Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Daniel Negreanu's controversial tweet about poker player types he hates causes backlash

  1. #1
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4461
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30,733
    Blog Entries
    2

    Daniel Negreanu's controversial tweet about poker player types he hates causes backlash

    Last week, Negreanu wrote a controversial tweet which said the following:

    Worst kind of poker player has the following traits:

    Winner
    Slow
    Quiet (Also Miserable)
    Nit (Cheap/Selfish)
    Hater (Complainer/Negative)

    If you match all of these categories then you are probably a real treat to have at parties. 2 of 5 is still bad
    The tweet is now deleted.

    This brought on a lot of negative responses, most notably that Daniel was criticizing winners and quiet people.

    Isn't the point of poker to win? Hasn't he been a longtime winner himself?

    Isn't a quiet player far better than a loud, annoying one?

    Two rebuttal blogs were then written:

    DK Lappin: http://rocshot.com/lappin/265-yester...jQWJU53ccTtnyc

    Dara O'Kearney: http://dokearney.blogspot.com/2019/01/oh-danny-boy.html

    Both of these blogs were positively received, and Daniel knew he had a PR problem on his hands.

    In response, he wrote this: https://fullcontactpoker.com/the-state-of-poker-2019/

    The Cliffs Notes of his response were basically a semi-mea-culpa that he was a bit too harsh, but he stood by his beliefs that:

    - Winners are bad for poker because they win, and everyone wants to play with a bad player who they will beat

    - Quiet players are bad for poker because they refuse to make conversation with recs, thus driving them away

    - Nits are bad for poker, because nits are usually also angle-shooters (which isn't true)

    - People who refuse to straddle when everyone else wants to straddle are bad for the game


    I take issue with most of this.

    Ever since he joined Pokerstars, he's been brainwashed into believing that winning grinders are bad for the game. This has long been Pokerstars owner Amaya's position, and he has since adopted it.

    How does he resolve the fact that he is also a winner?

    Because Daniel does more than win. He sees himself as an ambassador for the game -- one who has a lot of fans, interacts with them, and constantly draws new players in. Therefore, he isn't just a poker winner. He's an important figure in poker. If you just win, you're only taking from poker and not giving.

    And that's the basic line of reasoning for the rest of his arguments.

    Quiet players, nits, and non-straddlers all have one thing in common: They aren't making the game "fun" for the rec. And they're doing that stuff AND winning, then they're both taking money from the game AND not making things fun.

    Shame, shame!

    The fallacy in this argument comes from the fact that poker is an individual game. The pro grinder has no duty to make the game fun for people. In fact, many grinders lack the personality type to make the game fun, and would just come off as awkward and/or annoying if they tried. Others just find it to be a burden to constantly provide entertainment.

    When you sit at a poker table, you have only a few duties to others:

    1) Be courteous

    2) Be honest

    3) Don't impede gameplay

    4) Take extra care not to anger the fish

    That's it.

    The rest is optional. Do you feel uncomfortable straddling? You might be a bit of a stick-in-the-mud, but it's your right. Do you just want to put on headphones and tune out the world? You may not be exciting company, but again, that's your right. Do you only want to get your money in really good, and also avoid playing in tough games? Again, that's your right.

    The problem here is that Daniel writes this blog from the point of view of his own strengths.

    He has an outgoing personality and enjoys interacting with people at the table, especially his fans.

    He has enough money and natural gamble to where straddling and sidebets appeal to him.

    So basically he's saying, "Be exactly like me, or you're bad for poker. Oh, unless you're a loser in the game. Then it's okay."

    And that's bullshit.

    There's one other big problem with his logic.

    He says in his blog that a winning player will typically take money out of the game that could have gone to others, so therefore people don't want that player there.

    That sounds correct on the surface, but it's not.

    In a poker game where the best player leaves, the big beneficiary of his absence is the second-best poker player, not the fish! This is because there will still be a best and worst player at the table, and the worst player is still dead money if he stays long enough. Therefore, it's not a matter of whether he loses, but rather who is getting his money!

    (This is also the reason for my favorite saying about game selection: "The absence of good players is far more important for game selection than the presence of bad ones.")

    Sit me at a 6-handed table with 5 mediocre players, and I will crush it, barring really bad luck.

    Sit me at a 6-handed table with 2 great players and 3 megafish, my results will be all over the place.

    When one of those great players leave, I benefit big time, as one of the other pros. The fish are going to lose either way.


    I'm not a Negreanu-hater like Doug Polk and so many others out there. He's done a lot of good for poker, and he's generally an honest character who has avoided major scandals for his entire career. However, blogs and tweets like these are cringeworthy, and he really needs to drop this silly war on grinders, before he continues to ruin his formerly great reputation even further.

  2. #2
    Yea it's a pretty silly post. I know where he's coming from.

    Players that promote action tend to be good for the game, but you can't expect everyone to do it all the time.

    I don't know if JRB is a winning player, but he would be a good example of someone that promotes action.

    You should be able to expect that other grinders don't berate fish/staff and generally avoid tapping the glass. They don't have to lift the mood, but they should be mindful about bringing the mood down.

    There's always winners (even if it's sometimes just the house), everybody can't talk at the same time and it's kinda polite to let other people talk at times. Some people can't play loose aggressive or they lack the bankroll (or skill) for that or any other way of raising the stakes (straddles/props).

  3. #3
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4461
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30,733
    Blog Entries
    2
    I also understand the points he's raising.

    100% true that it's not as fun for the recs at the table when you have most people there wearing headphones, hoodies, and saying almost nothing besides "check" and "raise".

    At the same time, Daniel needs to realize that everyone isn't like him, and that many have bankroll, skill, or personality limitations which don't allow them to talk it up and splash it up and still come out profitable.

    I've been at fun tables and I've been at quiet, boring tables. I've been both the talkative guy and the super quiet guy, depending upon my mood, the other players at the table, and the general atmosphere. But one should not be vilifying the quiet winning grinder under any circumstances, except perhaps if he's over-bumhunting to the point of it looking really bad.

  4. #4
    More rake is good , fing assclown shit show hair plugged choice donkey. He just can't identify with todays average poker player.

     
    Comments
      
      Sanlmar: Maybe his behavior is medical - recently caught syphilis?

  5. #5
    Silver sah_24's Avatar
    Reputation
    -40
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Laclede
    Posts
    789
    Blog Entries
    5
    The dude actually said "more rake is better" ... his opinions on anything regarding the game are worthless bc he is nothing but a fucking shill

  6. #6
    Toddís made this weeks Ď The Muckí on PokerNews regarding this subject, I canít post the link sorry.
    cmoney :It would be nice if Mexico could simply get human feces out of its drinking water

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by YUUP View Post
    Toddís made this weeks Ď The Muckí on PokerNews regarding this subject, I canít post the link sorry.
    https://www.pokernews.com/news/2019/...oker-33235.htm

  8. #8
    Gold ftpjesus's Avatar
    Reputation
    285
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Last week, Negreanu wrote a controversial tweet which said the following:

    Worst kind of poker player has the following traits:

    Winner
    Slow
    Quiet (Also Miserable)
    Nit (Cheap/Selfish)
    Hater (Complainer/Negative)

    If you match all of these categories then you are probably a real treat to have at parties. 2 of 5 is still bad
    The tweet is now deleted.

    This brought on a lot of negative responses, most notably that Daniel was criticizing winners and quiet people.

    Isn't the point of poker to win? Hasn't he been a longtime winner himself?

    Isn't a quiet player far better than a loud, annoying one?

    Two rebuttal blogs were then written:

    DK Lappin: http://rocshot.com/lappin/265-yester...jQWJU53ccTtnyc

    Dara O'Kearney: http://dokearney.blogspot.com/2019/01/oh-danny-boy.html

    Both of these blogs were positively received, and Daniel knew he had a PR problem on his hands.

    In response, he wrote this: https://fullcontactpoker.com/the-state-of-poker-2019/

    The Cliffs Notes of his response were basically a semi-mea-culpa that he was a bit too harsh, but he stood by his beliefs that:

    - Winners are bad for poker because they win, and everyone wants to play with a bad player who they will beat

    - Quiet players are bad for poker because they refuse to make conversation with recs, thus driving them away

    - Nits are bad for poker, because nits are usually also angle-shooters (which isn't true)

    - People who refuse to straddle when everyone else wants to straddle are bad for the game


    I take issue with most of this.

    Ever since he joined Pokerstars, he's been brainwashed into believing that winning grinders are bad for the game. This has long been Pokerstars owner Amaya's position, and he has since adopted it.

    How does he resolve the fact that he is also a winner?

    Because Daniel does more than win. He sees himself as an ambassador for the game -- one who has a lot of fans, interacts with them, and constantly draws new players in. Therefore, he isn't just a poker winner. He's an important figure in poker. If you just win, you're only taking from poker and not giving.

    And that's the basic line of reasoning for the rest of his arguments.

    Quiet players, nits, and non-straddlers all have one thing in common: They aren't making the game "fun" for the rec. And they're doing that stuff AND winning, then they're both taking money from the game AND not making things fun.

    Shame, shame!

    The fallacy in this argument comes from the fact that poker is an individual game. The pro grinder has no duty to make the game fun for people. In fact, many grinders lack the personality type to make the game fun, and would just come off as awkward and/or annoying if they tried. Others just find it to be a burden to constantly provide entertainment.

    When you sit at a poker table, you have only a few duties to others:

    1) Be courteous

    2) Be honest

    3) Don't impede gameplay

    4) Take extra care not to anger the fish

    That's it.

    The rest is optional. Do you feel uncomfortable straddling? You might be a bit of a stick-in-the-mud, but it's your right. Do you just want to put on headphones and tune out the world? You may not be exciting company, but again, that's your right. Do you only want to get your money in really good, and also avoid playing in tough games? Again, that's your right.

    The problem here is that Daniel writes this blog from the point of view of his own strengths.

    He has an outgoing personality and enjoys interacting with people at the table, especially his fans.

    He has enough money and natural gamble to where straddling and sidebets appeal to him.

    So basically he's saying, "Be exactly like me, or you're bad for poker. Oh, unless you're a loser in the game. Then it's okay."

    And that's bullshit.

    There's one other big problem with his logic.

    He says in his blog that a winning player will typically take money out of the game that could have gone to others, so therefore people don't want that player there.

    That sounds correct on the surface, but it's not.

    In a poker game where the best player leaves, the big beneficiary of his absence is the second-best poker player, not the fish! This is because there will still be a best and worst player at the table, and the worst player is still dead money if he stays long enough. Therefore, it's not a matter of whether he loses, but rather who is getting his money!

    (This is also the reason for my favorite saying about game selection: "The absence of good players is far more important for game selection than the presence of bad ones.")

    Sit me at a 6-handed table with 5 mediocre players, and I will crush it, barring really bad luck.

    Sit me at a 6-handed table with 2 great players and 3 megafish, my results will be all over the place.

    When one of those great players leave, I benefit big time, as one of the other pros. The fish are going to lose either way.


    I'm not a Negreanu-hater like Doug Polk and so many others out there. He's done a lot of good for poker, and he's generally an honest character who has avoided major scandals for his entire career. However, blogs and tweets like these are cringeworthy, and he really needs to drop this silly war on grinders, before he continues to ruin his formerly great reputation even further.
    Surprised he didn't offend Mason Mallmutt with his commentary on Nits
    <This Ad Space for Rent or Sale>

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    At the same time, Daniel needs to realize that everyone isn't like him.

    Thats like asking Eli that he needs to realize everyone actually needs to get paid back at some point
    http://www.miraclecovers.com

    "Donk down, thatís what you say to someone after they have lost 28K straight?" - Phil Hellmuth, online

  10. #10
    Gold MrTickle's Avatar
    Reputation
    264
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,060

  11. #11
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4461
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30,733
    Blog Entries
    2
    Agree with Dan Smith.

    If Negreanu wants to complain about bad behavior by pros in cash games, he should shine a light on the private game BS and all the bad loans being taken out under false pretenses.

  12. #12
    Canadrunk limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1116
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bubbles & The Baron
    Posts
    10,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Last week, Negreanu wrote a controversial tweet which said the following:

    Worst kind of poker player has the following traits:

    Winner
    Slow
    Quiet (Also Miserable)
    Nit (Cheap/Selfish)
    Hater (Complainer/Negative)


    If you match all of these categories then you are probably a real treat to have at parties. 2 of 5 is still bad
    The tweet is now deleted.

    This brought on a lot of negative responses, most notably that Daniel was criticizing winners and quiet people.

    Isn't the point of poker to win? Hasn't he been a longtime winner himself?

    Isn't a quiet player far better than a loud, annoying one?

    Two rebuttal blogs were then written:

    DK Lappin: http://rocshot.com/lappin/265-yester...jQWJU53ccTtnyc

    Dara O'Kearney: http://dokearney.blogspot.com/2019/01/oh-danny-boy.html

    Both of these blogs were positively received, and Daniel knew he had a PR problem on his hands.

    In response, he wrote this: https://fullcontactpoker.com/the-state-of-poker-2019/

    The Cliffs Notes of his response were basically a semi-mea-culpa that he was a bit too harsh, but he stood by his beliefs that:

    - Winners are bad for poker because they win, and everyone wants to play with a bad player who they will beat

    - Quiet players are bad for poker because they refuse to make conversation with recs, thus driving them away

    - Nits are bad for poker, because nits are usually also angle-shooters (which isn't true)

    - People who refuse to straddle when everyone else wants to straddle are bad for the game


    I take issue with most of this.

    Ever since he joined Pokerstars, he's been brainwashed into believing that winning grinders are bad for the game. This has long been Pokerstars owner Amaya's position, and he has since adopted it.

    How does he resolve the fact that he is also a winner?

    Because Daniel does more than win. He sees himself as an ambassador for the game -- one who has a lot of fans, interacts with them, and constantly draws new players in. Therefore, he isn't just a poker winner. He's an important figure in poker. If you just win, you're only taking from poker and not giving.

    And that's the basic line of reasoning for the rest of his arguments.

    Quiet players, nits, and non-straddlers all have one thing in common: They aren't making the game "fun" for the rec. And they're doing that stuff AND winning, then they're both taking money from the game AND not making things fun.

    Shame, shame!

    The fallacy in this argument comes from the fact that poker is an individual game. The pro grinder has no duty to make the game fun for people. In fact, many grinders lack the personality type to make the game fun, and would just come off as awkward and/or annoying if they tried. Others just find it to be a burden to constantly provide entertainment.

    When you sit at a poker table, you have only a few duties to others:

    1) Be courteous

    2) Be honest

    3) Don't impede gameplay

    4) Take extra care not to anger the fish

    That's it.

    The rest is optional. Do you feel uncomfortable straddling? You might be a bit of a stick-in-the-mud, but it's your right. Do you just want to put on headphones and tune out the world? You may not be exciting company, but again, that's your right. Do you only want to get your money in really good, and also avoid playing in tough games? Again, that's your right.

    The problem here is that Daniel writes this blog from the point of view of his own strengths.

    He has an outgoing personality and enjoys interacting with people at the table, especially his fans.

    He has enough money and natural gamble to where straddling and sidebets appeal to him.

    So basically he's saying, "Be exactly like me, or you're bad for poker. Oh, unless you're a loser in the game. Then it's okay."

    And that's bullshit.

    There's one other big problem with his logic.

    He says in his blog that a winning player will typically take money out of the game that could have gone to others, so therefore people don't want that player there.

    That sounds correct on the surface, but it's not.

    In a poker game where the best player leaves, the big beneficiary of his absence is the second-best poker player, not the fish! This is because there will still be a best and worst player at the table, and the worst player is still dead money if he stays long enough. Therefore, it's not a matter of whether he loses, but rather who is getting his money!

    (This is also the reason for my favorite saying about game selection: "The absence of good players is far more important for game selection than the presence of bad ones.")

    Sit me at a 6-handed table with 5 mediocre players, and I will crush it, barring really bad luck.

    Sit me at a 6-handed table with 2 great players and 3 megafish, my results will be all over the place.

    When one of those great players leave, I benefit big time, as one of the other pros. The fish are going to lose either way.


    I'm not a Negreanu-hater like Doug Polk and so many others out there. He's done a lot of good for poker, and he's generally an honest character who has avoided major scandals for his entire career. However, blogs and tweets like these are cringeworthy, and he really needs to drop this silly war on grinders, before he continues to ruin his formerly great reputation even further.
    This is what makes twitter so stupid.

    1) You know what he means here I hope? If everyone is winning there is no game. Your thought about not angering the fish
    is essentially the same thing.
    2-5) No explanation necessary.
    There, two sentences compared to two or three paragraphs.
    I LOVE ME SOME DONUTS

    "When people see some things as good, other things become bad"
    Lao Tzu

    Asked if he had every prayed, Christopher Hitchens replied
    "once, for a hardon"


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 124
    Last Post: 06-08-2019, 06:46 PM
  2. SrslySirius vs. Daniel Negreanu
    By Dan Druff in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 03-29-2018, 12:49 PM
  3. LOL! DANIEL NEGREANU WSOP
    By TheXFactor in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-02-2017, 09:48 PM
  4. Daniel Negreanu busto?
    By Baron Von Strucker in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 07-17-2014, 07:04 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-05-2013, 02:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •