Some WPT observations... - Page 2

MicroBob · #11 04-20-2005, 11:54 PM

earlier in the episode they had a segment where he said that it was going to be very tough for him to win even with his huge chip-lead.

I have no very few problems with Daniel's personality.

Agree that Humberto was acting like an ass. But this isn't unusual for him at all.
Have you seen the coverage of the 2002 WPO from Tunica on ESPN (pre WPT coverage)? Humberto is walking around signing very badly to whatever crap is playing on his headphones while Seidel is trying to make a decision.

Sure it's strategic to try to mess with Seidel...but Humberto was REALLY classless and a total ass.

-Skeme- · #12 04-21-2005, 12:00 AM

He's been coming off like a d!ck more and more lately.

ed8383 · #13 04-21-2005, 12:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No. He definately wasn't joking.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Daniel was in a mean mood because of Humberto. Remember that they showed a clip of him vs Humberto from the tournament (pre final table), so maybe Daniel and Humberto had some heated battles on the way to the final table.

and for those that say Humberto behaves like an ass (which he doesn't). He is only trying to make the crowd laugh which I don't think is behaving like an ass. He brings comedy to final tables. You wan't someone behaving like an ass? Josh Arieh telling Toto to hurry up when Arieh isn't even on a hand, or Phil Laak who tries to be entertaining but goes over the top. Nothing that Humberto does is over the top, it is just good fun.

Chimera · #14 04-21-2005, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
maybe Daniel and Humberto had some heated battles on the way to the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, from the way that Daniel praised Humberto after the tournament, as well as the fact that Humberto hugged Mama Negreanu at the end, I got the impression that they're good friends.

I think the whole thing was just a case of 2 guys with big personalities, who both like to be the center of attention. When you put 2 guys like that together in a competitive activity, there's bound to be a little tension at times. But I don't think either one seemed to be seriously offended by the other's antics.

neon · #15 04-21-2005, 10:37 AM

I don't think Daniel was acting out of line at all. If you're referring to his repeated comments to the effect of "hurry the eff up" directed at the fast food dude, I think you have to keep in mind the amount of editing that occurs in these broadcasts. My money says that the guy was taking a long time making decisions on a lot of hands, to the point where Daniel knew that the guy was hollywooding it with far less than premium holdings. For example, Vinny (was that his name?) raises from the SB w/ K4o or some other garbage, Humberto reraises all-in from the BB w/ AJs. Then Vinny takes forever to make a decision; granted, he's posturing, not wanting to let on he was raising with bullshit, but if he's doing it every hand, or in many hands, even, then I think Daniel may have been quite justified in his comments.

Also, wasn't this the tourney that decided the cardplayer player of the year award? If it was, Daniel had a sizeable lead all year, then slacked off a bit and let JJ and Pham (?) catch up to him, and had to WIN the event to win the award. So he shows up at the final table with more chips than everyone else put together, and loses like the first half dozen decent-sized pots he plays. This was probably a rather emotional experience for Daniel. Let's cut the guy some slack, shall we? Sure, he may be a smidge arrogant, but what great player isn't?

I thought Daniel played very well, at least from what we saw, making only a few mistakes and wielding his big stack expertly, imo.

Goodie54 · #16 04-21-2005, 10:52 AM

Do you even play poker? The move in specialist played well? From what I saw they showed him play three hands. He moved in with A 10 suited after a raise (this was a good move). He then limped with A K (idiotic) and moved in for 750,000 with QQ when the blinds are 20-40 (I think), again idiotic. I'd say 90 to 95% of the time he wastes his big pair and gets only the blinds.

What did Daniel ever do to you for you display such venim in his direction. He seems like a solid player and a solid guy as far as I can see.

And what he said was that many people would have said it would be easy and with his chip lead most of the time it is. And to tell you the truth, it was pretty easy for him. He was never in danger throughout the whole final table.

Peace

Goodie

Smoothcall · #17 04-21-2005, 10:54 AM

I agree on all points. Daniel was telling vinny whatever his lat name is to hurry up. I thought that was a little rude. Daniel gives off this air of like the world revolves around him when he's at the table. Which comes off arrogant and rude.

GuruCane · #18 04-21-2005, 10:59 AM

Since you thought he played well, do you have an opinion on the "uhhhhh 3.4 million...that sounds good" or the "yeah....4.2 million" bets that put players all in while Daniel was (at least in one case as I recall--maybe the reraise of Humberto's T8s) coming over the top with less than stellar holdings? I am not at all bashing Daniel here, I just thought it was interesting.
On the one hand, you could say that that is a silly risk to take if Humberto was making a standard raise with a good holding. You could easily double him up. On the other hand, it could be a brilliant move for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he takes command of the table again (remember, he got crappy cards early and then when he made moves, nothing worked), gets Humberto on the run and also presents an air of insanity (getting into the levels of psychology from TOP). I tend to think it was a mix of the latter with a smidgen of ego thrown in there. I haven't read his blog lately, so maybe he discussed it, but I would like to know what people here thought about it since it might give people some new ideas.

On another note, I thought Daniel came off as a cocky little prick yet again. But when you are the best and you have that lead, I guess one really can't fault the man. I really got the feeling at one point that Daniel felt that everyone else at the table was beneath him (sometime after Jennifer busted). Maybe I am reading way too much into edited television but, based on many of the board members' comments lately, I feel like there might be some support for my assertion. Like someone else in the thread mentioned, can't wait to see what happens when he runs bad.

Smoothcall · #19 04-21-2005, 11:01 AM

You are pretty much correct. Although i got the sense daniel was pretty annoyed at the table. For the reason you said but to elaborate more on that. I would say that it seemed like daniel was trying to tell humberto. Listen your not da man at my table anymore(this is my coming out party). I don't want it to be your show its mine! Danny's ego wanted to show humberto whose boss.

Smoothcall · #20 04-21-2005, 11:14 AM

Yes i play poker. Do you? And his move in with qq's he may have had his reasons. Don't say he's bad because he did that. First off maybe the money position for the next out was very important to him. If this is the case he wants to win the blinds and antes and will be happy to stay out of the way until the other short stacks get out.

I have seen daniel throughout the years. And to me he comes off as someone that thinks anyone that doesn't play his limits or is a star like him is beneath him. Like he lives on this cloud. And it is quite annoying as i don't feel he is. Granted not to the extent of a phil hellmuth. But it is there. Daniel if you know him, is probably genuinely a nice guy. But if your on the outside. He will smile and say hi. But he thinks he is better than you(and i don't mean just as a poker player). Just my opinion. Might be a little harsh but that is the vibe i get. And i think very easily he could be grinding in the middle limits just like the rest of us.