his game seems pretty solid for the most part, i think he calls too much though, but it seems alot of people dont respsect his game from what ive read and seen

im pretty sure it was the highlights, and since he shaved his head his game is actually getting the respect it deserves.....yup, def the highlights...i just confirmed by thinking about it.

Haters and Hero Worshipers talk and write the most. Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear! (not original) LOL

Bec he's in his late 30's. If he was 23, and had 1/5 of his results, they'd be falling all over themselves w/ praise.

Actually he is a reptile from another dimension.

This means that those able to meaningfully critique his play is roughly the subgroup with $5m+ in live tournie wins who are not also reptiles.

He is one of my favorites and I'm sure there are more people that respect him than not.
Hope that helps OP.

Negreanu is one of the legends. I would say that more players respect him than almost all the internet players. It wasn't that long ago that he was crushing the online games.

On that note, if you get a chance to read his book you really should it's very good and I always enjoy Daniel's insight.

Do people even understand the simple point that tournaments winnings have no meaning, tournament profit does and only if there's more than 3000+ games. How can you get so easily manipulated by the poker media? It's insane.

What are you talking about it doesn't matter? Are you idiotic? It's how much money he won. It's how we keep score in poker, the money. Sorry it doesn't fit your belief system that a feel player that isn't an internet young gun can crush poker.

How, exactly, did you come up w/ the figure of 3,000?..........b

He has 3,000 fingers.

It was I believe in a Noah Schwartz blog post about how much you can expect to win per year (and expected variance) if you become a pro tourney player.

[Insert any poker player here, pro or other wise.]

3000 tournaments?

So if two players play a major tournament once a week for 25 years and one player loses money every single year and the other player wins consistently and has a hugely profitable ROI over those 25 years you would confidently argue we could not discern which player is better? The sample of 2600 tournaments would be too small for you to reach any conclusions?

pretty sure he was talking about the difference between "winnings" and profit. One matters, the other doesn't.

Ohhh lets see EVERY single HSP debacle. Or maybe his pronouncement of returning to "low" stakes rng to relearn or reinvent or i dunno something with his game.I think i tuned out after that.

Yes! 3000 tournaments! Obvi reasonable sample size IMO

True, I do not even think calling it winnings makes sense if your net is a loss. Many people play 20+ WSOP events each year and have a net loss yet cash 75k or better by the end of the summer.

Ansky what sample size do you think is significant for live tournament play? 3000 seems absurd.

FWIW I would assume half the criticism towards him stems from spewing at the mouth like a 16 year old girl and not his play.

In your specific example there would be two issues:

1) The games are not homogeneous enough because they are on a 25 years scale and the game has evolved so it's not a repetition of 2600 similar games, so both players probably had very different expected ROI during different periods of their careers.
2) You would not be able to determinate their winrate with as much precision as you could with 3000 games. The higher the standard deviation, the closer the gap in observed winrate between the two players, the more you need games. 3000 is just a general rule of thumb.

Plus everyone is not paying attention to the core of my argument which is tournament winnings is just a B.S term, it's not profits like on sharkscope. It's as if you judged cash game players by adding how much they have when they leave tables and call it "cash games winnings".

Cause he is always on a freeroll?

If the two players played the exact same tournaments weekly for 25 years and one was a huge lifetime winner and the other a huge lifetime loser you still think the sample size (2600) is not large enough to discern anything? I am very familiar with standard deviation and variance. However a 3000 tournament live sample size is ridiculous. No player in the first twenty years of their career plays 3000 tournaments unless we count 40 & 65 dollar daily buy in tourneys that are all structured like a complete joke.

I do not disagree at all that ROI means much much more then actual cashes, I think that is 100% accurate. However a live 3000 tourney sample is not needed to see if a player is a good tournament player. That number is way off.

As I said "The higher the standard deviation, the closer the gap in observed winrate between the two players, the more you need games" which also means "The lower the standard deviation, the bigger the gap in observed winrate between the two players, the less you need games". Plus your assumption is impossible so it's a pretty moot point.

But I would argue that it's a fallacy to think "oh well there's never enough time for this much games so it can't apply". Not at all, we just have to admit that we do not know the real ROI of a lot of live players (assuming we had the whole info on BI and cashes for everyone), we have an idea where it might be and maybe if they're winning or losing players but that's about it. Negreanu is probably a winning player and with a good ROI but with what confidence can we say that considering that he's a live player?

Consider me absolutely shocked that a thread of this caliber has been introduced into such an esteemed forum in twoplustwo. We are all smarter for it and I thank you for adding to my, uh, smartness.

To bad Negreanu hasn't netted a loss. His winnings are in the +5 million dollar range and that is more than most people make in a lifetime much less playing the game of poker.

You don't have to like him but to disagree with the fact that this guy is a legend and probably one of the top minds in the game is pretty stupid. I remember watching the WSOP on T.V. a few years back and he was basically just calling out people's hands that's how good his reads were. Can you imagine playing against a guy that always knows your hand? It would be tough.