has their own way of doing this; eg, looking at the second hand of your watch and only bluffing when it's in the 0 to 15 second range or whatever.

The nature of game theory is sometimes you can put your opponent in a spot where whether they call or fold, it's kind of irrelevant to you. He's not really explaining it deeply, probably for one of three reasons; 1) maybe he's misunderstanding it, 2) maybe he doesn't want to explain it, or 3 (most likely) it's a very complicated math-y topic that doesn't lend itself to explanation while walking through a parking lot to an audience that just wants a glimpse into his life.

Ok, got it. You're better at explaining than Dnegs is.