Probably the same way that most great sports coaches were average players at best.

Ai? Why would they want to play above their bankrolls when they can crush online cash games? Some of the ones I think of HAVE crushed live and online as well.

It doesn't matter if they want to or not or if they simply profited. What matters is what the public sees with their eyes. Besides 2+2, a graph is not that impressive or entertaining. People want to see hands on TV and they want to see someone who gambles and plays unconventionally. They got to watch dwan A LOT before Black Friday and he almost always was a winner and almost always pulled off some sick move. The dwan obsession has more to do with about 10-20 TV hands than it does with his career as a whole.

This

Also this

It's very possible that Dwan was never the best. In endeavors with a lot of luck, often times those who get to the top are the ones that take the most risks, not the ones that have the most ability.

Speaking to HSP, those 10-20 hands represents several years of big hands against elite players. In those hands Dwan nearly always knew where he stood in the hand, his opponents didn't, lost the minimum when behind, won the maximum when ahead, and rarely made anything but the optimal decision in every hand. Which other player have you seen on HSP do that? How any hands over how many years would you have to see to be convinced otherwise?

There's no such thing as "the best" in poker.

Dwan plays the biggest poker games ever played, which businessmen whales. Why would he care about online poker with tough competition?

Table selection, FTW.

Actually, there is such thing as "the best" in poker, at least in terms of specific games at specific stack sizes. At 100-200 BB HUNLHE, it's well established that WCGRider is the best.

Nobody is saying he should care. But people care about who is #1. Not just #1 in terms of profit or table selection, but in terms of being able to sit down and beat literally any other player heads up over a significant sample. Dwan used to be able to do this, and now he can't, and people care about that even if he doesn't.

phil ivey is the best. He can even beat table game. He has an edge.

Even that probably isn't true. Not even when it comes to heads up. Its probably intransitive.

Ahhhhhh, I understand now. Negreanu's weak arm strength has held him back from being a top cash game player.

Thank you for posting this, this honestly might be one of the greatest poker hands ever played

I guess....Seems like another in a long line of hands where durrrr squeezes and bombs every street to me. If the bets weren't 6 digits it wouldn't be anything special.

World English Dictionary
intransitive (ɪnˈtrænsɪtɪv)

— adj
1. a. denoting a verb when it does not require a direct object
b. denoting a verb that customarily does not require a direct object: "to faint" is an intransitive verb
c. ( as noun ) a verb in either of these categories
2. denoting an adjective or noun that does not require any particular noun phrase as a referent
3. logic, maths (of a relation) having the property that if it holds between one argument and a second, and between the second and a third, it must fail to hold between the first and the third: "being the mother of" is an intransitive relation


after reading the definition, I'm guessing that David is trying to say that even if you beat someone in a specific game, you may not beat someone else. Maybe player A has a style that doesn't match up well against player B. perhaps player B matched up well against player C. Doesn't mean that player A can beat player C.

The statement "the best" wasn't qualified at all.

Even if it were, by what metric would you determine this in an objective way?

General consensus is simply opinion based on varying levels of insight. Results are, well, results oriented, and skewed based on opponents and their particular skill levels/strengths & weaknesses.

I realize people have the tendency to want to cannonize a champion, but I just don't think it makes sense here.

Dwan's a good player, and has gotten himself into some of the most amazing, and highest stakes games on the planet. I'd say he's doing it right.

I'd rather be an overrated bumhunter with $10 million than an elite MSNL grinder eagerly awaiting their weekly rakeback.

The way you said it player B beats both player A and C.

I think you wanted to say that A has an edge over B, B has an edge over C and C has an edge over A.

As you say, interaction of different styles of play can be the reason, for example someone who has a tendency to call too much has an edge over someone who has a tendency to bluff too much, but it becomes a leak against someone else.

Exploitative and exploitable play are different ways to describe the same thing - i.e. non game theory optimal play. We choose the first word when it is plus EV in a given situation (e.g. in my kitchen table game it is exploitative to open limp unsuited connectors as you hardly ever get raised off them and you can see a flop with a great SPR against players who will stack off if you hit, while at a higher level we would describe that play as exploitable). So given that nobody plays GTO, one important thing is how the particular tendencies/leaks interact, (obviously adjustments are also important).

Negreanu is often criticised as calling station by the EPT commentators, but he probably has good results because that "leak" is probably a naturally exploitative one when it interacts with the particular ways in which the play of aggressive young European players is non-GTO.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrr

hellmuth was right

He was good, still good, the best? Nah

Daniel has always been a very good cash game player because outside of maybe Macau, most live high stakes cash games aren't NL Holdem or PLO. Daniel plays lots of games well without big leaks and that's very rare.

Never ever is a long time.

Lol @ thinking somebody can be the best in poker??? Did you ever played this ****ing game or what??

I remember a time when there were only 2 regs who gave each other action on FTP at 200/400+, and it was durrrr and sbrugby. And I'm pretty sure durrrr came out ahead more often than not. So he might have been the very best at some point, since defining being the best by "no one else gives you action" seems a decent definition.

Negreanu is just jealous because he never has been and never will be considered the best by anyone with a clue.