Actually, not true. The math shows it is harder to get 10th/2000 than 1st out of 100. I have no problem with the POY winner not having won a bracelet. Deep, non-first runs in big fields can overcome 1st in short sub-120 player fields.

Yeah im definitely OK with POY not winning a bracelet. im not sure how to tweak the formula but it just doesnt seem great.

It seems like you should just look at your card to have complete info when deciding on whether to bet or not and what size to bet.

Squeezing the card and going with your bet based on pips of card is some amateur / playing for fun / gambling addict nonsense

I think you're missing the point a little too. I believe he said in one video he had done this five times during the tournament. Its not something he does every hand or anything, but it certain spots you need to be balanced/randomize and this method allows you to do it perfectly without giving off any tells. I can't speak to the absolute merit because I've not played 2-7 but the idea is quite literally to avoid having complete information.

Just because you can come up with a balanced unexploitable betting strategy narrowing down your River card to one of 3 cards doesn’t mean you should.

Poker is a game of incomplete information so in general I think as a poker pro as a matter of course you’d want your info to be as complete as possible before deciding on a play.

Seems like DN just does this “for an extra sweat” and not because it’s the most gto thing to do.

You’re still missing the point. In this very particular infrequent spot, Daniel is shifting the incomplete information to his opponent by making a bet so large it’s unprofitable to call, no matter what 3-across he’s actually holding. And by Daniel not knowing the card either, he can’t give off any physical/emotional tells as to whether he hit the right 3-across or is dead, which I guess tells are huge in deuce no-limit.

But his opponents don't know he's drawn ' 3 across ' and so their maths on a call is based on the whole deck and not the 3 cards he knows he has drawn between?

Otherwise he could just announce 3 across and bet when really he hasn't looked at his card at all

But if he looks at his card, he can cater his exact bet size and demeanor he projects if it turns out it’s one of the 2/3 times he’s betting for value or the 1/3 times he’s betting for a bluff. It’s a NL game where overbetting has become commonplace not like it’s a limit game or even a PL game where you would always want to bet pot in a spot…

are you guys just making this up?

It doesn't matter if his opponent knows he is looking for a 3-pipper or not as Daniel is polarizing his own range to the near nuts or a bluff and can bet perfectly to play GTO. DN isn't doing this in spots where his opponent is uncapped, but only when villain is weighted towards hands with marginal showdown value like 9s, Ts and Js. Medium pairs are good bluffing hands in 2-7 SD because of removal effects.

If the bet size dictates Hero should be value-betting 66% and bluffing 33% then this is a perfect way to do it without giving away information. Looking at his cards is likely to convey information or distort his stategy.

He is not doing this in spots where Villian is uncapped and betting into him. In that case he would of course look at his cards.

Ok I’m confused…

Say he’s drawing and the card is a 6 7 or 8

He has a 7 in his hand so there’s four 6s to make his hand, three 7s for a pair/loss, and four 8s to make his hand

Isn’t it really 8 cards to improve/make his hand to 3 losses so it’s 8:3 not 2:1?

lol

Can we please talk about his puppies again???

Now i wanna say hi to Danny "Mr. Dnegs" himself, he's definitely reading this, for sure ... people were commenting about how little we hear and see from Amanda and stuff, and boom, in today's video (just watched it) there's a big section not only about her, but from her, at home, with other puppies and so on ...

so again, hi danny, great job you are doing, the community loves your videos (unless it's too much of that hockey stuff ;-))) then i skip

A puppy is a young dog, right? Aren't all those dogs full grown?

probably true, not a dog person my self.
but also thought it's like nickname thing for a dog ... no?

Lol @ "every time I have kings they have aces" whine. Of course they have aces if they 4bet shove.

He has played for probably 30 years and still talks like a fish playing his first PLO tournament.

What a goof this guy is. Gfy Daniel!

Also, I don't buy his dog love. Many times you can see him grinding his teeth when talking to his dogs the same way he does when talking about cokfuking *** rivers. It's probably more a dominant thing than love. I mean he's a freak and a very weird dude.

No because he'll know the suit of the card in his hand so as long as the 3 spot isn't the same suit it's still 1/3 chance. If he sees it's the same suit as the card in his hand he'll know he made his draw.

Daniel Daniel …

Adopt don’t shop

-this vegan

Ah right the suits

Yes.
Much the same way that some parents still refer to their children as their babies, even though they are no longer babies.

I have watched a number of Daniels videos and I have some observations.

(1) He complains about being tired often and it being a grind, not having a enough rest or focus but seems to spend an almost obsessive amount of time on his Fantasy Hockey league. This must have an effect even if he claims it doesn't. Even at the table I wonder how many times he checks the scores while he could be spotting opponents errors to give him little edges.

(2) Seems to tilt a lot when he loses flips or even 60/40's. In just about all forms of tournament poker you will almost always get into these spots.
That's why there is so much variance in tournament poker and the skill edge just isn't there.
His reaction suggests he doesn't play too many other tournaments the rest of the year as he would be used to such "bad beats"

(3) IMHO I have seen him fire at tournaments where he says he is looking to play loose to either bust or run it up. This has to be a negative EV play overall yet it has to be bad for those who buy pieces of him on pocket 5's.
Its interesting he always mentions he always buys the 2nd+ bullet himself.
If you know its a negative EV play then you are essentially getting a discount on your buy-in.

(4) People have to realize that the negative EV plays from above are geared to try and win POY. Daniel is brilliant at marketing himself and his brand.
He has made far more money from his sponsorships than he ever has at the tables so it makes sense that he puts a huge value on POY.

In Daniels defense hes stated numerous times that he will make plays that aren't plus EV because he either wants to build up a large stack before a different tournies late reg ends or he doesn't want to come back to a day two with a small stack. And he's warned people investing about this.

That's fine but I feel unsophisticated investors may not have a grasp that he is playing for POY not to win money.

Daniel is currently down (-$136K) at this year's WSOP.

Also: Daniel has zero chance of winning this year's WSOP POY, without winning a WSOP bracelet.