Dan Harrington's 'Net Rich Guy Profile

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...if not you, then who is he talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's talking about, and I quote, "a few poker types."

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is an "asian type" in there I swear it's Scotty Nguyen. If not him, you tell me who?!?!?!?!

[UnderThe Gun]

"I make you feel stupid because that's what you are"

If the above doesn't prove my point, I don't know what will.

Paul has to know that his remark bolsters my argument while undermining his, but, even in these circumstances, he has such a pathetic need to condescend that he just CAN’T resist. It's sad.

I'll give you this, Paul, at least you managed to post this time without mentioning cocks.

[Aytumious]

My question is why do many of you think Harrington had some specific well know pro in mind? I'm sure there are many players that Dan has played against who fit his description.

Also, I seriously doubt he would pigeon hole a tough player like Phillips into this group. Phillips isn't necessarily playing for money, but he certainly looks to me to be playing to win. The type described here sounds like the typical tricky LAG type who eventually gets cracked.

[Kyo Souma II]

[ QUOTE ]
But I have to ask you, if not you, then who is he talking about? It doesnt sound like Barry, and Gordon has only made one final table on the WPT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barry is not an internet millionaire. He was broke when he left symantec, according to 'the professor, the banker..'

-kyo

[kamelion44]

That was a funny post.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
As I more or less posted to Paul above, anyone who can read his self-absorbed twaddle and not recognize in it his adolescent need to condescend, probably shares it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another fine rhetorical mechanism, that. Had you actually engaged with Paul, you would realize that he generally reserves the needle for those who deserve it. You qualify. You don't know what was in Dan's mind, but that doesn't stop you from asserting you do.

Had you ever played against Paul (as opposed to watching snippets on TV), you would realize that he is not only difficult to read, but has structured his play so as to give off as little information as possible. He plays to win, not to show off.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh ...and the fact that Paul's supporters seem to be mostly teenagers . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

You have now established for a positive fact that you have no idea at all what you're talking about.

[Army Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is why do many of you think Harrington had some specific well know pro in mind? I'm sure there are many players that Dan has played against who fit his description.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, very good point, there are probably plenty more rich players like this that we just don't see because they don't make final tables.

[Beavis68]

could you name some others please?

[pokergripes]

Attention all trolls: He's talking about different types of average-poker-skilled folks, grouping them based upon their respective outside unifying characteristics (race, sex, profession, etc.), because sometimes that type of category information will help you beat (or beat worse, more likely) these types of players, and it's particularly rewarding if they're rich and playing over their heads to prove how smart they are.

That is, average (in terms of poker skills) rich smart guys who made lots of money on the net might be more profitable to play if you know that they tend (as a category) to be less secure about their intelligence than they should be.

And, as a guy who did a lot of tech m&a transactions in the '90s, I would have to agree with him that there are a lot of people of the type he describes (they always knew they were "smartest" growing up, and then turned around and made $20 or 30 million in the tech bubble without all that much effort relative to the amount they cashed, and are now looking to show everyone that they were, in fact, as smart as they always said they were, etc...)

Overall, a pretty annoying category of people, and obviously one where any edge you can get over them (and particularly one relating to their intelligence) is a rewarding thing to obtain.

There's just no reason at all for you guys to think that PP is one of them, given that he's also one of the best poker players out there (obviously), based on his results, and thus not likely to be someone you can win money from, with or without this average-poker-skilled professional category info.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
could you name some others please?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but I've played against a few in my local cardrooms.