Is Daniel right or wrong?

[Shells]

A polarizing figure like Daniel Negreanu knows that when he opens his mouth, critics will be there ready to argue. So, Daniel tweeted characteristics of a poker player who is good and bad for poker, and some felt his comments were “arrogant” and out of line. What is your opinion of Daniel's list?


Daniel Negreanu Shares Five Things That Make a Player ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ for Poker

 

[benitwapasu]

I dont think quiet introverted people are less nice than outgoing people nor are they bad for the game--in fact sometimes I wish some of the blabbers would just shut up. But us introverts have a tough time getting enough quality posts on cardschat to become freeroll members because we never have much to say.

 

[Pryakin D]

A polarizing figure like Daniel Negreanu knows that when he opens his mouth, critics will be there ready to argue. So, Daniel tweeted characteristics of a poker player who is good and bad for poker, and some felt his comments were “arrogant” and out of line. What is your opinion of Daniel's list?


Daniel Negreanu Shares Five Things That Make a Player ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ for Poker

I think he is right

 

[Shells]

I dont think quiet introverted people are less nice than outgoing people nor are they bad for the game--in fact sometimes I wish some of the blabbers would just shut up. But us introverts have a tough time getting enough quality posts on cardschat to become freeroll members because we never have much to say.

You might be right to some extent. I believe it is a personal preference whether or not people like the chatterboxes at a table or not, I suppose.

As far as getting enough quality posts in CardsChat, I think you do very well!

 

[Shells]

I think he is right

You think he is right on every point? whether a player is good for poker or bad for poker?

 

[akjordan16]

Haters

Dan is right, haters got to get paid some how.

 

[el_magiciann]

i think he is all the way right

 

[Uiliam]

I think he is right ^^

 

[bright019]

I don´t like putting a stamp on people in general. I am not sure that I understand what he means. If he means good or bad for poker as in entertainment then he is right on some points. At the last coverage of the PCA the main table was entertaining to watch because there was a lot of interacting between the players. It was almost like a friendly game.
But if he means that his points determines if a person is a good or bad poker player he is very wrong i.m.o.

 

[Shells]

I don´t like putting a stamp on people in general. I am not sure that I understand what he means. If he means good or bad for poker as in entertainment then he is right on some points. At the last coverage of the PCA the main table was entertaining to watch because there was a lot of interacting between the players. It was almost like a friendly game.
But if he means that his points determines if a person is a good or bad poker player he is very wrong i.m.o.

I think Daniel could be making his points for players that are 'good' or 'bad' for poker. A list for good poker players and bad poker players might be a little different.

 

[playinggameswithu]

What is good for poker is opportunity. People saw the moneymaker win for what it is a flickering of opportunity for MTT players....while cash game has no opportunity since the rake is high frequency, split pot,no flop rake, revenue based and the game is infested with fanatics which the typical person cannot compete with in the long run or even much of the short run.

No one really cares about personalities unless they are superficial stupid and ignorant. people want a structure to hit it big.They want a real gamble without -EV.

 

[Poker Orifice]

I think he's an idiot. So if he's on my table I am definitely 1/5 for being negative.
I think he's a pompous jerk... & suggesting that players who lose money are good for poker. Well no eff'n kidding... but really... do you advertise that by speaking out about it? I think it's disrespectful tbh.

 

[Amanda A]

I think he is kind of right. Zero personality robots playing poker is not fun to watch. But I don't think you need to be loud to have personality or be interesting to watch. Some quiet people can still have a lot of charisma.

 

[FastOne]

Some of his points I think can be both critized or in favor of depending on the reason behind them. But, the one I'm 100% against is that to lose money means to be a "good" poker player. And if you tend to win money, that means you are a "bad" poker player. I can't believe he wrote that, to be honest.

 

[smknginmaine]

I think Daniel could be making his points for players that are 'good' or 'bad' for poker. A list for good poker players and bad poker players might be a little different.

Well said. I 100% agree. I'm near certain that's exactly what he meant. This list isn't what makes one a good or bad player- rather what's good or bad for the game.
If wining makes you a bad player..... I want to be the WORST EVER

 

[Shells]

Well said. I 100% agree. I'm near certain that's exactly what he meant. This list isn't what makes one a good or bad player- rather what's good or bad for the game.
If winning makes you a bad player..... I want to be the WORST EVER

Me too!

 

[bright019]

I think Daniel could be making his points for players that are 'good' or 'bad' for poker. A list for good poker players and bad poker players might be a little different.

Then he has some good points.

 

[roger perkins]

I think people are getting confused he is saying good for poker not good or bad poker player. Since poker is a TV event it is good to have personalities and chatter and back and forth and quick action. Those are things that make you continue to watch. Have you ever sat and watched a local like a Heartland Poker Tournament. Not many personalities not a lot of talking and not a lot of audience watching them

 

[ekgbeat]

So based on Daniel's own tweet, he is not good for poker. I think that he is leading the conversation for how to improve poker's imagine.

5 things that make you good for a poker game:

Lose Money
Act Quickly
Friendly/Engaging
Generous/Give Action
Positive Attitude

If you are 4 of these things but also win money, you are likely to be a pleasant addition to any poker game.

I would say that Daniel is not Lose Money and does not Give Action. You cannot be a winning poker play IN THE LONG run if you have leaks like that. I would say that Daniel is a winning player in the long run.




https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/1087399004097277952

 

[RutgersOneTime]

I think all of these are really just opinions. There is a reason why not every casino looks and feels the same. The same with online card rooms, people have different preferences and people also don't stick to their one preference usually. Something that may make you like a game today, may make you dislike it next week.

 

[HeyMan]

Negreanu’s comments are probably a wee bit out of line ~ 3 out of 5 I would agree with ~@@~

 

[SouthparkSith]

So based on Daniel's own tweet, he is not good for poker. I think that he is leading the conversation for how to improve poker's imagine.

5 things that make you good for a poker game:

Lose Money
Act Quickly
Friendly/Engaging
Generous/Give Action
Positive Attitude

If you are 4 of these things but also win money, you are likely to be a pleasant addition to any poker game.

I would say that Daniel is not Lose Money and does not Give Action. You cannot be a winning poker play IN THE LONG run if you have leaks like that. I would say that Daniel is a winning player in the long run.




https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/1087399004097277952

So really think about this? You don't think he gives action?

How many times have you seen curiosity get the better of him and he flat says he knows he's beat but just wants to see what his opponent is holding? That's giving action in my book?

I think this whole thing is taken way out of context. This guy is thinking 3 moves ahead. He's giving me the impression that poker being mega televised again is the end goal and that those are the traits or personalities they must have for it to be popular again.

So if that's the goal then yeah he's absolutely right. As scary as this sounds would you rather watch nine Phil Laak's at a table? Or nine silent clones?

I'd personally love to see a full table of Laak's that's payper view quality stuff in my book.

 

[Jayplay916]

Well for me i dont even have to read his comments to say i know he was arrogant. I look at it like this the pedastal that the poker community has put this guy on is pretty high. I mean Daniel is pretty much been handed the Best Poker Player In The World Title so it probabley makes him think he invented poker and his way is the way and his thoughts are what everyone is to think is how poker should be

 

[Poker_Mike]

It's not about a "good" or "bad" player.

It's about the "perfect" player to have at the table.

8 players that are friendly and very quickly put lots of money in the pot and lose the hand are perfect to have at the table.

Good luck !

 

[Backlash]

I don't believe he genuinely thinks this privately. I think it just Kid being Kid. He loves to rattle the cage...LOL...and see what feathers he can ruffle.