A Special One Time Offer!!!

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep writing stuff like that and Daniel will soon challenge YOU, offering 10-1 like he did Gary Carson.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he does will you be my mentor like Barry was to Mimi? And put up the 10 or 20k of course. I'm a poor man, as you know. BTW - I think I'd take Eddie over Daniel also.

Vince

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Right there is your problem, if you are as good of a pokerplayer as you think you are, you wouldnt need all this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? What "all this" are you talking about? David already said he doesn't want to just flip coins for money, and that even if he's a slight favorite he's not putting up $100K on a 52% proposition.

[ QUOTE ]
Stop doing posts where you try get an edge here or and edge there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, heaven forbid a professional poker player look for an edge in a poker game.

[NoRiverRats]

I think I see the problem;

David "Darth Vader" Sklansky - "Daniel, I am your faaather"

Daniel "Luke Skywalker" Negreanu - "Nooooooooooo" as he runs screaming from the Wynn poker room.

[toots]

Yes, in general, I think this is just a funny thread.

It seems there's a lot of sentiment that just because DN stepped up and "double dog dared" DS to a game, that DS is a total pansy if he doesn't accept the dare.

This is schoolyard at best.

I don't know about the rest of you, but $100,000 is serious money to just about anyone except the ultra rich. Maybe DN is willing to gamble with money like that, but that doesn't mean everyone has to. Even to a multimillionaire, 100K is a lot of money. Even a person who has a slight edge would be hesitant to take this risk, because it just seems silly. Sort of like putting $100K on black on the roulette wheel. Really exciting if you're an action junkie, but even if the house rejiggered the payout to eliminate their edge, giving you an even bet (black would pay 20:18), it'd still strike me as a silly thing to do.

Winning poker is about exploiting an edge over the long run. Sitting down to a single $100K heads-up with a player in the same ballpark skill-wise doesn't really fit that. The former's using an edge to make money, while the latter is just gamboooling.

And in the realm of getting up and slamming penises on the table, if DN and DS went to this heads-up match, and DS won, would that seriously change any minds about who is the better player? Just about everyone's gonna tell you that a single heads up match between two players is just going to tell you who won the match. Someone can always get lucky, and with closely matched players, it may well be luck that's the major deciding factor.

[skp]

[ QUOTE ]
The important thing to understand is that I felt I had to specify what matches I would play to seperate myself from the likes of Jones, Brier, McEvoy, Ciafone and even Cooke and Caro all of whom would be big underdogs to Daniel

[/ QUOTE ]

As petty as Daniel was in specifically challenging you and Mason, this comment of yours is equally petty. Why do you digress to take a shot at these guys? As far as I know, some of these guys (Jones, Brier, Cooke) only play limit hold 'em. I know that they have only written about limit hold 'em - Nothing else. They are limit hold 'em experts but I doubt that they would accept Daniel's challenge in limit hold 'em. But neither would you. It could be because of playing ability, inability to afford the big stakes, or a combination of the two. Your refusal to play Daniel in limit hold 'em in no way belittles your contributions to limit hold 'em literature nor does it raise red flags as to your competence as a limit hold 'em player.

I don't get why you want to throw tomatos at Jones, Brier, and Cooke in connection with this. But if you wanted to prove that you were a better limit hold 'em player than Jones, Cooke, Brier et al., the way to do it is not to muse theoretically that they would be big dogs to Daniel (and that you wouldn't be). Rather, you could issue your own petty challenge to Jones, Brier, and Cooke to take you on in limit hold 'em. Presumably, at the Bellagio. Heads-up matches every second day for a month or something.

Anyway, the soap opera is interesting to follow. But I can only wonder if noted experts in areas such as bridge, chess etc. are as petty as you folks in the poker arena.

[pipes]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The important thing to understand is that I felt I had to specify what matches I would play to seperate myself from the likes of Jones, Brier, McEvoy, Ciafone and even Cooke and Caro all of whom would be big underdogs to Daniel

[/ QUOTE ]

As petty as Daniel was in specifically challenging you and Mason, this comment of yours is equally petty. Why do you digress to take a shot at these guys? As far as I know, some of these guys (Jones, Brier, Cooke) only play limit hold 'em. I know that they have only written about limit hold 'em - Nothing else. They are limit hold 'em experts but I doubt that they would accept Daniel's challenge in limit hold 'em. But neither would you. It could be because of playing ability, inability to afford the big stakes, or a combination of the two. Your refusal to play Daniel in limit hold 'em in no way belittles your contributions to limit hold 'em literature nor does it raise red flags as to your competence as a limit hold 'em player.

I don't get why you want to throw tomatos at Jones, Brier, and Cooke in connection with this. But if you wanted to prove that you were a better limit hold 'em player than Jones, Cooke, Brier et al., the way to do it is not to muse theoretically that they would be big dogs to Daniel (and that you wouldn't be). Rather, you could issue your own petty challenge to Jones, Brier, and Cooke to take you on in limit hold 'em. Presumably, at the Bellagio. Heads-up matches every second day for a month or something.

Anyway, the soap opera is interesting to follow. But I can only wonder if noted experts in areas such as bridge, chess etc. are as petty as you folks in the poker arena.

[/ QUOTE ]

DS has separated himself from the likes of Jones, Brier etc. Those guys appear to have class.

Sack up Skuhulansky and face the man!

[skp]

jeez, Vince, IMO you are seriously underestimating just how much better the high limit players probably are as compared to the 30-60 blokes. Well, I can't say that you are wrong and I am right for sure because I have never played high limits. But it stands to reason that Negreanu is probably a much better HE player than Brier particularly in a heads-up format where I suspect Jim has very little experience.

If that match ever came about, I would definitely take Daniel. We can have a sidebet.

But if Daniel ever had that match against Carson and gave 10-1, I would take Carson. At the time that that bet was being discussed, Sklansky said that it was a pretty even bet. I can't figure that one out. Presumably, he was just needling carson.

[David Sklansky]

I regret the comment. Shouldn't have named names. My point was that I actually am in the same camp as those who say that someone can't be a great poker writer if they are not also an excellent player. Remember how I said that my five random students would beat Daniel's random students? The same would not be true for just about any non two plus two author, even if they could choose their best game.

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]

But if Daniel ever had that match against Carson and gave 10-1, I would take Carson. At the time that that bet was being discussed, Sklansky said that it was a pretty even bet. I can't figure that one out. Presumably, he was just needling carson.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am the only one who finds this hilarious? Sure he is needling Carson, and doing a pretty good job of it too. I would put my sister up for agaist daniel in a 50 BB freeze out at 10-1 and I'd have way the best of it. Anyhow David's arrogance in this thread is so horrible I'm almost embarrassed for him.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know about the rest of you, but $100,000 is serious money to just about anyone except the ultra rich.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt.

And if David had said, "I can't accept because I'm not bankrolled for that kind of money," I would have respected that.

But that's not what he said.

He made a counter-offer instead, to play for 5:4 odds, and then went on to say he did it because he wanted to show he thought he was Daniel's equal.

I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but simply as a mathmatical proposition that doesn't make sense.

Again, putting the bankroll issue aside for the moment, if you thought you were someone's equal, you'd jump at the chance to play for 10:9 odds.

And at 5:4 odds, I'd jump at the chance to play Daniel Negreanu. (Daniel, if you're reading this, let me know if you feel like playing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )