Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="withawedge, post: 647395, member: 11677"] All, The following is taken from Lee Jones's blog. A good discussion point and one I agree with Lee on. You decide. [I]Note: Daniel Negreanu is not only a great poker player, but he’s one of the nicest guys in the business – a true gentleman. PokerStars did really well to get him onto their [URL="http://www.pokerstars.com/team-pokerstars/daniel-negreanu/"][COLOR=#0000ff]Team[/COLOR][/URL][/I][I]. This is a professional disagreement that he and I are having, nothing more.[/I] So, during the [URL="http://www.pokerstars.com/wcoop/"][COLOR=#0000ff]WCOOP[/COLOR][/URL] main event last week, Daniel Negreanu was the guest host on the radio coverage that PokerStars does for the tournament. During that coverage, he made some comments about tournament rules. There was one particular comment he made that really rubbed me the wrong way. In essence, he said that if two players are in a tournament hand heads-up (even with other players still in the tournament), that one of the players should be allowed to show a single card during the play of the hand – that it’s part of the game’s strategy. What really bugged me was that he said that it was tournament directors (i.e. people like me) just overusing their authority and that was why this rule existed. I took issue with that in the final table chat, saying that there’s sound mathematical grounding for such a rule. I even offered to bet Daniel $5,000 that I was right and he was wrong. He saw the chat and said “I call your $5,000 and raise you $10,000.” Well, the radio discussion turned elsewhere, and obviously we were both giving most of our attention to the WCOOP final table. But I want to come back to this topic, (1) because it’s important, and (2) Money won in a bet from Daniel Negreanu would have a much higher exchange rate than a normal American dollar. Winning $10,000 from Daniel in a prop bet would be almost like winning £10,000. Just in case I misunderstood Daniel’s point, I’d like to set the context of our discussion. If I did misinterpret Daniel’s remark, well, I’m very sorry. Anyway, here’s what I think the argument is about: [B]It is down to the final three players of a no-limit hold’em tournament. The players are Daniel Negreanu, Jennifer Harman, and me. [URL="http://www.biggerdeal.com/2007/10/05/daniel%e2%80%99s-wrong-i%e2%80%99m-10000-sure/#1"][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/URL] The remaining payoffs in this tournament are $1,300,000, $700,000, and $400,000 for first, second, and third. In one particular hand, Jennifer is on the button and folds. Daniel moves all-in from the small blind – it is up to me on the big blind. I’m not sure what to do, and go into the tank. Daniel, either hoping to get a call or a fold, would like to show me one of his cards, [I]while I’m making my decision[/I]. [URL="http://www.biggerdeal.com/2007/10/05/daniel%e2%80%99s-wrong-i%e2%80%99m-10000-sure/#1"][COLOR=#0000ff][2][/COLOR][/URL] [/B] Under current [URL="http://www.pokertda.com/rules.htm"][COLOR=#0000ff]TDA rules[/COLOR][/URL] (specifically rule #31) Daniel is not permitted to show me either of his cards. If he does, he will receive a penalty – probably a “time out” away from the table, during which he will be blinded off. I claim that this rule is good – in fact, necessary – for the integrity of the tournament, and that there’s a sound mathematical basis for this rule. Daniel claims that it’s tournament directors overstepping their authority and removes an important aspect of poker strategy. So, each of us could continue to proclaim that he’s right, or we could settle the matter as two gentlemen would, with a wager. I suggest $10,000. Of course, we’ll need an arbiter. We want somebody who is objective and well respected in the poker community. Here’s my suggestion – take the following list of people: [LIST=1] [*] Howard Lederer [*] Chris Ferguson [*] Andy Bloch [*] Greg Raymer [*] Bill Chen[/LIST]Pick any three of them. In fact, Daniel can pick which three he wants. We each submit our argument to a public forum (here at [URL="http://www.biggerdeal.com/"][COLOR=#810081]Bigger Deal[/COLOR][/URL], Daniel’s blog, whatever). The three judges review the two arguments and each announces his verdict. Best two of three judges wins. Oh, and the loser has to stop claiming that he’s right, along with paying the winner $10,000. Now, to make this fair, neither Daniel nor I can discuss this with anybody before we make the bet. We’ve made our positions known in public. I’ve gotten a couple of emails about the dispute already and have said I’m not discussing it further until Daniel and I seal the deal. In particular, neither of us can ask any of the judges or similar experts until we’ve got money down on the table. Let’s each of us just go into battle with what we already have. Furthermore, please do not post your theories about this to this site. Let’s wait until the bet happens (or doesn’t). So Daniel, c’mon out into the street and let’s see who’s right. The loser can pay up at the [URL="http://www.pokerstars.com/caribbean-adventure/"][COLOR=#0000ff]PokerStars Caribbean Adventure[/COLOR][/URL]. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us