Daniel Negreanu = overrated?

I was watching the High Stakes Poker videos on YouTube...

Daniel Negreanu has brought $1,000,000 to the table, but has managed to lose about $500,000 of it (oops! ), when other players are only buying in for around $100,000.

There's another clip of him laying down the nut flush because he thinks Todd Brunson has a full house and has been slow-playing (he hasn't, and he has been playing slow because he has nothing), and one of him unable to lay down a small full house on the river when Gus Hansen check-raises all-in with quads.

Maybe he's just been unlucky? But the guy seems really good at losing huge bundles of cash.

I think that Daniel does play some solid tournament poker, more or less, which is how he won player of the year a couple years ago. And he has shown well. But, IMO, he's been a donk for about 70% of the high stakes poker episodes. Yeah he's taken some tough beats, but many of them have. Ultimately I do think he is overrated.

I don't think so. He is 2nd or 3rd all-time in tournament winnings and has made many times that at the cash tables. I will try to find the article to back up what I have said.

Didnt he lose the bulk of his money to quads? that is kinda rough... he got lucky " " and flopped the nuts and then couldnt lay it down.


He usually has an uncanny read on players. I don't think he is overrated, but he speaks his mind, and is right often enough to get attention.

I watched both seasons in their entirety and I think I can count about 4-5 hands total that DN played badly or got bluffed. The rest of the time his big losses were a result of mostly extreme bad luck. Things like his nut straight getting sucked out by a flush or his boat beat by quads. He's still the best overall hand reader at that table and most tables. Also, I think he buys in for so much because he wants to be able to intimidate with his stacks of bills and doesn't want people thinking they can push on him if he gets low.

I haven't seen either but Daniel N. is one of my favorite players with an uncanny ability to read his opponents. I like him and don't think he's overated. If you wanna talk overrated just look at Gus Hansen. The most overated player..... probably the most responsible for the amount of all-in idiot donk any 2 card assholes on the net.

Oh likely very, very true. I'm not a huge fan of his for mostly this reason.

I do find, though, that while Gus often donks it up pre-flop, he gets very lucky a lot post flop and often had the uncanny ability to make tough calls (correctly) with questionable hands and to lay down some big hands, too.

But, I guess to me, what it boils down to is that most, if not all of the pros out there are somewhat overrated to some extent, and some more overrated than others. On the flipside, though, there are plenty of players that are underrated, too. But that's a whole different thread.

On an unrelated note, this was post # 1111. Make a wish.

I have seen Gus make some great laydowns as well, and I don't want to be overly critical but I definately think his wild style has a bunch of 16yr. olds tossing all their chips in a pot with crap, hoping to get lucky and never really caring about actually learning about poker. They think it's Lotto or a big video game or something.

Nah...Danny's the king. Mark my words; you'll see much more of him in the future, alongside Ivey aswell. I think they will be remembered as the poker greats.

While Gus is pretty to look at.. Danny is the man! No way is he overrated. Like others have said, his uncanny ability to read players/hands is nothing short of phenominal! Danny ---->

Of all the so-called superstars of poker i do think he is probably my favourite, he seems fairly human enough to enjoy the game and have a laugh, even at himself.

I know most commentators often put this down to him trying to get to read opponents - he seems just the same 'off table' or when not in a pot.

He has made some amazing reads especially in the WSOP of 2005 - it was in the middle of his 'non-winning' run but he was still putting everyone on exactley the right hands, it was just the hands were beating him.
So instead of losing he had to fold, so his radar was perfect even if he couldnt win anything.

I have seen all but the last 4 of season 2 of High Stakes (great shows i think) and i dont think you could blame him alone for the mad donk hands that are played - Sammy Farha for starters (is he allergic to paint cards lol), Jennifer Harman sucking out a straight to Helmuths QQ (82 hole cards).

Overall - is he overrated, my opinion No, he deserves the rating

Enjoy and Peace

I dont hink anyone would fold 66655 on a board of 87655?

I dont think hes over rated. He has had some bad luck and gone on some bad streaks recently, but dont we all?

He made a bunch of great reads in the 06 ME and is a great player.

He does seem extremely nice and is a great player but the purpose of him being all friendly and chatty at the table is to get other players to loosen up. If everyone is silent and grumpy at the table the play tend to be more tight with less money going into the pot. Get them all to relax and be buddy buddy and watch all the chips flow into the pots. Try it, it works.

I only wish I was as overrated as him

For the record I think he's a great player and personality. Just seems to have had quite a few unlucky beats and the odd donkey moment in the High Stakes Poker TV shows.

I think Daniel is a great personality and very good at reading. His calling of flops is both entertaining and scary at times.

But I still feel he's overrated. So what that he was 2004 Player of the Year? He only has 3 bracelets, last time he won a bracelet was in 2004 when the poker boom was just getting started. Madsen and Chen each got 2 this year. If one or both of them got another 2 next year, how would that shape your opinion of Daniel?

I've seen Daniel Negreanu make some great laydowns. Being a steller laydowner (if you've got a better word for this, let me know) of course means that there will be times that you'll lay down the best hand. I saw his full house vs. Gus Hansen's quads and I think it's really tough to blame him for that. Yes, he could have conceivably laid it down, but he's going against the ultra-aggressive Gus Hansen with a good full house. It's a lot to ask of any poker player. He's only human. I think he's rated, for the most part, just fine... many rate him as one of the best poker players out there, and I think that's what he is.

I've seen Phil Ivey make bad reads, bluff himself right out of tournaments, and so on, but I still agree he's another one of the best poker players there is. Not only are they going to make mistakes now and then, but they do this for hours on end... there's no way they're going to be at 100% sharpness and focusedness at all times.

In Danny's pic on Wikipedia, he bears an uncanny resemblance to George Michael. Gus Hansen just looks like an alien. But then I'm a bloke so I don't understand these things.

This bloke agrees with you.

No.


As of Aug. 2006:

Danny's 25 WSOP money finished & $8,400,00 compared to Gus Hansen's 1 money finish at the WSOP with no bracelets & $3,500,000 in live tournament winnings=If anything, Hansen is much more over-rated.