blonde poker forum

and yet for many on here he is derided as a ruthless self-publicist and a hypocrite

Brad Willis wrote this after he exited the main in 11th

"Been a long time since I’ve seen someone so wildly adored as RealKidPoker was here tonight."

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJ8LZjhUsAAleWA.jpg)

http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/en/blog/tournaments/wsop/2015/wsop-2015-daniel-negreanu-just-misses-no-156845.shtml

it contains the opening line

"I have seen crowd favorites. I have seen them all over the world. I have seen hometown heroes, superstars, and Cinderella stories. I have seen crowds rally around a person for no reason other than it felt like the right thing to do at the time. I thought I had seen it all.

I have never see any person receive the kind of support Daniel Negreanu got here tonight. "

and yet for one person on here he is derided as a ruthless self-publicist and a hypocrite

in the light of the events of the last 48 hours, and the likely impact a november nine appearance would have had on the industry, it is time to change that view

Discuss

somebody told me stars pros get 2x their prize if they make ft of wsop main.

negreanu 4b/folded ak with 13 left i think.

pretty crazy.

So disappointed,  he makes watching poker entertaining the moment he went out I shut down the website as I had no further interest and I'll bet I wasn't that I was not alone.  Nov 9 would have been a big event for me and now I doubt I will even look up.

Only the Camel really hates him on here, not sure exactly why, sure he has a fine reason :)

He's funny, friendly, engaging, makes time for everyone at poker tournaments, classy winner, graceful loser, and a great ambassador for poker (imo) obviously he gets paid absolute chunks for being so (closer to 8 figures than 7 his stars deal I hear...) but he's great at his job, so yeah absolutely cannot begrudge him getting the lot for it.

I actually felt so sorry for him (I know!) this year, financially it prolly means less to him than the other 11, but whatever you say about him, shameless self publicist, annoying, wonderful for the game w/e he has devoted his life to poker and you could see in his eyes that this just meant the world to him. He does seem to really care about his "legacy" in poker, and a ME final table would have been a dream come true I think, you can be as rich and successful as you like, some things in life money just cannot buy...

Having pokers biggest star, on poker's biggest stage would have been phenomenal for the game, ESPCIALLY good for the WSOP, even the Camel, DN's biggest critic would have to agree with that.

I for one, was rooting very hard for him.

Daniel Negreanu ‏@RealKidPoker  11h11 hours ago
Just folded AK preflop something I should have done in 2001 when I came 11th. I was a kid then and not ready to win then. I am ready now…

:D


was 15 left against joe mcheehan the chip leader who I've played against and is pretty crazy lol

and yet for many on here he is derided as a ruthless self-publicist and a hypocrite

Huge huge over exaggeration.

I'd say over 95% of people were funking for him.

Very likeable and entertaining. And makes plenty of interesting points for the good of rec players and, consequently, sustaining the poker industry.

It is spoiled for me, though, by his nasty streak. His vendetta against Annie Duke went on for ever, telling everyone again and again and again and again and again how terrible she is. Maybe she is for all I know, but that seemed way over the top, especially when contrasted with an apparently dignified silence from the other side. She only really complained when he called her a "fucking c unt" in a mainstream interview.

And his response to the Lederer situation was a disgrace, inciting violence via YouTube. Has everyone forgotten that?

Not sure Daniel making the November 9 will have an effect on people who don't play the game. I asked around the office if anyone knew who is was and no one had any idea. If your just a slot machine or a house games player and not a poker player, what draws you to the game is the amount of money that can be won not who is winning the money on the TV tables.

Once you get into the game its different you have your poker hero's ect and it might make you pump some more money into the system if they make the Nov 9 because you want to follow in there footsteps. The reason the Mr MoneyMaker created a boom was because he was a nobody who won it all, when people heard about it they wanted to do it too. Having a Pro win it doesn't have the same effect.

He's a bellend and I wish he'd made it because there was a chance of a small boom, virtually 0% but maybe. It would have been nice to see him promote poker and do some good for the game instead of telling me rake increases are good for me.

I like him.

I like him too and encouraging people to bat Howard Lederer is ok. However something I cannot tolerate is his hair, totally unacceptable.

He's a vegan?

WTF does that mean, he won't eat anything that casts a shadow?

You really believe this?  You may think he is a bellend, but he certainly promotes poker and it is hard to argue he doesn't do some good for the game.  And as far as I remember he did listen to the complaints on the rake issue, said he would speak to stars and Stars backed down.

Sure he can be irritating and sometimes says some things that are in his own interest, but implying he doesn't do enough to promote poker is ludicrous.   

What was negreanu's exit hand???

He does promote poker and he does do some good for the game. He is also a hypocrite who talks a lot of self serving and self promotional nonsense. I understand that people like him but don't really understand why people think he has some sort of universal appeal. I also don't buy it that every poker player should like someone who is seen as remotely positive for the game. Yes he does promote the game, but he has also been given at least ten million dollars to do so, and I would bet a lot more. Its not like he is purely doing it out of the goodness of his heart. He had absolutely nothing to do with Stars reversing the rake changes.

G E A R E D N U N


Your thirty seconds starts now.

G E A R E D N U N


Your thirty seconds starts now.

I can't work out why self serving and self promotional are seen as bad traits.

I don't see many premiership footballers playing/promoting the game out of the goodness of their heart.

rfggqqabc charity night- (99% of donations go towards the cost of hosting the event)

Self promotional and self serving are not necessarily bad traits themselves. They can be though. I didn't attack everyone who self promotes in some way. I simply said I didn't like him (partly) because of that.

I also didn't say he has to promote poker. I tried said I don't see it as a reason to like him, because that is his job to do so and he is more than adequately compensated for this and I find him annoyingly hypocritical when it comes to many situations.

How do we know DNeg had nothing to do with the Rake increase being cancelled? I would be surprised if the public knows what happened in a confidential board meeting.

dont really get why the fact he gets aid so much money, and yeah he gets paid SO much money(!), should be a contributory factor in how good he does at his job? He is paid to promote poker positively and he does so, very well, what happens to rake isn't really in his remit is it?

I like a world where people who are really good at their job get abso weighed in for it, just ask Mantis how much Brad gets paid.

dont really get why the fact he gets aid so much money, and yeah he gets paid SO much money(!), should be a contributory factor in how good he does at his job? He is paid to promote poker positively and he does so, very well, what happens to rake isn't really in his remit is it?

I like a world where people who are really good at their job get abso weighed in for it, just ask Mantis how much Brad gets paid.

Bejamin1 here - this is just my theoretical take on the situation. Not like I can prove any of the conclusions I draw, but I have a feeling I'm not that far off. I hail from LiquidPoker as a casual grinder whilst I work on my Master's and work as a student employee. I'm going to present my point of view because it seems like there are a good deal of people who think raising rake is actually a good decision for Pokerstars. I think in all honestly it's simply an effort to generate resources to pay off the costs of an expensive acquisition and it has little to do with "improving the quality of the games" for players. Although I understand the merits of going through the expensive process of regulation. Really doesn't help people much if all you get is a segregated player pool. In fact I question how anyone can suggest it does if the end result is a segregated player pool then people from other countries see zero benefit from that process. The only winner there would be Pokerstars bottom-line long-term. Unless that bottom line was re-invested in ideas to actually make the games better. I digress.

So lets explore a little bit the world of Poker and in order to do that let's use the example of a zero-sum Poker Economy. A climate where no rake is taken from the games. What happens in this situation?

-Many players win
-Players brag to their friends about how much $$$ they are winning
-Friends deposit because "holy crap poker so cool easy money I'm gonna be the next Matt Damon like in Rounders man!"

That's the sex-appeal of the game for recreational players. That's what it's always been. The idea of bragging to your friends about how you're winning. Even just moderately average players can win in this climate because the rake doesn't gobble up all of their winnings on a weekly basis.

Now, obviously a rake free climate won't exist. However, an in-software advertising revenue generating model + greatly reduced rake would be the best possible future for the poker economy. Many players have success. Lots of word of mouth. Lots of bragging and lots of new deposits. That's how the game spreads and grows. If Pokerstars were less greedy, they'd make more in the long term AND the game would survive just fine.

Right now, something like what 5% maybe 1% of players will be winning players over 100K+ hand samples? Most casual players play maybe 15,000 hands in a year or some random number like that. They're still paying 10pt/bb rake too at that rate, except with their level of play most of them are dramatically losing players and only a few make money and cash out. That's not good for the poker economy. You want weak players, casuals, and fish to be winning fairly often and cashing out and bragging about it. That's hugely important to the poker economy to keep it growing.

Reduced rake is a win for everyone long term, including Pokerstars. They need to be more creative about their revenue. And frankly, they should eliminate the vast majority of "Pokerstars Pros" and support only a key few. It's ridiculous how many they are - vast majority of fish have no idea who these people are. I don't mind giving randoms on the final table 5k to wear a Pokerstars hat or whatever, but semi-permanently sponsoring a bunch of people who nobody gives a shit about is a waste of money. People know who you are Daniel, but very few people know who most of these "Pros" are. Yes they're good players, but they don't have much sex appeal in terms of actually bringing in more players.

Lastly - and maybe this will come as a surprise, but Pokerstars should basically eliminate Supernova Elite status and possibly Supernova as well. The FPP system should stay the same, but allow for the reasonable acquisition of bonuses at the highest rate for everyone. Make it work out to 40% rakeback for everyone or just two levels with Platimum being 25% RB or whatever it is and Supernova being 40%. Maybe you can have 50% for Supernova x2 or something, but even then it's getting into the same problems we've had in the past which I will now go into.

Why you ask? Well guess what, insane amounts of mass grinders does what to the games? It creates a climate with every reg sitting on 20 tables and playing mindlessly, not chatting, not interacting, etc... It creates unbalanced fish to regular ratios because people simply have to play this many tables to get decent rakeback. It creates a climate where no regulars want to play each other because it's almost impossible to have an edge especially at stakes bellow $200 buy-ins because the rake is too darn high and they have no edge at all. They end up seat scripting and harassing the weaker players chasing them around for action (really welcoming don't you think? Oh wait no, that's horrible).

If you just provide most players with good rakeback without having to play insane amounts (chopping off the 20-30% extra SNE grinders have been getting) then you will create softer games. There will be no incentive to play 50 tables. They'll be incentive to play 4-8. Play well, and battle vs. other regs/casuals. This is especially true in a rake reduced climate. The edges will be more reasonable so good players can actually play each other. Actual poker will be played. Good regs will battle each other and people will come online just to OBSERVE the games because how cool is that. Watching good players duke it out.

So what exists now? A climate of massive rake + the only good rakeback is Supernova x3++++

What does that do? It forces players to play insane amounts, for minimal edges, and essentially become rake churners. They win a bit of money, and churn most of the rest of it back into rake. It's a bad cycle for the poker economy and it's not good for anyone.

Pokerstars should be aiming to make the games great and to have as many people as possible bragging to their friends about winning. That's what keeps this great game going. It's not anything else. People don't want to see it as gambling and losing because nobody talks about winning anymore. They just talk about how hard it is and how its rigged etc etc etc. People want to hear about people winning, about edges being reasonable. And that you TOO can be a Poker Star if you put the work in. Build a positive climate where people realistically think they can win and regulars aren't forced to seat script, and play 10 billion hands to acquire rakeback. That's how you improve things. The rest of this is just bollocks.

Or you can be short-sighted and do what Amaya is doing... which is squeezing as much money as possible out of this game until it dies from being choked to death. They aren't helping anything, and they have zero long-term vision.

The only thing that will fix this is dramatic change from Pokerstars. Or unregulated bitcoin poker rising to power with the vision to use lower rake to attract lots of winners and people who can then go brag about where they won.

Any system that basically encourages regs to put in insane volume (to the detriment of their own health, well-being, mental sanity, and quality of the games) is a bad system. It creates a hostile climate for recreational players and does nothing except take the recreational players money and churn it into rake whilst the regulars make a small living off slightly beating the game (if they're really good) + RB. That's what's happening there. It isn't fun for anyone. Games should be soft, regular to recreational player levels and ratios should be reasonable.

If Pokerstars really wanted to increase the health of the games what could they do?
-Reduce maximum number of regular tables to 8, perhaps even 4 or 6
-Reduce maximum rake to 25 cents for all stakes below $25 buy-ins, and one dollar for all stakes 50$ buy-in to 500$ buy-in
-Introduce in software advertising, simple process, software launches unified adds for each limit that display on any active table once every hour or thirty minutes either one, everyone watches and then hands continue being dealt, similar to tournament breaks
-Eliminate awful bonus structures like Supernova and Supernova Elite - they only encourage mass tabling and high-volume (things which generate a lot of rake and $ for pokerstars, but have a hugely negative impact on the quality and softness of games and player experience)
-Eliminate seat scripting
-Stop providing hand histories - or update their format so often that players can't use the completely legitimate software allowed by TOS to play the game on such a high analytical levels
-It's cool to take notes - but you are supposed to use your memory and personal knowledge to do that - using these programs takes players to much more advanced levels and makes games tougher for everyone because you can make decisions that otherwise only the best most detailed note takers and game studiers would know how to make, those people would be one in hundred thousand players instead of EVERY REG as it is currently

So why won't Pokerstars make such obvious changes? It's because they're perfectly happy with the current climate of regs playing millions upon millions of hands. It's the best way to get rake. Most of the recreational players money won by regulars is churned into rake. It's a big fist pump win for them. It's not about the quality of the games. It's about money and stock value for the share holder

So lets get real Daniel. We could easily build a much better poker economy for everyone. Pokerstars isn't interested in doing that. THey're interested in maximizing profits for shareholders and that's about it. Its not about helping the players win money and having soft games where more players could be winners and brag to their friends leading to more deposits. It's about building a climate where people play as many hands as possible to make sure that recreational player money is churned into rake by mindless grinders.

FYP

I do think it would have been good for the game if he had made a November 9 appearence, I also think stealthmunk would have been very good too, despite all the downside.

Pierre Neuville will be good for the game tho, and good to see another oldie at the table too.

I am just happy I can get the money off betfair that was backing the Negreanu lay.  Hardest 40 odd quid I have ever made on the exchange.

They used to warn you before PC levied that you were close to incurring it. I'd complain if you definitely didn't get the email Doobs!

I have a separate email account that I never read.  Should be in there then. I will have a look later.  I am really quite shocked I got charged, as my volumes have been very low there recently, hence the 5% commission.  Guess my ROI on Betfair was much higher than I thought over the years.