|
|
|
|
#1
07-24-2005, 12:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel\'s answer to who he does and does not want to play
|
|
#2
07-24-2005, 12:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Daniel\'s answer to who he does and does not want to play
[ QUOTE ]
http://fullcontactpoker.com/poker-fo...ic.php?t=21324 [/ QUOTE ] aha, the annie duke bashes lives on. i'm curious as to how barry greenstein would respond to those remarks.
|
|
#3
07-24-2005, 01:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Daniel\'s answer to who he does and does not want to play
[ 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.
|
|
#4
07-25-2005, 10:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Daniel\'s answer to who he does and does not want to play
[ 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.
|
|
#5
07-25-2005, 11:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Daniel\'s answer to who he does and does not want to play
[ 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 ] The edges and sessions for the most part were so small that the people who ended up winners or losers were largely due to luck. In fact if they played again I would bet on Beal in a heartbeat.
|
|
#6
07-25-2005, 11:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Daniel\'s answer to who he does and does not want to play
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] This is not true. Mike Craig has admitted (on this site) that he was not as careful with his fact checking about this as he should have been. link
|
|
#7
07-25-2005, 12:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Daniel\'s answer to who he does and does not want to play
I just read that book this weekend, too, ironically. And I mostly thought that the book WAY underemphasized the impact of variance on HU play. Quite possibly, BG simply ran bad. I really enjoyed the book though.
|
|
#8
07-25-2005, 09:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#9
07-26-2005, 12:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Daniel\'s answer to who he does and does not want to play
I'd have to say that the value/post ratio spectrum ranges from BG to Smoothcall/Vince. Nice post.
|
|
#10
07-24-2005, 01:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Daniel\'s answer to who he does and does not want to play
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] http://fullcontactpoker.com/poker-fo...ic.php?t=21324 [/ QUOTE ] aha, the annie duke bashes lives on. i'm curious as to how barry greenstein would respond to those remarks. [/ QUOTE ] well, they have already played the games that daniel thinks that barry would have an advantage in, so its just natural that daniel would say that
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
