Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="vwls, post: 2787320, member: 153860"] I don't understand your point about slow rolling. Is that the same as "slow playing"? [Edit: I figured out that it is not, but I'm typing this at work, so I don't have time to format my correction.] If so, I don't see how that reflects on Negreanu's character. Also, when you say that not everyone likes originality, maybe it is more that different people appreciate different types of originality. Maybe Negreanu is original in a way that you don't appreciate, in the same way that you feel that Schwartz is original in a way that others don't appreciate. Never mind what I said about slow rolling. I looked it up. Didn't Schwartz do something similar in the video? When Cannuli had two-pair and Schwartz checked back in lieu of bluffing, he took a few moments to reveal that his hand was no good. The other players were visibly perplexed as to whether Cannuli had the best hand or not, because Schwartz took his time in either mucking or revealing his losing hand. Also, when Schwartz bluffed Steinberg with K3o and eventually showed one card, was the way that he went about this action not showmanship? In Schwartz's own words, "[...] all talk and actions at table [sic] are purely strategic and judging people for it is irrational. Its just a persona, an act. I'm better at it than Dnegs too [...] Everything any pro says or does at a poker table can and should be considered an act." In his 2+2 post that is linked to earlier in this thread, he admits to employing these strategies in the same way that you are finding fault with Negreanu for doing. I am not arguing for or against Negreanu or Schwartz. I only mean to say that the implied contrast between the two may be fallacious, at least when solely regarded on the basis of each one's character. They seem to be very similar individuals, though they may have found different motivations in their lives. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us