Did not need it explained, see above

It's not good to play poker nor go through life seeing monsters under the bed. The energy should have been spent entirely on why people ran and how can avoid the false alarm in future. People got hurt, was actually probably lucky no one got killed. Going on a "Only in America!" rant is useless and looks stupid.

+1

He made another good point on the DAT Podcast: for all he knows, he was running toward danger, not from it. It's not like there was audible gunfire sounds behind the stampede. That would at least make sense as to why and where they were running. Instead, they were just fleeing with the sole purpose of being somewhere else.

I agree it's still absolutely a low probability event, but human psychology tends to give outsize weight to infrequent, but highly sensational events. Classic example being people fear airplanes more than cars, even though air travel is substantially safer. But it's also true that the probability of a mass shooting is substantially higher in the U.S. than it is pretty much anywhere else, and I don't think it is reasonable to just dismiss the problem. There's lots of other angles here that are important, but it's beyond the scope of this thread.

To your point that we should examine "why they ran and made that mistake," I think one of the biggest reasons, if not the biggest reason, is that regardless of the objective threat of a shooting, the subjective threat looms large in the minds of Americans, and that is a reflection of how common shootings are in the U.S.

So, the "only in America" take isn't a bad one or a bad look -- it's difficult to imagine this happening somewhere else. That's not to say there aren't stampedes elsewhere, but the cause is not fear of a mass shooting.

If they were in Canada and someone yelled mass shooter and a panicked group was running and throwing over tables they still would have done the same thing. They probably wouldn't have stood there calculating probabilities and applying Bayes Theorem. Shootings while more common are not limited to America. Therefore I stick to "only in America!" as a bad take and a bad look especially since ya know, there wasn't a shooting.

/derail please

Look, this is the least moderated thread in the least moderated forum.

But just because Negreanu mentions something in one of his vlogs does not automatically mean that that topic is okay to discuss/debate at length.

There are millions of places to discuss/debate guns and mass shootings on the internet (including in other forums on 2+2), but here is not one of them.

DNegs got a pretty nasty wound that perhaps all of the poker community can learn from. Should an 'event' occur in a poker room, especially a large event like the WSOP the protocol could be, (and the one I am going to continue to follow):

Whenever I arrive in an unfamiliar location I locate and make note of secondary exits and entrances. Not a bad idea to walk the property perimeter for the location of restrooms, water, retail sales, ATM's, AED's, fire extinguishers, etc.
Don't lose your feet. Stay on balance, knees slightly flexed and about shoulder width apart.
Stay put, don't run until sure about where or what the hazard is.
Get behind cover if available, could be a column in the room, table, drink cart or even a chair.
Get your back against a wall, a corner of the room is even better, to avoid being trampled.
Keep your wallet, car keys and cell phone on your person and not in a backpack that can be separated from your person.

Good luck and be careful out there.

And if you must run, don't just run into people. Not only is it douchetastic, it only slows you down. Or it could trip you up, thus putting you in a precarious position on the floor.

Also have your concealed carry locked and loaded.

So Bonomo is letting people know Negreanu is upset with Bonomo for speaking up about Deeb suggesting in an interview with Joey that Stars may have settled a lawsuit involving Negreanu sexually harassing someone, and no details were provided?

OK then.

Bonomo saying someone is too emotionally fragile
He should try comedy.....

I am sure it wasn't a female.

No. Bonomo is implying Daniel sexually harassed someone, but links to a video of Deeb talking about Amanda and Daniel carrying on together and a third party getting offended.

But that would require charisma.

lol bonomo who can get offended by the wind changing direction saying anyone is emotionally fragile is Chappelle level comedy.

Is Bonomo reeling Negreanu in for a heads-up poker match where Daniel loses another million ??

Cross Posted from House of Blogs

Some Thoughts on Daniel Negreanu's 2022 WSOP

Those of us who followed Daniel’s vlog this summer were shown a study in medium term variance and its effect on the human psyche, as Daniel steadily lost $1.1 million; cashing in a dozen events, but making only one final table, and averaging around $21,000 per cash in a WSOP season where we saw him fire multiple bullets per event into several $50,000-$250,000 High Rollers.

What happened? Daniel ran bad, is all. We know this because he vlogged his all-in hands. And while I don’t have a statistical analysis of the results, it was easy to see that he won significantly less than half of his coin flips; also, he did not seem to win even half the time when he was ahead, and he did not suck out enough on the few hands where he was behind.

Being an effective and enduring ambassador for poker, Daniel did not take his frustrations out on his fellow tournament players. In public he was his usual upbeat self, chatting and joking with other players and standing in for selfies with fans; although towards the middle of his long ordeal, after a particularly sick runout, he let his composure slip, and he smashed up his selfie stick.



For the most part, Daniel saved his venting for when he was by himself, hanging out with his phone camera, along with around 175,000 impending YouTube vlog watchers, a small proportion of whom left comments.



When someone we care about complains to us about a problem, a lot of us—especially us guys—like to try to solve the problem, rather than just empathetically listening to the complaint. YouTube commenters, well meaning and otherwise, chimed in with suggestions, and Daniel’s response to them was as follows...



Some of you may know that I lived in Las Vegas for 3 years, alternately playing poker and avoiding playing poker, and I left that city as a failed $1/$2 and $1/$3 cash game promo player. I may return to the tables one day and wipe away that designation, but for now that is a complete and accurate description of my abilities and results. So, far be it from me to try to offer any sort of advice to Daniel Negreanu on how to play poker tournaments.


My Advice to a Hypothetical Player Who by Coincidence Possesses the Same Extraordinary Level of Talent and Experience as Daniel Negreanu...on Playing Poker Tournaments


Let’s make this hypothetical poker player a man, for no better reason than I'd rather not display my ignorance regarding the challenges faced by women who play poker professionally. Let’s make him one of the best players in the world: like top 5 in lifetime earnings. Let’s give our guy an intelligent, funny and beautiful wife, a nice house, and a couple of cute dogs—in short, he has a good work/life balance.

Now let’s put him in the 2022 WSOP, playing a wide slew of events, and running bad and getting knocked out over and over and over again. We wonder, has he been playing any worse? Nope. He’s been playing great, same as always. In fact, he might be playing better than ever, given that our guy has picked up a lot in the past year through studying the new GTO solvers.

We wonder if the live tournament field has gotten better in general. Neeaaaaaah…with the exception of the highest level of pro players, it doesn’t seem like that's the case.

So, can anything be done to mitigate this medium-term run of bad luck that’s seeing our hypothetical player getting stacked over and over again with his all-ins? Well, it turns out that—purely by coincidence—our hero shares a certain metagame habit with Daniel Negreanu, one that arises from having a good work/life balance. And what is that habit?









Is that it? Show up on time for work? That all I got?

Surely a master craftsman like our hypothetical guy has a lot to gain by setting his own hours, and fostering a better work/life balance, and showing up well rested and with a healthy mindset.

Granted, but let's talk about what he's missing. Firstly, he's missing a lot of deep stacked hands, and these are hands where a great player has the tools to realize a tremendous advantage over the field.

Deep stacks are where our hero can tell a convincing story, across all three streets if necessary, and consequently these spots are where his opponents can unwittingly gift a great player with accurate, detailed and actionable information across three streets.

Contrast that with much later on, when players have short stacks. Here the master can't employ as many of his best tools. Nowadays live tournament players know how to play push/fold. There's little advantage to studying the charts and being slightly more accurate. It's true that a great player can mix in some limping and min-raising pre, but even with those tricks, the action devolves to one street, or two at the most.

Jump back in time a bit and we'll find our hypothetical great player still enjoying an advantage with his late-regging when stacks are 30-75bb, but that edge is diminished compared to the deep stack phase; no matter how well he plays here, he's not getting to that lucrative third street as often as he would have during the early levels.

Secondly, what kind of players get knocked out of tournaments during the early levels, while our hypothetical player lounges away the hours, sunbathing around his pool, chatting up his wife, and playing with his dogs, or napping in his rented conference room?

Bad players tend to get themselves knocked out earlier than good players, making them a scarcer resource for our hypothetical player to exploit when he arrives. Mind you, there are some good players who push small edges to build a big stack early, and they can get themselves stacked early, but they tend to rebuy, so they're still in the tournament when our hero shows up.

Thirdly, the great player is missing a certain class of recreational player who, in most cases, is still there for the later levels. But that rec player is still there because he or she has spent their vacation time, flown all the way out to Las Vegas, and plopped down $5k on a single tournament, one in which they have no plans to fire a second $5k bullet, and thus at the early levels do not want to get themselves knocked out of under almost any circumstances.

By the time our hero shows up, though, the same rec player may be sitting on a 40bb stack and feeling more like he or she has gotten their "money's worth" from this tourney, and they'll be a lot less easy to push around than during the earlier levels.

The final edge our great player misses by regging late is the chance to start that level with an average or a better than average stack.

When the tournament director says "Shuffle up and deal!" every player at that tourney looks down at an average stack. The first player knocked out slightly increases that tourney's average stack size, which permanently reduces the starting stack to a less than an average amount. The math of the tournament makes it so our hero will always start with a worse than average stack when he late regs, assuming at least one player has been knocked out before he arrives.

What's the big deal about an average tournament stack? I've seen poker writers and coaches advise players not to pay much attention to it. After all, as long as you have chips, you're in the mix. One of the principles of ICM theory is that any amount of chips is infinitely better than no chips.

But let's say that our hypothetical hero has been running like dog doo on his all-ins. We know there's no way to predict when this bad streak will end, but there is a way for our guy to survive his bad all-in runouts, and that is to have a bigger stack than his opponent or opponents when the money goes in.

If, say, our hero shows up on time and uses his exceptional advantage during the deep stack levels to build his stack early, he now goes into these later all-in spots with a larger than average stack, and when he loses, he will look down upon some chips more often than he looks down on no chips.

Some chips: so much better than no chips. Now he has a second chance to win a flip. He doesn't have to rebuy, because rebuying is infinitely more expensive than having some chips left, especially when our hero happens to be down over $1.1 million in tournament buy-ins this summer, and when a significant proportion of that pile of lost money has been spent on rebuys, rebuys which restart him with a smaller than average stack every time, and which if not immediately increased leave him—on bad all-in runouts—with no chips more often then they leave him with some chips, necessitating another rebuy, and god damn so forth.

In conclusion, we've seen that Daniel doesn't want any advice, and that in any case I am someone who is not fit to offer it. But, if in some other universe say, I was as amazingly talented and experienced of a player as Daniel is, I think that I would show up for work on time more often, for the same reasons that I stated above.

CLIFFS: DANIEL DANIEL DANIEL!

In all seriousness I think there's one thing you missed, passion.

First I'll say I completely agree that he's late-regging too many events putting him into shove/fold mode where he little wiggle room for variance and just has to hope he can win his all-ins. With his reading ability and experience over the decades he's giving up a MASSIVE edge against the droolers by not playing deep-stacked early levels with them.

Now on to the passion issue. He just doesn't care about the $1500 and under large-field events, he has no love for them, no energy for them, he's tired of that grind. So he's often looking for ways to bust out and enter a different event he cares more about.

He's putting too many events on his schedule and burning his candle at both ends, exhausting himself while being miserable because he's playing events he doesn't want to even be in and he's not winning his "fair share" of flips at the same time.

He should:

1. Cut out events he has no passion for, as that will impact his performance

2. If he plays large-field events with a higher concentration of droolers in it, as you said, show up on time and get the easy money rather than let someone else get them

3. Stop trying to play 3 events in a day, it's just too much and it's making you unhappy.

Makes sense. In anything less than a $5k entry he's playing the opposite of scared money. Could call it bored money, like if I played a $10 live tourney, but it started with 200bb, had 60 minute levels and 8 hours of late reg.

I think Daniel also has too much money syndrome and doesn't think its sporting to try too hard vs a $1500 rec field who wants it so much more than him.. He would rather test them and make them feel good when they show heart and pass, but he isn't really trying to max his EV.. just put out a good Vlog and represent his brand well...

Sad that playing bored, losing to people you should be better than, and in general showing his contempt for the average sized tournaments and their players is called representing his brand well.

Again, I don't think that he played bad; I think he could have optimized his schedule better.

I get it that quantities of lower level tourneys help with the fantasy league and whatever POY and bracelet bets he had going, but there's a diminishing law of returns to consider.

He did not play good either.

Daniel is on a multi decade losing streak.

Wrong. You are assuming the game is making money at the poker table whereas the game he is playing is making money from playing poker which includes not just the money made at the poker table but all other sources of money that occur from him being a famous poker player. He is up rather large as shown by his absolute contempt for actually focusing on winning money at the table.