Re: Daniel\'s answer to who he does and does not want to play
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm curious as to how barry greenstein would respond to those remarks.
[/ QUOTE ]
My guess it that he should, and will, let his play speak for itself.
[/ QUOTE ]
Having just finished the Professor, Banker, and Suicide King this weekend, I found it interesting that Barry G was not only a net loser to Andy Beal, but rather that Andy pwned Barry G from the outset and in every encounter. The only players who seemed to have a consistent edge on Beal were Lederer, Harmon, and Todd Brunson.
[/ QUOTE ]
1. As stated, I will let my play speak for itself. I am not happy being even with Daniel, especially after being up 2-0, but worse things have happened.
2. The facts were wrong in Michael Craig's book. I tried to get them to correct them, but it was too late when I noticed it. The first time we played, I lost $60,000 (one big blind). I consider that a tie, but he called it a win. The next time we played, Andy won handily. Even though Doyle asked me to play him again, I decided that it was better to have players who were beating Andy continue to play him, and I refused. I never played him again. In the book, Michael fabricated me losing to Andy Beal in a third match, when in reality, I was in Atlantic City.
He claimed he wrote this because some players told him they thought I lost again, although they weren't sure. He should have asked me. The player's negative sentiment existed because some of them were disappointed that I was a lead voter to let Andy play higher when we were way ahead of him. Of course, the vote was unanimous for this, but I was deemed one of the culprits when we lost.
Barry
|