Daniel Negreanu vs Doug Polk (2 Viewers)

Who will win the heads up match?

  • Total voters
    187
Daniel was trying to spin a rake increase which will "deter" good regs from playing, which in turn is meant to attract new rec players because the games are easier.

These new rec players by and large will flame out really fast even against each other so the whole concept of raising the rake to attract new players is incredibly short-sighted, disingenuous, and above all else, scummy and predatory. The grinders, online pros, and even semi-regs that showed Pokerstars loyalty by paying rake for months or years on end then get told by the biggest poker luminary in the world, "Hey loyal player base! FUCK YOU! WE'RE GOING TO TAKE MORE FROM YOU AND YOU CAN SUCK IT! SEE THAT SHALLOW PUDDLE OVER THERE?! WE'RE GOING TO MAKE MORE MONEY OFF THAT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MAKING ENOUGH IN THIS QUARTER! YOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!"
 
Legend5555 said:
Bottom line though, more rake is always bad for an individual player's bottom line whether they are a rec or a pro.
Click to expand...
If all you are concerned about is the players bottom line, there should be no craps tables, and no roulette, as both games are bad for the player's bottom line.

Those games exist to entertain, not for the player's bottom line. There is a calculated loss per hour for the player. In poker, the player's loss per hour is determined largely by the opponents skill levels. If the better players steer clear of the "unbeatable" games, the relative time to get felted goes up. Players who expect a loss, get more play per dollar, and it keeps the game alive longer.

Sadly, now that the Mirage, the Excalibur, and Mandalay Bay are closing their poker rooms for good, we may see a demise of even more recreational players, as those were some of the best sub $100 games.
 
Poker Zombie said:
If all you are concerned about is the players bottom line, there should be no craps tables, and no roulette, as both games are bad for the player's bottom line.

Those games exist to entertain, not for the player's bottom line. There is a calculated loss per hour for the player. In poker, the player's loss per hour is determined largely by the opponents skill levels. If the better players steer clear of the "unbeatable" games, the relative time to get felted goes up. Players who expect a loss, get more play per dollar, and it keeps the game alive longer.

Sadly, now that the Mirage, the Excalibur, and Mandalay Bay are closing their poker rooms for good, we may see a demise of even more recreational players, as those were some of the best sub $100 games.
Click to expand...
That doesn't invalidate my point. I'm not arguing a site should make no money. That obviously makes no sense. And there is a difference between rake in poker vs. playing against the house when the house edge is essentially known.

But there is a line for rake. And I'm just not a fan of saying "let's increase rake so the good players stop playing in these games so we can take all the money off the recs ourselves." Maybe they have some math that shows they make more this way, but it's obviously not customer friendly to raise rake. Even when the excuse is to chase away pros. That's just my opinion.
 
Legend5555 said:
That doesn't invalidate my point. I'm not arguing a site should make no money. That obviously makes no sense. And there is a difference between rake in poker vs. playing against the house when the house edge is essentially known.

But there is a line for rake. And I'm just not a fan of saying "let's increase rake so the good players stop playing in these games so we can take all the money off the recs ourselves." Maybe they have some math that shows they make more this way, but it's obviously not customer friendly to raise rake. Even when the excuse is to chase away pros. That's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

If the rake is so high that the pros won't play in the games, what kind of profit can the recs expect to make? It's essentially setting up the system so that ONLY the poker room wins and none of the players do in the end.

Let's assume the recs flood the games because the pros leave due to the rake. Well, if the games are THAT good and filled with bad recs, but the pros still stay away, it means they're passing up a juicy as fuck set of games because even with their skill against a soft lineup they cannot hope to beat the rake. The recs aren't going to do any better.
 
You guys are completely missing the point, the fact is it’s a debatable and interesting topic. DNegs didn’t just say “more rake is better“ and come across like a brain dead moron, he had a point and I don’t agree with it, but it’s not gonna make me hate a guy.
 
Higher raked poker games in Vegas have been profitable for me, and Mrs Zombie. We don't fare nearly as well in the lower raked (by percentage of the pot) games. I don't know if P* rake made the game unmanageable for rec players, since I don't play online.

Sure, I hate rake as much as the next guy. I used to plan my Vegas trip's poker excursions around the lowest raked rooms. It didn't take long to notice that I enjoyed myself more with a friendlier crowd, and those crowds played in higher raked games - they simply played like they just didn't care.

In the end, select the game that best suits you. That is the point Daniel was trying to make. Too many people just read it as "The best game is where the poker room takes your whole buy-in, then charges you a 10% service fee." That just simply isn't what he was saying.
 
Poker Zombie said:
Higher raked poker games in Vegas have been profitable for me, and Mrs Zombie. We don't fare nearly as well in the lower raked (by percentage of the pot) games. I don't know if P* rake made the game unmanageable for rec players, since I don't play online.

Sure, I hate rake as much as the next guy. I used to plan my Vegas trip's poker excursions around the lowest raked rooms. It didn't take long to notice that I enjoyed myself more with a friendlier crowd, and those crowds played in higher raked games - they simply played like they just didn't care.

In the end, select the game that best suits you. That is the point Daniel was trying to make. Too many people just read it as "The best game is where the poker room takes your whole buy-in, then charges you a 10% service fee." That just simply isn't what he was saying.
Click to expand...
Right! At tournaments in Fowoods, Mohegan Sun, and Encore, where the rakes are low, I'm not significantly above break even. At the NH cardrooms, where the rakes are very high, I do very well in the tournaments. It has nothing to do with the rake and all to do with the different populations of players. Its all about game selection. If rake figures into that, directly or indirectly, great. If not, great.
 
Imagine I said “more profit is better” and got lambasted, when I really wanted to make a point how companies need to stay afloat and it benefits the consumer by having a better product for X reasons, but someone took me out of context and said:

“Scott said more profit is better!” And got all anti corporate.
Context matters guys, can’t spell it out any clearer. Even if you disagree, which is fair, Doug was a dick about it. The billboard was childish shit. And btw, I like him too! He cracks me up.
 
Poker Zombie said:
In the end, select the game that best suits you. That is the point Daniel was trying to make. Too many people just read it as "The best game is where the poker room takes your whole buy-in, then charges you a 10% service fee." That just simply isn't what he was saying.
Click to expand...

Any decent to great online player already exercises great game selection. But when the room tells you that you're already going to be making X amount less because of higher rakes and your tenure / past business means absolutely nothing going forward AND you're not the primary market for their operation anymore (even though you and thousands of similar players like you have made Stars massive profits already) AND you see Daniel Negreanu, vaunted elite professional actually extolling the VIRTUES of the whole premise, how do you give him the benefit of the doubt?

That's akin to Elon Musk coming out to say, "Hey Tesla owners! We're stopping production and support for all our electric vehicles because they're too costly as an industry as a whole! Here's our new 4x4 truck that chugs diesel like you won't believe! All the people who aren't in our market share is who we're going after now, see you later!"
 
Kain8 said:
Any decent to great online player already exercises great game selection. But when the room tells you that you're already going to be making X amount less because of higher rakes and your tenure / past business means absolutely nothing going forward AND you're not the primary market for their operation anymore (even though you and thousands of similar players like you have made Stars massive profits already) AND you see Daniel Negreanu, vaunted elite professional actually extolling the VIRTUES of the whole premise, how do you give him the benefit of the doubt?
Click to expand...
I just don't know why you'd make a big deal about it. If the rake is too high don't play. Ultimately the market will decide, right?
Doug's campaign against Daniel was 10% about poker/rake and 90% about grudge/clickbait.
As I've said before, it was good of Doug to call him out on it - those are the conversations we need. But videos and videos and videos and t-shirts and billboards?
 
Kain8 said:
Any decent to great online player already exercises great game selection. But when the room tells you that you're already going to be making X amount less because of higher rakes and your tenure / past business means absolutely nothing going forward AND you're not the primary market for their operation anymore (even though you and thousands of similar players like you have made Stars massive profits already) AND you see Daniel Negreanu, vaunted elite professional actually extolling the VIRTUES of the whole premise, how do you give him the benefit of the doubt?

That's akin to Elon Musk coming out to say, "Hey Tesla owners! We're stopping production and support for all our electric vehicles because they're too costly as an industry as a whole! Here's our new 4x4 truck that chugs diesel like you won't believe! All the people who aren't in our market share is who we're going after now, see you later!"
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, didn't P* lower their rakes? Then decide to raise rakes, on just the lowest cost tables back to the pre-cut level? The amount of "massive profits" they get off sub $1 tables probably doesn't move P* profit needle at all. It might make all the bots left to harvest the fish at low levels unprofitable though.

upNdown said:
But videos and videos and videos and t-shirts and billboards?
Click to expand...
I have to admit, I saw the billboard driving through Vegas. I bust out laughing. Sometimes, the troll is funny - even if he is just a troll.
 
I know he's obviously a good player but I don't recall the last time I saw DN win a cash game session....HSP, PAD, etc
 
upNdown said:
Daniel had a great session wednesday and another great session today and he's caught up. He's actually ahead by 10 or 20 grand now, about 10 percent of the way into the challenge.
edit - 1737 hands played, Daniel + $25,916
Click to expand...
The folks on dougs channel were pretty smug during the first session. Gotta catch up on the most recent :D
 
JK_Poker said:
Yes, but after the challenge is complete the rake will be split and returned to the players. At least that’s what the commentators said earlier today on the live stream.
Click to expand...

Weird way to do it, but okay. I guess they didn't build a simple switch on the software.
 
Huh, funny how Polk's so quickly lost all his arrogant trolling remarks towards Negreanu already. This from Polk's twitter:

The worst part of todays session wasnt getting stacked repeatedly for 200k, it was also seeing dnegs making less and less errors in other pots. If the challenge keeps going this direction may need to trade in the truck for a used honda civic.
Click to expand...
 
I'm pretty sure they could have played rake-free on ggpoker, but that's Daniel's home turf, so doug wasn't having it.
 
Another nice session by DNegs. Now up $150K. I love how Polk bitches when players don't "play properly" according to him lol. From Polk's twitter:

Lose 220k in a session to man flatting QQ vs an open, and then go on twitter and have Bilzerian talking shit. This is my life now.
Click to expand...
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

aaron2786
I get away from a lot, but this one? Thoughts?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
shorticus
shorticus
Anthony Martino
I got hired as Director of Player Growth & Retention by Georgetown Poker
2 3
Replies
69
Views
4K
ThrowBack
T
L
Tourney Thoughts for small charity church tournament?
Replies
19
Views
499
BGinGA
BGinGA
BryantRC
Lee County Poker Club
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
TX_Golf_N_Poker
TX_Golf_N_Poker
BamaT8ter
NYC Illegals Mixed Set - A Rounders Tribute
Replies
26
Views
2K
RudysNYC
RudysNYC
Back
Top Bottom