A new theory on Negraneau challenge matches

[Smoothcall]

Yes i do.

[Tom Martell]

[ QUOTE ]
I think i know what your argument is. You don't really have an opinion on daniel at all. Your argument is whatever i say you want to take the other side.

[/ QUOTE ]

No sir... my argument is if you dont know what you are talking about, shut the trap.

[ QUOTE ]
No matter how many times i show more facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I note above, you do not show more facts. You wave your hands faster in the hopes of distracting people.

[ QUOTE ]
Like me saying he went broke. You thought i made that up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I knew he went broke and I knew the context it arose from. You repeatedly said he lost his bankroll multiple times to being bad a limit cash games. In fact, he lost his bankroll once to being an alcoholic.

[ QUOTE ]
He has said he has played a small amount of hours. I forget the exact number but around 50 to 70 hours(certainly not enough to make any judgements on whether he would beat the game or not).

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to offer a cite? I have not read this number anywhere. I can just as easily say I read that he has played hundreds of hours...

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you at least give me credit for knowing it was asmall amount of hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

This one could be accurate. I don't have better information or contradictory information.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if daniel is world class. Neither do you. But i think he hasn't proved anything yet. Is that fair?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is fair. Your facts certainly support drawing the opinion that the sample size is too small to draw the conclusion that he is a world class player at the specific context you mention, the big game.

[ QUOTE ]
Then instead of saying ok you got me there. or ok thats a good point sorry for thinking you made it up you dismiss and ignore it and move on to somthing else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I essentially dissected the posts line by line... I do not believe I tried to skip anything and move on from it.

[ QUOTE ]
I am open to seeing the error of my ways if pointed out to me. i just don't think you made me see it here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree - your stance has toned down dramatically, so I think you found what I thought your error was.

[bugstud]

is there some reason danny and andy beal haven't played?

[capone0]

he doesn't have the roll to play him and not part of the "group."

[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
If Danny says he beat every game he is believed. If i say it noone will believe me. This is the problem i have.

[/ QUOTE ]

And who is Danny BTW? Last year's Player of the Year?

And who are you exactly? Some nobody with serious insecurity issues?

Who to believe?

This is the problem I have.

[Smoothcall]

Exactly. This exactly how people think, and is the problem with haivng an edcuated discussion here.

[Smoothcall]

As far as the amount of hours comment look at his poker blog. I beleive it is there.

No you haven't made me see anything. If my tone went down its only because i am trying to diffuse what it seems you are trying to turn into an agry argument instead of an interesting discussion.

For the millionth time let move on. Nice talking with you. I will not respond again as i don't want this to look or turn into a flamewar. As because if it became one i would be banned and you would be overlooked even though you are the one who is trying to feul it. I enjoyed talking seeya later.

[capone0]

Smoothcall do you get Daniel has a bigger and more believable reputation than you. He is a known figure even if he posts online, you are a random nobody who we don't know. For all we know you could be completely full of sh!t, and because it's online you have 0 repercutions for being full of crap.

Daniel is a known figure, he posts as his own identity on his own site. Who's more believable, him or you. Hm......I don't think this is a tough one. Yes, you've pointed out that he blew through his bank roll in the past due to alcohol. You've quoted articles but that's in the past. Don't you think people progress after going through a down swing, I think most people do.

I don't recall Danny winning a ton of tournaments before the last 2 years, maybe his game has gone from good to world class, could that possibly be possible. Maybe he isn't the limit expert you are talking about, but maybe his all around game is in fact world class. I can't really tell you if he's made a ton of cash or not in the big games in Vegas. I've read his blogs and he's shown big wins and big losses, there is no aggragate to go by. But I'm guessing if he drops down to say the 80-160 level or even your blessed 15-30 level he wouldn't struggle that much with the game.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe a guy who has won from time to time at the 1-2k games and occasionally at the 2k-4k game would get destroyed by the wicked players at the lower levels. You and I know the lower games live are a mixed group of fish with a mix of good players. I'm guessing he'd do alright, maybe he'd get crushed but if he's having any moderate success at the higher games I'm sure he'd do alright at the 15/30 games you play. If he can beat Gus and Doyle for a bunch of cash even on occasion, I think he'd beat the 15/30 game.

[Smoothcall]

Yes this is the problem with people on this board and the thinking i am trying to get you guys away from. You accept what known tourney players(fsmous people) say because they said it. You care less to look at facts. If i showed you all the facts in the world you would still not change your argument because your hero said differently. And btw you make it sound like i'm lying and Danny is telling the truth. A total misread. I am using what danny has admitted to and making my argument. I am not making up lies about him like you try to make it sound. I state all facts that came from his own mouth. Yet you call me a liar. Everythng in this thread i have said about daniel came from his mouth. Apart for my opinion on whether i think he is a grat player or proven now. Admit that and i will give you some credit for being able to see the error of your ways. You don't need to kow who i am becasue i am using danny's own words against him and making my argument that he is not a proven world class player. Do you see that? Aynway i'm guessing no matter how many times i show you the error of your ways you will not accept facts. If you don't admit what i have stated here i will not repond again as we can't go further unitl your willing to judge things with your mind instead of with rose colored glasses you wear when you look at daniel. But we should move on anyway. Nice talking to you.

[pokergripes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think i know what your argument is. You don't really have an opinion on daniel at all. Your argument is whatever i say you want to take the other side.

[/ QUOTE ]

No sir... my argument is if you dont know what you are talking about, shut the trap.

[ QUOTE ]
No matter how many times i show more facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I note above, you do not show more facts. You wave your hands faster in the hopes of distracting people.

[ QUOTE ]
Like me saying he went broke. You thought i made that up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I knew he went broke and I knew the context it arose from. You repeatedly said he lost his bankroll multiple times to being bad a limit cash games. In fact, he lost his bankroll once to being an alcoholic.

[ QUOTE ]
He has said he has played a small amount of hours. I forget the exact number but around 50 to 70 hours(certainly not enough to make any judgements on whether he would beat the game or not).

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to offer a cite? I have not read this number anywhere. I can just as easily say I read that he has played hundreds of hours...

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you at least give me credit for knowing it was asmall amount of hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

This one could be accurate. I don't have better information or contradictory information.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if daniel is world class. Neither do you. But i think he hasn't proved anything yet. Is that fair?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is fair. Your facts certainly support drawing the opinion that the sample size is too small to draw the conclusion that he is a world class player at the specific context you mention, the big game.

[ QUOTE ]
Then instead of saying ok you got me there. or ok thats a good point sorry for thinking you made it up you dismiss and ignore it and move on to somthing else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I essentially dissected the posts line by line... I do not believe I tried to skip anything and move on from it.

[ QUOTE ]
I am open to seeing the error of my ways if pointed out to me. i just don't think you made me see it here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree - your stance has toned down dramatically, so I think you found what I thought your error was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Smoothcall, you are always complaining that people don't take you seriously enough here, and if you are actually looking to change that, I'd suggest re-reading Tom's last line (above) a few times.

He's completely correct--Once you toned down your point to be "just because a guy wins player of the year one year and can beat tourneys, doesn't necessarily mean that he'll be world class playing the biggest cash game around against a handful of the best players in the world, and when the guy in question has a history of crashing and burning at least once (for whatever reasons), maybe people should take more of a "wait and see" attitude about him being world class, and not start bowing down quite so quickly..."

at that point, you had made what we lawyers call "a good argument"...but if you write much more over-the-top rhetoric about it (no reason to think he's good in cash games, etc.), then it comes across as silly and spiteful.

Tone and rhetoric matter a lot when making otherwise-valid points. So, keep it up, and hopefully Tom will continue to keep an eye on you in the process [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]