Thursday, April 16, 2009

Daniel Negreanu and Cash games - Does he suck?

I have a friend of mine who is a HUGE poker fan, he is also a ninja at picking biotech stocks, he called me the other day and asked me if I have heard all the buzz about Daniel Negreanu and "cash games", I admitted that I had not. As he caught me up one thing dawned on me, so I blurted it out, "what do you think of Wal-Mart's stock?". It was an odd question to be sure, after all he is not an expert in that field, while he had an opinion he admitted that his opinion was virtually irrelevant. I then brought him back to the Negreanu conversation and asked why he thought Daniel would care so much about something that he clearly is not an expert in.

Why are tournament professionals bothered but not cash game players?

Which is sort of the rub. You are either Phil Ivey or your mortal. For some reason though being possibly the best tournament poker player in the world just is not enough, if you do not think so then why exactly does Phil Hellmuth constantly say he is the "best No Limit Poker player in the world" when he is not? Most non casual poker players know that Phil Hellmuth is horrible at cash games but Daniel has always been given a bit of a pass, mostly because he does not pound his chest the way Hellmuth does. It is also interesting that people like Tom Dwan or Phil Galfond brush off criticisms of their tournament games, which seems to point to the fact that cash game winners are ambivalent but tournament players are bothered (Galfond did in fact win a very prestigious bracelet last year in PLO, helping his tourney cred).

Pressure can be a killer, even for the best

Which brings us to the most recent High Stakes Poker episodes. Daniel has looked lost and people are starting to wonder about his cash game skills. I have followed Daniel's career for over 10 years with passing interest. His articles in CardPlayer were always a must read but back then Daniel was pretty much what he is now, a tournament poker player. From what I understand he is more than servicable at mid limit mixed games but those games do not interest Daniel much anymore. He wants to beat the best at their own games and he simply is not good enough to do that. It is a version of pokers "Peter Principle", while Daniel is quite prolific at one or more versions of poker those are not the versions he is interested in beating and they have been tough nuts to crack. But there is much more to this particular story......

My top three, things that work for and against them

When I think of poker players the top three that come to my mind are Phil Ivey, Phil Hellmuth and Daniel Negreanu. I think that list is pretty close to right for most people. Let's take a look at each of them and how they got here and why they have had their particular versions of success.

Phil Ivey, the all around best player

Phil Ivey - Previous to the poker boom Phil Ivey was an unknown quantity, he was known around Vegas but he was not THE "Phil Ivey" of today. He used to play on UltimateBet under the name Joe Buttons, at the time the biggest game was $80-$160, so that is what he played. His results were not phenomenal but he was no fish either. Most people point to Phil's first big break as being invited to the Larry Flynt game to play stud. He then followed that up by becoming one of the lead pros at Full Tilt Poker (he also crushed Andy Beal heads up saving the "corporation" from the disaster of losing to an amateur). In the beginning he was popular but nothing like what he is today. He would barely even promote the room in the beginning and some of the investors were actually taken aback by his nonchalance. In retrospect everything looks fine now but Ivey has a huge advantage over Daniel and virtually everyone else in poker, not only does he receive money from Full Tilt but he is good enough to win with it. For some reason the game still matters to him but it has to be at the right stakes and because of that Phil Ivey is the reigning king in all of poker, not just cash games or tournaments. He was in the right place at the right time and he was not controversial, put his income together with some mad skills and you have a potent combination. It should also be noted that Phil has a measure of ambivalence to tournament poker, while he has proven over time to be one of the best he turns it on and off based on motivation. Which makes it all the more impressive in my opinion.

Phil Hellmuth, the best No Limit Holdem Tournament Player

Phil Hellmuth - 11 World Series of Poker Bracelets defines Phil, if you do not believe so just criticize any aspect of his poker game and that will be the response you get. Phil mistakenly thinks that he is one of the top No Limit Hold em poker players when in fact he is probably the top in No Limit Hold em tournaments; there is a huge distinction there. What a lot of people do not remember is that UltimateBet was really the original version of what Full Tilt Poker became. Part of the reason is that the people behind the scenes did not see the value in a stable of pros when Phil Hellmuth was such a huge draw. Virtually every member of every site now had flirtations with UltimateBet at one point or another because their software was just so advanced for that time (there also were very few card rooms at the time and those that did exist did not see the value in touring pros). This was a good year or three before the "Moneymake effect" took place. While Phil was compensated decently for his promotion of the software it was nothing compared to what he makes now. He also has a bit of an inferiority complex because he bet on the wrong team, while he is clearly the biggest shining star at UltimateBet the Full Tilt Poker guys went on to great success and most people believe that the original shares of Full Tilt Poker are worth considerably more than what Phil makes and/or the shares he may or may not own in UltimateBet. With all that said Phil Hellmuth has had the benefit of income not related to poker for some time and he tirelessly works at his image.

Daniel Negreanu, the best tournament poker player

Daniel Negreanu - In 2004 Daniel had a run that might never be matched in all of poker (which happened to be at the exact best time for that to happen). In so doing he actually changed the way tournament poker was played by touring professionals. Sure others had tried his "small ball" approach but none were near as successful as he was in that time. His results since then have not been too shabby either, in tournaments. If you follow Daniel's blog at all (you should, it's a great read) you will notice that he has had three flirtations that have caused him misery. The first is cash games, being a touring pro and feeling the pressure of having to be the best at all forms of poker has weighed on Daniel. At his best he was serviceable in those games. I can tell you personally that many high limit pros do not see Daniel in the same way Daniel sees himself. The reasons are likely obvious, while someone like John Hennigan might be able to solely focus on cash games Daniel has many other interests and to be the very best at something you have to pick a niche. The second is golf, while in his blog he gave indications of his struggles and his passion to conquer the game privately it was rumored he lost a lot of money. None of that of course matters in the big scheme of things but Daniel is not believed to have the kind of money that the other two have (I feel like I have to say it like that but I think it is a foregone conclusion at this point). Which brings me to number three, Daniel's flirtations with various sponsors as it relates to poker. Daniel was supposed to be kind of a big deal for UltimateBet back in the day, he was refreshing and candid, and he also was not near as flush as he seems to be now. The original FullContactPoker was meant to promote UltimateBet. Their breakup was legendary on many levels and the reverberations are still being felt today. Next week on High Stakes Poker they are promoting a tense moment between Daniel and Howard Lederer. I am sure all of that is real innocent but Daniel's some time feuds with a lot of people in poker have cost him a lot of opportunity. While Phil Hellmuth is brash he knows when and who's ass to kiss at the right times, Daniel, not so much (which is one of the reasons he is so popular not so ironically). While he was a big fan of PokerStars (and really always has been) he had flirtations with Bodog and a few other card rooms. Eventually he was the promotional head of a skin branded as FullContactPoker and it was faced with bad fortune. Some of the problems he had were similar to the reasons he struggles in cash games, he is just spread too thin. The people that were in charge relied entirely too much on Daniel pushing the wagon. His deal with PokerStars is one of the biggest in the industry but it came after a string of failures. Some of those failures were just bad advice and some were just ego trips. Most of it though he just got unlucky. All of this sits as a backdrop of why Daniel is seemingly so bothered by the accusation that he is not a good cash game player. He just does not have the advantages that the other players have and while Phil Hellmuth might say he is the best No Limit Hold em poker player in the world he does not really believe that, if he did he would spend more time proving it. My advice to Daniel is to just appreciate his niche; he is by all accounts one of the top five tournament poker players in all of poker. That should be enough, sadly though I do not think it ever will be.

 

Tags: Articles   poker   2eazy   Phil   Ivey   Hellmuth   Daniel   Negreanu   High   Stakes   cash   games  

9 responses to Daniel Negreanu and Cash games - Does he suck?

Leave a reply

	Name (Required)
	Mail (Will not be published) (Required)
	Website (Required)