Dan Harrington is the SHIZNIT!!

[Malachii]

[ QUOTE ]
I always found it humorous that chess grandmasters generally aren't anywhere near as arrogant as some of the top poker players are; given the nature of both games, you'd think it would be the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure about that one Jordan. Granted, becoming a chess grandmaster is probably more difficult, but if you managed to be completely secure for life financially just through playing a card game, I think you have every right to be a just as egotistical.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure about that one Jordan. Granted, becoming a chess grandmaster is probably more difficult, but if you managed to be completely secure for life financially just through playing a card game, I think you have every right to be a just as egotistical.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I meant more along the lines of "if there weren't luck involved, I'd win every one" or the ESPN interviews where the guys at the final table say silly things like "I'm going to win this bracelet today" or "second place is unacceptable" - if I didn't know any poker players or chess players, I would think it far more likely that "second place is unacceptable" would come out of a chess player's mouth than a poker player's.

But statements like "I'm great at poker because I have a 1.2BB/100 winrate at the $2,000/$4,000 game at the Bellagio over 300,000 hands" aren't egotistical - I was referring more to the statements that some poker players make that satiate their ego at the expense of their sounding at all knowledgeable about their occupation, like "today I'm going to win" or "I just cannot possibly play any better" or some such.

[Sykes]

[ QUOTE ]
"second place is unacceptable"

[/ QUOTE ]

In the WSOP, second place is unacceptable. If you truly believe that second place is acceptable, tell that to T.J. or Dewey Tomko who have finished 2nd twice.

Being 1st in the WSOP is everything. Imagine if Varkonyi or Moneymaker finished second. How much would we be talking about them now? Most likely zero. Just like we're not talking about Kevin McBride (2nd place to Scotty Nyugnen).

Also, imagine if Chan won against hellmuth in 89. That would mean that right now, Chan has 11 bracelets, hellmuth has 8, and Hellmuth is not a marketing scheme because he doesn't have the world champion bracelet. Also realize that Chan would have won it 3 straight years and put to rest all the "best run in WSOP" quarrel.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"second place is unacceptable"

[/ QUOTE ]

In the WSOP, second place is unacceptable. If you truly believe that second place is acceptable, tell that to T.J. or Dewey Tomko who have finished 2nd twice.

Being 1st in the WSOP is everything. Imagine if Varkonyi or Moneymaker finished second. How much would we be talking about them now? Most likely zero. Just like we're not talking about Kevin McBride (2nd place to Scotty Nyugnen).

Also, imagine if Chan won against hellmuth in 89. That would mean that right now, Chan has 11 bracelets, hellmuth has 8, and Hellmuth is not a marketing scheme because he doesn't have the world champion bracelet. Also realize that Chan would have won it 3 straight years and put to rest all the "best run in WSOP" quarrel.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point - TJ Cloutier played as close to perfect tournament poker as anyone can play in 2000 when he was heads-up against Chris Ferguson, and he still lost. The people in poker who say "second place is unacceptable" are telling you right away that they either don't understand or are ignoring the fact that you can make every right play and still not get first place - it's not a meritocracy in the short run. While first is obviously desirable, if you get second in a tournament, that's fine - what's unacceptable is if you played less than your best game, whether that caused you to finish first or last in the process.

[Sykes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"second place is unacceptable"

[/ QUOTE ]

In the WSOP, second place is unacceptable. If you truly believe that second place is acceptable, tell that to T.J. or Dewey Tomko who have finished 2nd twice.

Being 1st in the WSOP is everything. Imagine if Varkonyi or Moneymaker finished second. How much would we be talking about them now? Most likely zero. Just like we're not talking about Kevin McBride (2nd place to Scotty Nyugnen).

Also, imagine if Chan won against hellmuth in 89. That would mean that right now, Chan has 11 bracelets, hellmuth has 8, and Hellmuth is not a marketing scheme because he doesn't have the world champion bracelet. Also realize that Chan would have won it 3 straight years and put to rest all the "best run in WSOP" quarrel.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point - TJ Cloutier played as close to perfect tournament poker as anyone can play in 2000 when he was heads-up against Chris Ferguson, and he still lost. The people in poker who say "second place is unacceptable" are telling you right away that they either don't understand or are ignoring the fact that you can make every right play and still not get first place - it's not a meritocracy in the short run. While first is obviously desirable, if you get second in a tournament, that's fine - what's unacceptable is if you played less than your best game, whether that caused you to finish first or last in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I rather play like utter [censored] HU if it gets me 1st than play perfectly and get 2nd.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, I rather play like utter [censored] HU if it gets me 1st than play perfectly and get 2nd.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you're saying makes no sense. Of course you'd rather finish first than second. So would everyone. The point is that you partially only control your own destiny in poker. It's not like in basketball where if you outplay your opponent, you win the game.

And obviously if you play well you have a better chance of winning than if you don't. So I really don't understand what point you're making here.

its called results oriented thinking, and the more people that think this way, the fatter my br.

[Swax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I always found it humorous that chess grandmasters generally aren't anywhere near as arrogant as some of the top poker players are; given the nature of both games, you'd think it would be the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure about that one Jordan. Granted, becoming a chess grandmaster is probably more difficult, but if you managed to be completely secure for life financially just through playing a card game, I think you have every right to be a just as egotistical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? There's a huge difference between taking pride in one's accomplishments and becoming a product of your own arrogance and vanity. I'm sure Harrington and Raymer are well aware that they are millionaires and among the top 10 or 100 or whatever players in their chosen field the same way Hellmuth and Arieh or whatever example of egotism that you want to use is. How people choose to handle success, however, is totally up to them. There is no correlation between being successful and being a condescending ass. The fact that people think that there should be is ridiculous and what creates the BS obsession with fame.

Being egomaniacal is always a bad trait, and it doesn't matter what's fueling. Whether you're full of yourself because you're a world class athlete or because you were the captain of your high school football team is irrelevant. Maybe if I somehow saved a bunch of lives or cured cancer, then perhaps I might be a little self-indulgent. Becoming a millionaire from playing a game should make someone feel thankful, not cocky.