Negreanu's latest blog update... - Page 5

#1 11-07-2005, 02:01 AM

Sometimes narrow self-interest and principle conflict. I believe this is an instance where, for Daniel, they do. I don't believe he would have accepted an invitation into this event if asked.

And Daniel has been very vocal on various issues of concern to poker players in the past. I think he is trying to move things forward, but without most of the other top players joining in, any initiative would be doomed to failure.

jeffraider · #2 11-07-2005, 02:44 AM

I think it's pretty [censored] that Mark Seif isn't playing, he won two bracelets for god's sakes! And what about Dan Druff who won Player of the Year but no one has heard [censored] about that yet!

Kevmath · #3 11-07-2005, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's pretty [censored] that Mark Seif isn't playing, he won two bracelets for god's sakes! And what about Dan Druff who won Player of the Year but no one has heard [censored] about that yet!

[/ QUOTE ]

Scott Fischman won two bracelets last year, and no one was asking him to be part of the TOC. Allen Cunningham won ESPN's WSOP POY, Todd Witteles was Card Player's POY (based on their flawed points system).

dankhank · #4 11-07-2005, 06:42 AM

negreanu becomes more of a wacko everyday. talk about a mountain out of a molehill. in the whole scheme of freerolls this is hardly the largest "injustice" that unknown players suffer from, when compared to the opportunities famous pros get. the amount of equity lost here is miniscule.

Yeti · #5 11-07-2005, 07:14 AM

Yep, a couple of you guys nailed my thoughts.

When I began reading the article, I was thinking 'uh-oh! They promised them a 100 player freeroll and they've changed it to just a FT of 9 well-known players like last year.'

Ah, I was wrong, they just lost $500 equity. Who cares? Is it that big of a deal? I'd happily give up this equity to have a decent chance of playing some hands with the legends included. The comedy value of sitting w/ Hellmuth alone would be worth far greater than $500.

And to keep dropping in the names of these amateur players every sentence, WTF was that all about? Who gives a F about Tommy Reed and his mucked pocket tens?

Danny, lighten up.

benkahuna · #6 11-07-2005, 02:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, a couple of you guys nailed my thoughts.

When I began reading the article, I was thinking 'uh-oh! They promised them a 100 player freeroll and they've changed it to just a FT of 9 well-known players like last year.'

Ah, I was wrong, they just lost $500 equity. Who cares? Is it that big of a deal? I'd happily give up this equity to have a decent chance of playing some hands with the legends included. The comedy value of sitting w/ Hellmuth alone would be worth far greater than $500.

And to keep dropping in the names of these amateur players every sentence, WTF was that all about? Who gives a F about Tommy Reed and his mucked pocket tens?

Danny, lighten up.

[/ QUOTE ]

The philosophical difference here is that you have a choice. Step outside your own point of view for a moment and realize that what's right for you isn't right for everyone.

Freudian · #7 11-07-2005, 08:17 AM

I agree about the principle. While this specific instance isn't a big deal (who would begrudge Doyle and Johnny the chance to be in TOC after getting their 10th bracelets).

But what if next year it is not only 3 players they want to add? What if ESPN insists on adding the autistic epileptic that made so powerful TV along with a dozen other characters from the shows? What is someone in charge decide to put a bunch of his well known poker pro friends in it (there is always a reason that can be invented for doing so)? Afterall, everyone quietly accepted the sudden adding of players last year.

If they want the TOC to have an exclusive extra prize, they should not dilute the prize on a whim.

I don't mind either of these three on the show as a viewer though. Hopefully Phil Hellmuth pops a vein or something.

BarronVangorToth · #8 11-07-2005, 08:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
(who would begrudge Doyle and Johnny the chance to be in TOC after getting their 10th bracelets).

[/ QUOTE ]

No one would; in fact, no one should complain if they gave passes to dozens of "name" players...

...if they advertised it as such IN ADVANCE, which is Daniel's main point, and he is 100% correct.

Do whatever ... but stick to what you initially advertise. Don't say X and then make it Y.

People are looking for ulterior motives from him saying this when his reason for saying this should be 100% transparent: in this day and age where people do not do as they say they are going to do, he would like people to stand by their word.

He should be commended for making a stand for what is right.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

dlk9s · #9 11-07-2005, 10:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(who would begrudge Doyle and Johnny the chance to be in TOC after getting their 10th bracelets).

[/ QUOTE ]

No one would; in fact, no one should complain if they gave passes to dozens of "name" players...

...if they advertised it as such IN ADVANCE, which is Daniel's main point, and he is 100% correct.

Do whatever ... but stick to what you initially advertise. Don't say X and then make it Y.

People are looking for ulterior motives from him saying this when his reason for saying this should be 100% transparent: in this day and age where people do not do as they say they are going to do, he would like people to stand by their word.

He should be commended for making a stand for what is right.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

In addition, some people have asked what the big deal is about the players losing $500 in equity. Well, the $500 isn't that big of a deal, true, BUT...

...the three late entrants are bound to win chips from the other players and quite probably knock a couple of players out. Is that fair? I know if I made the TOC (which I never would in a million years), I'd be a bit peeved if someone who didn't actually qualify knocked me out of the tournament.

As to the comment that Negreanu should start his own tour or something if he's unhappy with the WSOP, well that's unrealistic. He may have some gripes, but that would be cutting off his nose to spite his face.

Bottom line: don't make rules if you don't intend to live by them.

Easy E · #10 11-07-2005, 12:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He should be commended for making a stand for what is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, Danny comes across here as a jealous nit, as much as I despise Hellmuth and wouldn't give him a dime.

We went through this last year with Danny. If those of you on Danny's side feel this is something that should be battled, I'm betting you're going to be continually frustrated over the next few years.