Some WPT observations...

[Smoothcall]

The man(vinny) is playing for life changing money. If he wants to take his time he can. they have a clock so he has until then if he wants. Who is daniel to tell him to hurry up. I woulda said i'll go when i'm ready. And gave him a look like who the f are you!

[neon]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm actually a pretty big fan of the overbet, and imo, if you're going to use it, you've got to employ it in a variety of situations, which Daniel seemed to be doing pretty effectively from what we saw last night. (And again, it's pretty difficult to analyze hands from WPT broadcasts in isolation, as there's probably many hands played between most of the hands that are shown to us in succession, so there's lots of context that we aren't privy to). That said, however, the hand when Brenes had 108s that you were referring to was three-handed, Daniel had 44, correctly read Brenes for overcards, and put him to the test for all his chips. If called, coinflip, but vs. the other big stack, he probably figured he had huuuuge folding equity, as he could afford to lose and still have the chip lead, if Brenes calls and loses he's gone. The other overbets I recall Daniel making were with flopped trips (I think), a flush draw, and when he came over the top of Humberto's preflop raise when Humberto had 55 and Daniel limp-reraised w/ A3o. I think it was a great display of power poker; as far as the arbitrary numbers, I think that was aimed to confuse his opponents as to whether he was being playful and bluffing, or being quirky to goad them into calling.

[ QUOTE ]
On another note, I thought Daniel came off as a cocky little prick yet again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don't think you can discount just how much gets edited out of these broadcasts before we see them. Just as I think Daniel was probably making lots of his arbitrary overbets in hands we didn't see, I bet that Vinny was taking waaay too long to make decisions in a lot of hands that we didn't see, either, to the point where it was obvious that he didn't really have tough decision EVERY SINGLE HAND. As far as Daniel needling what's his face (the "all-in artist," if you will) with the, "oh, can we play poker now?" comments, that's just him trying to manipulate the table, as far as I'm concerned. He didn't want to play pots for the guy's whole stack preflop, he wanted the chance to use his big stack and chop away at the others, and this guy moving all-in every single time he played a hand took away his ability to do that. Can't blame him for that, either.

I'll admit, there were times when Daniel sounded pissy, but I just don't think it's fair to criticize him without having been there and seen exactly what had been transpiring throughout the entire final table, not just those hands that were broadcast in isolation.

Just my opinion, of course.

[Goodie54]

I never said that move in specialist was bad, but you said that he played well last night. We saw three hands and he definatly misplayed one of them and one he most likely misplayed as well. How did he play good if this is the case?

You explanation of your encounters with Daniel are fine, but unless you actually know him personally, your oponions of him are invalid. Obviously you don't, so whatever you say about him is tainted.

Peace

Goodie

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullsh$t. I was at the taping, in the audience. I was
appalled by Daniel's 'hurry up' statements, which were
only made to intimidate the opps.

There was no significant editing of time taken to make
decisions, in fact, the whole final session only took
5.5 hours. It was over very quickly. They showed almost
every hand that got played.

The editing that was done was to edit out referneces to
Lori, Daniels fiancee at the time.

mosquito

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I was at the taping. He was a move in specalist
at the final table. The only other hand he played (not
shown) was a move in as well. I also got to see him play
earlier in the week, and seemed somewhat solid/tight.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gosh, I agree. It seemed like that at the time of the
taping, and watching last night did not change my mind.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you did not see (thanks to editing) was Daniel using
even stranger money amounts (he thought it amusing).

He was discouraged from doing it anymore. There were a
couple of times that got edited out, where it went all
fold afterwards. Daniel was running over the table with
big bets for a stretch of 15 hands or so when it got down
to 3-4 players.

[GuruCane]

Thanks for the response. On the 55 hand, I totally agree even though it was quite possible that Daniel believed that he was behind. He read the situation very well. I didn't like the 44 hand, as I recall, b/c I felt like there were too many bigger pairs that Humberto could have had there, but your analysis makes sense. I was interested in what you (and others) thought b/c we often say that overbets like that indicate weakness (ie someone just trying to steal). However, with everyone jockeying for second and Daniel putting them to a decision for all/almost all of their chips, I understand it I think. I also think that the frequent use of it was important.

I stand by my assertion based on the response of mosquito. I feel that Daniel's attitude has worsened a bit as time has passed. Sometimes one believes one's own press. I think he is a fantastic player, don't get me wrong, but noone is so clearly better than the rest that others are beneath them. We're all poker players here, I am just reading what I see. I would like to add that I used to really look forward to watching Daniel play (ie I have not been a Daniel hater in the past). Not so much anymore.

[GuruCane]

I very much appreciate this insight. It makes absolute sense to me as I suspected that he did it even more and, thus, he got exactly what he wanted out of it. His "3.4 million" became the equivalent of a 4X BB steal by a big stack. Would that I have such a stack in a tournament to be able to try this someday.

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
His "3.4 million" became the equivalent of a 4X BB steal by a big stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, he could have achieved the same thing by just saying "all in", but I think he was using specific amounts as a psychological weapon, in order to constantly remind his opponents of exactly how huge his stack was.