Title: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: TightEnd on July 15, 2015, 10:49:05 AM 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 many 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 Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: DungBeetle on July 15, 2015, 10:51:16 AM I have to say I've always liked him. I'm sure he's a self publicist and indeed ruthless but give me him over the online player to watch any day of the week. I think he adds value to the viewing experience.
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: jakally on July 15, 2015, 10:53:12 AM and yet for many on here he is derided as a ruthless self-publicist and a hypocrite I think that's massively overstating the situation, Rich. Keith, obviously, and maybe a handful who may be vocal on the subject, but I would be surprised if a large majority weren't rooting for him to make the Nine. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Young_gun on July 15, 2015, 12:07:19 PM Big shame it would have been amazing if he made the final 9, as someone pointed out on another thread possibly Eso?? the fact he is always friendly and chatty on tables & i personally think he is a great ambassador for poker, opinionated so what :)
obviously needed the least from the final 27 players but still would have been fun to watch, only last night Neil Channing said on sky how he kind of got him involved when he was the new kid on the block. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Doobs on July 15, 2015, 12:14:40 PM 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 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. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: AndrewT on July 15, 2015, 12:41:21 PM I think there are three reasons why the crowd were so pro-Negreanu
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Steve Swift on July 15, 2015, 12:52:09 PM 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.
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Woodsey on July 15, 2015, 01:17:40 PM Like the guy, comes across as very personable and he's very good for the game imo.
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: pleno1 on July 15, 2015, 01:38:10 PM 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. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: UgotNuts on July 15, 2015, 01:46:11 PM He seems okay as a person I guess
I'm always conservative about making decisions on people who I only see in the media. Until you actually get to know someone its impossible to make a judgement. Definitely good for promoting the game, even if it might be for personal reasons. Qh uess we will never know the impact him making the November 9 will have. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Doobs on July 15, 2015, 01:47:54 PM 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. Don't know about the rest, but he was surely too short with 13 left to 4b/fold? I think he had less than 20 BBs. Was it earlier? There must have been a few left in the last 18 (say) who you would fold AK too? The pay jumps were severe until the FT and ICM would make moves that were normally standard into disastrous ones? Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: arbboy on July 15, 2015, 01:48:00 PM 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. ESPN must be gutted for viewing figures for the final 9. No idea about how much of an impact DN busting will have but it must be a huge factor in viewing figures now to the vast majority of casual viewers there are no 'faces' on the FT. I don't get the hate for the guy. Course he is looking out for his own back when he promotes poker. When he says it is good for the game then obviously that means by it's very nature it is good for him as well. That goes without saying. Doesn't the game need someone like him though to promote it in the style he does and be corporate and say the right things? Maybe it doesn't. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: pleno1 on July 15, 2015, 01:53:06 PM 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 Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: SuuPRlim on July 15, 2015, 01:56:40 PM 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. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Woodsey on July 15, 2015, 01:59:43 PM 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. Camel hates a ton of people though so it's not hard to get on his list :D Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Doobs on July 15, 2015, 02:00:08 PM 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 Was 16 left according to the tweet before and he had him covered. Seems a bad fold, but maybe he got a read or hadn't had enough time to realise the other fella is a loon. Did AK vs AA vs KK Sunday on Sky FWIW. Definitely had less than 20 BBs. #notDanny. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: MintTrav on July 15, 2015, 02:25:35 PM 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? Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: GreekStein on July 15, 2015, 02:43:00 PM 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. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: kp24 on July 15, 2015, 07:24:26 PM Think it would have been great for game if he had got the final table could have done so much for game especially in the U.S. Always looks like he's having fun at the table and has the games best interest at heart if sometimes misguided
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: arbboy on July 15, 2015, 10:01:52 PM 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. If you like making money out of poker then you want DN on the final 9 as it draws millions to watch and play the game imo. If you care more about whether DN is a C**t then maybe you would prefer him not to be. The bottom line is he gets paid fortunes to kiss ar*e and sell the game globally. Stars take care of that. There is a lot of jealously in the game and any game but everyone is a loser imo by him not being part of the nov 9. 9 nobodys (who might be internet pros but no casuals who do their money to the industry will care less so the viewing figures wont be there). Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: I KNOW IT on July 16, 2015, 12:17:44 AM Daniel N in the late 90's early 2000's is a different person to he is now . He has learned to play the game of life to succeed in the corporate world, sadly that is the way of the world nowadays
. Some cant except that is the way it is maybe because they remember him from the early days I dont know, I definately think he is good for the game and would like to have seen him on the final table. People can change, Camel for example used to be great fun in the old days who I used to love to have a drink with but now seems to be a cynical old bugger. lol Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: UgotNuts on July 16, 2015, 01:23:23 PM 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. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: SuuPRlim on July 16, 2015, 01:36:17 PM 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? TBF to DN, his long standing tirade against Annie Duke, claiming she was a cheat/fraud/no-good turned out to be absolutely true, she co-created the "Epic Poker League" which turned out to be a huge con... Agree, the insinuation that it would be acceptable to hit HL with a baseball bat was really really stupid from a guy in a position of as much power and influence over as many disgruntled people as he was. (still is, just the people are now less disgruntled lol) Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: nirvana on July 16, 2015, 01:39:37 PM 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. I make you right in all aspects here. Poker remains a zero sum game that can only eat itself Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: rfgqqabc on July 16, 2015, 01:57:46 PM 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.
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Doobs on July 16, 2015, 02:05:01 PM 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. 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. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: BigAdz on July 16, 2015, 02:21:10 PM I think he is ok.
Yes, he can come across a bit of an over excited geek at times, and probably does only have his own best interests at heart. I can live with that. But as a non pro, I would rather play, and lose, to him, than an Ivey, who would probably say nothing, and make the experience nowhere near the fun that DN would try and make it. As others have said, my interest immediately waned at hearing of his exit. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: RED-DOG on July 16, 2015, 02:43:57 PM I like him.
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: bobAlike on July 16, 2015, 03:23:58 PM Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: MANTIS01 on July 16, 2015, 03:28:23 PM I like him too and encouraging people to bat Howard Lederer is ok. However something I cannot tolerate is his hair, totally unacceptable.
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: david3103 on July 16, 2015, 03:51:03 PM I like him too and encouraging people to bat Howard Lederer is ok. However something I cannot tolerate is his hair, totally unacceptable. Yeah, and although I like him, and enjoy his style on the felt, there's also this issue... (https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3440/3313634925_48a2cf45c4_b.jpg) Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: RED-DOG on July 16, 2015, 03:54:18 PM He's a vegan?
WTF does that mean, he won't eat anything that casts a shadow? Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: bunnydas8888 on July 16, 2015, 04:03:34 PM He's a vegan? WTF does that mean, he won't eat anything that casts a shadow? That's a level 5 vegan Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: atdc21 on July 16, 2015, 04:15:01 PM Not to be confused with a Vagitarian, that's a different non ball game altogether
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: mumblesrock on July 16, 2015, 04:53:24 PM What was negreanu's exit hand???
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: rfgqqabc on July 16, 2015, 04:58:35 PM 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. 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. 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. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: TightEnd on July 16, 2015, 04:58:43 PM What was negreanu's exit hand??? Easy enough to find sir "The big hand never came for Negreanu, but he managed to nurse his smaller stack for several more hours, ranging between five and nine million until the final, fateful hand. More than 12 and a half hours after the day began, Negreanu decided to defend his big blind to a raise to 800,000 from McKeehen. McKeehen bet 700,000 on the flop of {A-Diamonds}{K-Clubs}{10-Diamonds} and Negreanu shoved for his remaining 5,825,000. McKeehen called, and when the cards were tabled, Negreanu was marginally ahead with top pair on his {A-Spades}{4-Diamonds}, but needed to fade a lot of outs against McKeehen’s flush and straight draws with {J-Diamonds}{3-Diamonds}. On the {3-Hearts} turn card, Negreanu remained ahead, but with another two threes to fade. The {Q-Hearts} on the river sealed his fate, however, as McKeehen hit his straight. Negreanu finished in 11th place for $526,778, narrowly missing his first November Nine appearance. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: RED-DOG on July 16, 2015, 05:03:03 PM 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. 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. 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. 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. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: MereNovice on July 16, 2015, 05:20:04 PM G E A R E D N U N
Your thirty seconds starts now. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Doobs on July 16, 2015, 05:24:26 PM G E A R E D N U N Your thirty seconds starts now. Bellend? Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: muckthenuts on July 16, 2015, 05:26:38 PM If you dislike someone for being a self-publicist, does that mean they've done their job?
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Knottikay on July 16, 2015, 05:30:45 PM G E A R E D N U N Your thirty seconds starts now. U endanger poker? Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: rfgqqabc on July 16, 2015, 06:00:53 PM 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. 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. 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. 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. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: RED-DOG on July 16, 2015, 06:22:58 PM 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. 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. 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. 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. I didn't say you said anything. :) Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: UgotNuts on July 16, 2015, 10:49:48 PM 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.
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: rfgqqabc on July 17, 2015, 02:18:49 AM 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. How do we know he did? Which one feels more unlikely to you? Negreanu had nothing to do with the rake cancellation or he did actually have something to do with it. Personally, I think he had little to do with an increase whilst blindly supporting it* and had absolutely nothing to do with the cancellation of the increases. This feels like the only logical answer to me, unless you think Stars pros make business decisions. (*and when I say blindly supported it, I mean posted an article that was obviously bullshit and couldn't possibly be true. I know he did say he would look into the rake increases, but I don't think he did, or could have had any affect on the situation if he had done so. He should have just ignored it, don't lie to your customers/fans. No other business would increase costs and ask for its sponsor to say they didn't.) Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: UgotNuts on July 17, 2015, 11:40:32 AM Fact is we know nothing about what he did or didn't do. From experience of price increases from B2B and B2C I would be very surprised If the stars decision makers did not consult senior members of their sponsored players of their opinions. As players of the game and inside/first hand knowledge, their opinions would carry more weight than what you might think.
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: tikay on July 17, 2015, 11:49:22 AM This piece from PokerNews sums it up for me. http://www.pokernews.com/news/2015/07/daniel-negreanu-falls-as-november-nine-dream-ends-22292.htm Self-serving? Maybe. Does it matter, as long as he bigs up poker? No, not one bit. Genuinely, if he made the Nine, poker would have been in the mainstream media, for sure, & for the right reasons. How can that be bad? The pros should welcome that, the poker economy needs a non-stop supply from bottom to feed the pros at the top. Danny in the Nine would have been a positive, without a shadow of doubt. Whether we like him or not is completely irrelevant. I gather his Twitter followers DOUBLED in number during his Main Event run. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: SuuPRlim on July 17, 2015, 04:49:53 PM 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. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: tikay on July 17, 2015, 05:01:05 PM 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. He gets paid so well because he does his job superbly. Is it part of the job of a poker pro to promote poker. He does that better than almost any other pro, with the possible exception of Jason Somerville, who can actually quantify how many sign ups he has secured. I can't think of any pro who can actually measure his benefit to his site, as Jason can. I have no idea, (nor do any of us) what his role in the rake debate was, but it's likely he gave his views. Whether they listened is another matter. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: rfgqqabc on July 17, 2015, 05:57:49 PM 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. I dont get why its a reason to jerk him off. Well done, hes good at his job and well paid. He also comes off as a bit of a douchebag to me and I don't like him because of that. I don't think someone bigging up poker is enough of a reason to let them get away with the things he does and says. I find him extremely antagonistic and egotistical. This is an excellent post that better explains why increasing the rake is not good for the poker games. (In case people are unsure, I know Negreanu was pretty persuasive.) Quote from: Benjaman1- fullcontactpoker forum 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. I just don't want to be lied to. I understand Amaya has an obligation to try and make as much profit for its shareholders as possible, but I think they have/are/will succeed only in the short term and that should be an embarrassment. I brought up the rake issue because I believed it was a prime example of him not being an ambassador for poker, but an ambassador for PokerStars, which people seem to think is the same thing. He has done some good for poker, I cannot argue against that but being famous and likeable on TV isn't particularly a reason to like someone. I don't like him, or certainly his public/online persona anyway. I think there are plenty of reasons which I have outlined now, and I just feel like I'm repeating myself so I will be trying not to post here again. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Doobs on July 18, 2015, 12:03:40 AM Hello again Adam.
As I said before, my memory is that he originally he said he didn't see a problem with the changes, but then changed his mind after a discussion and then said he'd bring up the issue with management. He also discussed it later in Chicago Joey's podcast, which you must have missed whilst you were out promoting poker. http://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-room-news/26818-daniel-negreanu-raises-player-concerns-over-plo-rake/ (http://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-room-news/26818-daniel-negreanu-raises-player-concerns-over-plo-rake/) Now he has agreed to raise the issue of Pot Limit Omaha (PLO) rake with the company’s senior executives. Negreanu took part in a podcast broadcast in mid-March by Joe “ChicagoJoey” Ingram. During the discussion he mentioned that he would raise the issue of PLO rake with management at PokerStars. He was then prompted to take action by a poker forum poster to which he replied that he was in full agreement with the concerns raised. “Totally on board and have been for some time on this issue. Coincidentally I have a meeting later today and was already planning on bringing this issue up again,” he replied in the thread. However, he cautioned the players that his ability to provoke changes is limited. “Obviously I can’t make any promises since I don’t have the power to make these decisions,” he continued, “but I can promise you that I will do my best to make a case for an adjustment here.” I am not some Danny Negreanu fanboy, I too find him a bit annoying at times, but I think you are wrong on this. Hate on him for something else. Would be very good if we could get him to work on PLO8, that must make the PLO rake look reasonable FWIW I am not sure Tikay ever retracted his support for that rake increase on hypers! Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: shipitgood on July 18, 2015, 06:33:26 PM He was the first poker player I really knew from shows like the loose cannon/ high stakes poker.
Looking back he was defo the best personality involved and made for interesting / compelling viewing. He comes across really well and genuine too, would have been a big boon for poker had he made the top 9. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: ABO151 on July 18, 2015, 11:44:48 PM seen him in IOM 'working' after busting UKIPT and in Barca not working after busting ME and it was two different Daniels, poles apart...nothing surprising here as he is clearly a good stars pro who also cares about his game and indeed the game - I think it would have been good if he'd made it...he's good at his job ...I like Sting's music but also think he's a bit of a twat!
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Doobs on July 22, 2015, 08:26:23 PM 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 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. Late correction. It was the hardest £14 I have ever earned. Unknown to me I must have spent the last few months on the borders of the premium charge on Betfair. Those scumbags* have taken £27 of my £41 profit. So they borrowed £1000 off me for 3 months and gave me £14 interest and I was left exposed to the risk of doing most of that thousand if Danny won. Since TfT had started I haven't bet that much at all there, and my commission rate is now 5%, so I was under the mistaken impression that I couldn't get premium charged (I thought it was 250 markets a year, but it must be over 250 lifetime. Given the speed my prices were getting beaten throughout the wsop, I wouldn't be surprised if a Betfair bot was at work either. 14 years on Betfair and flutter and used to rake £2k a month. Can't see how I can continue when faced with a 20% commission rate. * I don't know any other bookmaker that will take away two thirds of your profit on a bet when you have no way of realistically knowing that it was going to happen when you placed the bet. I assume it was such a high proportion of my winnings as they don't take it if it is less than a set amount in total (£20?) Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: redsimon on July 22, 2015, 08:56:34 PM 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!
Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Doobs on July 22, 2015, 09:10:03 PM 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. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Doobs on July 22, 2015, 11:36:30 PM 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. I have looked at my account on my PC (was on phone previously) and it seems I haven't been charged yet, just used up some of my allowance. Panic over, and I can still use the exchange for a while yet.. Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: Marky147 on July 22, 2015, 11:48:50 PM Changed from a roundabout 50p, to thin ;D
Got to get that 10m bonus from somewhere... Title: Re: Negreanu, the man and the conundrum Post by: arbboy on July 23, 2015, 02:15:42 AM You never pay the PC as an ex arber! One of the big bonuses of being an arber. My bf account is worth a fortune to anyone who pays the PC still now from my bf arbing losses from years ago. You also need to operate a high volume low margin betting model and then you won't pay the PC either.
|