David Peters broke owing money to many people
https://x.com/DylanLinde/status/20464123...
I deeply regret doing business with David Peters. Last summer Davi
You beat me to the "more rake is better" rubbish, on top of that he comes across as a patronizing git.
All that said I respect what he has done well for poker and his skills, just not the kind of person I would hang out with but whatever, the world would be boring if we were all the same I guess.
You mean sponsorship deals right? Imagine getting paid millions of dollars per year to be the face of a poker site and be tilted out of your mind in a 1k tournament on said site.
Taking statements out of context (that were 100% correct, and he is 100% correct that in certain circumstances, higher rake can drive all the pros out of a game and make it better) do more to make you look like a bad guy than DN.
I remember getting absolutely roasted on here for saying this but it's absolutely correct to a point. At the end of the day rake is just another opponent. Act accordingly.
Taking statements out of context (that were 100% correct, and he is 100% correct that in certain circumstances, higher rake can drive all the pros out of a game and make it better) do more to make you look like a bad guy than DN.
I'm not taking anything out of context you dweeb
And thats just the biggest most famous prominent example. I don't really want to get into the other things that make him a hypocritical elitist because thats not what this forum is for.
Long ago, in a Playboy interview, they asked Gene Simmons how women he'd been with and he replied something like, "fourteen thousand six hundred thirty and change".
Sorry, but if I win $330 playing cash, I'll probably just say I won "about 4".
Taking statements out of context (that were 100% correct, and he is 100% correct that in certain circumstances, higher rake can drive all the pros out of a game and make it better) do more to make you look like a bad guy than DN.
I remember getting absolutely roasted on here for saying this but it's absolutely correct to a point. At the end of the day rake is just another oppone
An opponent you can never get lucky and beat. And whereas it is correct to state that under the exact right circumstances higher rake can lead to better results for the average player that requires the system NOT give rackback to favored players as well as having the rake be in a goldilocks zone such that it stops the pros from playing but still lets there be winners other than the house. All who defend DN seem to ignore he did not qualify his statement and the exact site he was defending did not meet the requirements for it to be possible higher rake would be better. They and DN are the bad guys that are either too stupid to know or too dishonest to care.
Dude, you literally just missed a two inch putt to win The Masters.
Board has gone to hell
That is a terrible take. The worst. Horrible.
These boards are literally filled with people who take from money from grandma's social security check. They outright steal from other players. Or angle others.
Daniel Negranau is none of that. He isn't perfect. He has shilled himself out. He has defended the indefensible because he was getting paid to do so.
But in the world of poker, a person has to stretch themselves into absurdity to call Daniel a bad person. He regularly sells portions of himself at even money. He doesn't need to but he does anyway.
There is no one on this earth who is a perfect human being. Everyone has done and said stupid things and such.
That said, taken all together, Daniel has been a much more positive influence for poker than anything negative about him. I cannot even believe anyone would dispute this. Poker would be a far better place if everyone was like Daniel.
Calling Daniel a bad guy is the worst. Seriously.
That is a terrible take. The worst. Horrible. These boards are literally filled with people who take from money from grandma's social security check. They outright steal from other players. Or angle others.Daniel Negranau is none of that. He isn't perfect. He has shilled himself out. He has defended the indefensible because he was getting paid to do so.But in the world of poke
I don't think Daniel is a bad guy and he's good for poker but he probably isn't in a position to see that if you took away all the buy ins that he had paid for by PokerStars, GG, etc he would also be broke or in the negative, so it makes him calling people out for basically not being in his position kinda lame....but entertaining
I see what Daniel's saying, that Peters' was most likely going to pay and that Dylan must've misheard/misunderstood Peters when he said (paraphrasing) 'here's $15k, and you won't see another dime, ' which really makes no sense.If you're gonna steal from a guy, I don't think you pay $15k at the same time you tell him you'll be stiffing him on the rest. Otherwise, why pay him th
It is not something completely new; a guy owes you money, and he says: "Look, I have no way to get that much, so here is $2000 of the $10000 I owe you, are we square?" with the implicit meaning that you should be happy to get at least a little bit back. I have read about a lot of such deals in the poker world. When you do not have a written agreement and debtor is broke, you take your losses and that is it. So I think it is more likely that Negreanu is wrong in that video; Peters simply decided to skip the rest of the debt, not that he wants to pay. He first tried a freeroll, when that did not work, he tried to skip the debt as a whole, and when that did not work, he tried to at least save some money.
That is a terrible take. The worst. Horrible. These boards are literally filled with people who take from money from grandma's social security check. They outright steal from other players. Or angle others.Daniel Negranau is none of that. He isn't perfect. He has shilled himself out. He has defended the indefensible because he was getting paid to do so.But in the world of poke
Oh Hi Daniel!
An opponent you can never get lucky and beat. And whereas it is correct to state that under the exact right circumstances higher rake can lead to better results for the average player that requires the system NOT give rackback to favored players as well as having the rake be in a goldilocks zone such that it stops the pros from playing but still lets there be winners other than
Totally irrelevant in the long run.
In the glory days of online poker I remember playing on Pacific poker which had higher rake than other sites and I had my highest bb/100 there out of any other site. It was worth the higher rake. Meanwhile Wsex which was at the time a huge sportsbook started offering 100 percent rakeback to all players. Despite being a huge sportsbook the poker side was an absolute ghost town- guess the types of players it was attracting.
There is nuance to everything in life.
Polarbears analysis was spot on and you guys are trying to nitpick the parts that don't matter to feel right.
You guys are missing the fact that the rake has to be so high that a skilled player looks at the combination of rake + player pool and thinks its not worthwhile to play there, which would mean the rake is so high that the skilled player likely can't win.
You are talking about a very specific scenario where the rake is high enough that a skilled player doesn't want to play there but is in the perfect range where EVERY OTHER losing player somehow loses less than if a skilled player were at their table.
This is an incredibly rare edge case for a variety of reasons. Its basically nonsense. You can't argue an incredibly rare edge case as your basic value proposition.
So in your world knowingly defending the indefensible because you are getting paid to lie is good? In my world when you knowingly lie for money in a manner to defraud average players you are bad. He is morally equivalent to those taking money from grandma's social security checks or do you think the sites don't apply the higher rake that he is pushing to grandmas?
Lie? Words have meanings. You are using that word incorrectly.
Numerous posters here have shown that his statement **could** be true in some situations. All situations, of course not. Not even most situations. He is obviously taking an complicated, opaque, "it depends" type of situation and making it sound clearer than it really is. That is something that every politician in America does. That is something that every office worker in America has done when their boss asks them "How much of the project is complete?" And you spin it and day 80% because 80% of thr main module is done.
Lie is the wrong word. Spin is the word you were looking for. Point is everyone spins to some degree about stuff in their lives. Sure some spins are worse than others and Daniel certainly took it farther than he should have. Absolutely no doubt.
Point is, if that is the worst thing Daniel has done in his life, that puts him above a vast majority of humankind.
Get off your rightous high horse. I am willing to bet a decent amount of money that you have done worse. Have you ever called off work sick when you weren't? That is a lie, not a spin.
Right now, the Wynn and Caesars Palace both offer $1/$3 games. Wynn rakes $5, Caesars $6. Neither takes any player promotion money. Wynn has a $500 max buy in while Caesars is $300. Sounds like Wynn the is the better game. Less rake, more money on the table.
Yet, for those who have played both it is pretty inarguable that the average player at Caesars is far softer. I consider both games generally soft, but the Wynn has far more regulars who are decent. It is not all that rare to find a table at the Wynn that is nearly unplayable due to having too many regs and decent tourists. I have never ever found an unplayable game at Caesars.
Daniel's point that rake shouldn't always be the biggest factor is spot on, especially considering that only decent players even think about rake. Did he spin it too much by saying high rake being good? Sure. He was stupid about it.
If that is the worst he did, that makes him a good guy, not a bad guy.
1. That is so old and overused. How unoriginal. Really sad.
2. I literally said what Daniel said was too much. He was wrong, he was stupid. How much clearer can I make it.
3. I wonder if certain people here have ever really played poker or are just really naive. Anyone who has spent any reasonable amount of time playing in a casino has played with drug dealers, pimps, child molesters, people who have cheated on their spouses, people who cheat on their taxes, on and on. There are old man coffee regs who would angle a newbie for $10. I have seen someone literally steal a $1 chip from their neighbor because the chip rolled between them and their neighbor didn't grab it right away.
Poker is filled with A-holes and playing for money often brings out the worst in people. I find it really hard to believe that some posters here think spinning a question about rake too far makes Daniel a bad person. Crazy.
Here is the thing, Daniel was put in an awkward situation. He is paid a lot of money to represent a poker site and say good things about that site. So when the issue of them raising their rake comes up he knows that is not a good thing, but he also knows he is literally being paid to put the best face possible on the site, so he is going to try and make it look as good as possible. Yes, he took it too far. He tried putting lipstick on a pig and ended up with pig shit all over himself.
Here is the real question though that cements the good guy/bad guy thing for me.
Do you think if you had a private conversation over drinks with Daniel where he got a little tipsy and you discussed the more rake is good thing with him what do you think his reaction would be?
Do you think he would be kind of embarrassed that he had to do what he did because he was paid to be the face of the site, or do you you think that he would laugh and brag about the people he conned?
Ok. I belatedly realize I am going too far with this. It still strikes me as absurd that despite all of his obvious faults that people would consider Daniel a bad guy, but I also realize that this isn't likely to change anything so I am done. So have at it. You will be laughed at, but have the last word.
Sir, this is a Wendy's
...he is literally being paid to put the best face possible on the site, so he is going to try and make it look as good as possible...
When I remember how Daniel is naturally belittling total strangers on table only for fun or for advantage in hand, I doubt even he is "good guy". Looks like more smart, but still predator. Obviously in environment where everybody looks like douche, good gay image is advertising advantage.
Not the first, won’t be the last
Driving range is actually open now so maybe I’ll go up this week or next.
its not about more rake or less rake its about creating an environment where high end recreational "table games" type players are happy and want to play more. the best way to do this is rake the game heavily, so heavy that no one can win big, then selectively give cash and comps back to people who are good for the game, this will include a tiny number of smart "sporty" professional players and winning players put in by the house, it always has. This is the private game model that has basically taken all of the high and even most Mid-Hi poker out of casino card rooms and into penthouses. Source: Ive been either the guy running the games or the only sporty pro invited to the private game for decades.
Somehow this went from High roller pro outing another for being a deadbeat not paying his debts, to a conversation about Negreanu and the "more rake is better" ****. Because of course it did.
Dylan,
I want to say I was listening to your analysis on the WSOP stream with Remko and youre an excellent color guy. You should look into that.
I prefer a little less nerdy strategy talk, but you certainly know your stuff and can communicate it well.
Anything new on this? He just went for $3 on Fantasy draft so insiders seem like they might know something…
