Bigger Deal

Daniel’s wrong, I’m $10,000 Sure

By Lee Jones

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 Team. This is a professional disagreement that he and I are having, nothing more.

So, during the WCOOP 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:

It is down to the final three players of a no-limit hold’em tournament. The players are Daniel Negreanu, Jennifer Harman, and me. [1] 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, while I’m making my decision. [2]

Under current TDA rules (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:

Howard Lederer
Chris Ferguson
Andy Bloch
Greg Raymer
Bill Chen

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 Bigger Deal, 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 PokerStars Caribbean Adventure.

[1] Such a three-way final would almost certainly involve at least half a dozen heinous suckouts on my part. Back

[2] Again, if that wasn’t Daniel’s argument, then this is all moot and I apologize for wasting everybody’s time. Back

Posted by Lee Jones on October 5th, 2007 in Poker.
Comments: 12

Play Poker

Play Poker Against Lee Jones - sign up now to play in the monthly tournament with all Bigger Deal's writers

Comments

Pingback from Poker Information » Daniel’s wrong, I’m $10,000 Sure
Time: October 6, 2007, 9:58 am

[...] card during the play of the hand that its part of the games strategy. What really bugged source: Daniels wrong, Im $10,000 Sure, Bigger [...]

Comment from Johnny Hughes
Time: October 7, 2007, 6:45 pm

We still play where you can show a card or much more importantly, ask to see a card in the illegal games in Texas.

The classic example of this is Jack “Treetop” Straus offering to show either of his cards for a green chip. He had wired sevens. I think a seven and an eight would make a nut straight.
The guy looked and folded.

It is incredibly rare when showing one of your cards will help you out. Give me some examples. A better angle is to say, “Show me one card.” People wil show you or start or not start a conversation.

What irritates me is that showing one card to claim a pot is allowed. If someone folds, often the winner will show one of his cards which is fine. As they say, a monkey shows his ass and a sucker shows his hand.

Comment from Grub Smith
Time: October 10, 2007, 10:19 am

I look forward to seeing the result of this. But you may be stuck for more than ten grand, Lee. To quote your piece: Daniel said, “I call your $5,000 and raise you $10,000″. That makes $15,000 each if you call the bet… Even though you later redefine the terms of your bet, this might count as a “verbal”.

Glad you can afford it!

Comment from Lee Jones
Time: October 12, 2007, 12:32 am

Hey Grub -
I heard Daniel’s “I call $5K and raise $10K” comment. The string raise aside :-), I’m perfectly willing to bet him $15K given the other condition of my bet (i.e. that it be adjudicated by three of the five illustrious people named). My bankroll’s probably not as big as you think it is, but suffice it to say, this bet (even at $15K) is comfortably within Kelly, given my edge.

Regards, Lee

Comment from Bob Woolley
Time: October 12, 2007, 2:22 am

I assume that what you’re getting at is a situation in which a player not involved in the hand is demonstrably hurt by one player in the hand showing his only opponent a card while the hand is still in play. I don’t think you’ll have any difficulty making the point that such can occur, given very specific circumstances.

But when I’ve heard Daniel discuss this point before (he does every chance he gets, it seems–including one of his Card Player columns a couple of months ago), he appears to be making it in the context of the tournament as a whole.

I wonder if you think that your argument (assuming I’m right about what it is–that the exposure of a card can cause financial disadvantage to a player not involved in the hand) is fairly generalizable to, say, the first rounds of a tournament, long before the money bubble is reached.

If I’m right about your point, and right that you’d agree that you can’t really stretch your point that far, then I’m curious what you’d think about modifying the rule–perhaps making it only applicable to the final table, or when the money has been reached, or within X number of places of reaching the money. Would any such alternatives strike you as a reasonable compromise between the kind of concern you apparently have and the arguments Daniel has put forward about how the rule restricts the traditional psychological/gamesmanship/tactical aspects of playing against an opponent?

Comment from Lee Jones
Time: October 12, 2007, 12:41 pm

Hi Bob - I don’t know you, but you’re an articulate and thoughtful writer; thank you for being here. I’d rather not discuss my position any further until Daniel and I make our bet (or don’t). If some reasonable statute of limitations passes and I can’t get Daniel’s attention on the matter, then I’d be happy - delighted - to discuss your thesis.

Regards, Lee

Comment from cindy
Time: October 14, 2007, 12:47 pm

Anyone taking side bets on this one?

Comment from Lee Jones
Time: October 18, 2007, 10:09 am

Hi all -
Daniel Negreanu sent me an email replying to my challenge. It’s clear that he and I will not agree on this, and that’s fine. Reasonable men may disagree on some things.

He has graciously given me permission to post his reply here - I append it below without comment.

Regards, Lee
====================
A couple things, you actually said that you could prove it to ME and that remains impossible as “I” would be the judge- hence me not taking the free money. Aside from that, I already know exactly how you are going to try to “prove it” and I have a counter argument that takes the steam out of your point If this rule is such an important rule to protect the integrity of the game then you would also HAVE to add a rule where there can be no bluffing into dry side pots on the river as a bluff. Not just that rule, but so many other rules would have to be implemented anytime a bad player makes a foolish move that allows a player to remain in a tournament. That’s a long story but I’ll leave it there.

Your list of judges, is, well, how do I put it, beyond laughable! You assembled five people who would not only never use such a ploy, but each and every one of them would suffer from it being reinstated. You took five guys who never even show their cards at the end of a hand! Five guys who approach the game from a mathematical persective. No Hellmuth, Reese, Doyle Brunson, Todd Brunson, Jennifer Harman, Phil Ivey, John Juanda, Sammy Farha, etc. These are feel players who would all benefit from the added psychological warfare.

In other words, your list of judges os worse than a stacked deck!

********* I completely understand how player A giving player B information in a given hand could have a negative effect on player C (it could also have a positive effect btw) but that is true about so many instances in a poker tournament where a player makes a poor tactical error. As in, chip leader has big blind of 1000 in the pot, short stack goes all in for 1150 and big blind folds.

You simply can’t “prove” something that is opinion based and that’s why I don’t want to take the free money. You are completely drawing dead… unless of course I agreed to play with your stacked deck!

Comment from neil
Time: October 26, 2007, 9:00 pm

i must say,quite an interesting argument,i wont get philiophical about the whole thing,but if it was a rule,then it should be,if it wasnt,then it shouldnt b,but yes quite an interesting argument even tho im not sure if its just daniels idea or just an old rule that was pushed to one side,probably saved me some money at the tables as well so ty
neil

Pingback from Lee Jones or Daniel Negreanau - Poker Forums
Time: October 30, 2007, 9:36 pm

[...] players of a no-limit hold�em tournament. The players are Daniel Negreanu, Jennifer Harman, and me. [1] The remaining payoffs in this tournament are $1,300,000, $700,000, and $400,000 for first, second, [...]

Comment from Rick Theobald
Time: November 5, 2007, 11:56 am

Lee,

I’ve read Daniel’s recent objections to this rule, although I missed the genesis of your proposed bet. As I understand the situation, Daniel is not prepared to accept the terms you proposed and I wonder if this lifts your self imposed ban on discussing the matter further.

I am in agreement with Bob Wooley that, at different times in a tournament, the revelation of half of your hand is unlikely to have a direct effect on the fortunes of others, however, I would also argue that it becomes difficult to draw a clear line on when the rule would need to be imposed. Bob suggests after the money bubble has broken, but what if the tournament is a satellite paying numerous, flat prizes where the bubble is far more crucial?

Basically, having heard Daniel’s opinion on the matter, I’d like to hear your side. Do you still hope to seal a bet with amended terms, or will you post your own thoughts on the matter?

Rick Theobald.

Comment from Joe
Time: November 30, 2007, 6:09 pm

It sounds like Daniel has a lot of confidence in his position, and I’m sure the money isn’t a big deal for him. The issue seems to be with your choices for the three judges.

How about this:
Make a long list of respected pokers pros. Come up with, say, 50 or 100 people. Then to ensure fairness, select five of them at random. Those are the judges. Having 5 judges will result in less luck (or “variance”) in the verdict than only using 3 judges. Whoever gets the most votes wins the argument.