A new theory on Negraneau challenge matches - Page 7

bholdr · #61 07-28-2005, 12:14 AM

i'm sure that this has been said before, but i don't think it's out-of-control ego, just plain old ego and hunger to 'be the best'.

and maybe he does feel that his HU experience gives him an edge... i've been playing a ton of HU stud (and a little HU holdem) lately, and if i could get a match with a good (clearly better than me) hold 'em player that had never played HU holdem, i think i'd take it and be a favroite.

even if he thinks it's a break even proposition, it's gotta be an experience that he enjoys a lot... very thrilling, etc.

TransientR · #62 07-28-2005, 12:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying all of the people i mentioned are better at limit holdem than daniel. You ask for all these proofs. Where is your proof he is good or great you seem to think? Because he has played since high school? Thats your argument. C'mon? He had made fortunes playing tournmaent poker and gone broke yime after time. How does this equate to excellent live poker player? The other people i have mentioned have increased there bankroll year in and year out. Just the opposite of losing fortunes. How does he lose all this income he has made from tournies in the past? Just because the people i mentioned don't play as high as daniel now doesn't equate to better player. Btw, there are many guys in the mid to high stakes that i think are much better than danile at limit holdem. Again just speculation. But i bet i'm right.

You don't think discipline is a major part of playing limit holdem professionally? I'm not attacking you. Just annoys me when everybody assumes he is a better live player than people like i mentioned just because he's rich through tournaments. Show the players on that list the respect they deserve, they have earned it! Daniel blowing huge bankrolls that he won from tournies doesn't deserve my respect of his live play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is your proof that he has gone broke time-and-time again?

You act like he has never been successful at ring play, and that isn't true. And his tournament success is such that saying he is "lucky" is just foolish.

Your jealousy of the man just pours from your posts.

As for your not wanting to risk your bankroll playing bigger (while in your heart-of-hearts I'm sure you think your a better ring player than Negreanu):

"Balls said the Queen, if I had em, I'd be King."

Frank

Smoothcall · #63 07-28-2005, 01:49 AM

Playing headsup is not the same as beating the "big game". There is alot of luck involved and Daniel may have practiced and studied alot of headup before issuing his challenge(at least i hope he did, most smart people would before issuing a challenge to the world). If you look at some of my original responses in this thread my point was that he(daniel) has a better chance headup because loose play is not a detriment headup(probably danny's biggest weakness imo). So him holding his own against barry headup is irrelevant(not to mention not enough hours). I question daniel's ability in full ring games, and whether he could and did consistently beat live games on his way to the top.

As you said we're not even close enough to enough hours to say whether he can hold his own in the big game. Btw Gus Hansen played the big game for awhile. Does that mean Gus held his own?

Its not my perosnal mission to see everybody agrees with me that danny sucks. Its my mission to get you guys to question his ability instead of just saying he's great because he won the lottery and can play that high now. I think i make a good argument the fact that he has gone bropke playing live when having big bankrolls in the past. But i do regret attacking him so strongly. I think my speculations are deserved but i admit maybe i'm being too harsh. It's just 3 things always annoy me so i try to make people see what i see. 1) that its nausiating to hear how everybody thinks he is a world class live player without knowing. And the only thing we know is he's had troubles in the past live. 2) its nausating hearing and seeing the way danny acts. He comes off very arrogant. 3)He attacks others he dislikes by calling them out on their abilities. (barry,annie,phil h. and others). Not that he dislikes phil h. as much as the others. but probably dislikes him the way we dislike him. not really dislike but nausiated by his arrogance. But this being said i wish i hadn't attacked him so strongly. He hasn't done anything to me and he's really not a bad guy(actually probably a very nice guy). Just a bit too arrogant for my taste. but this is common with young people that come into money or famous. so maybe he will mature. but either way i've been to harsh. i would apologize to him for being mean and attacking. but do think my questions on moving up the ranks playing live are justified.

Smoothcall · #64 07-28-2005, 02:28 AM

My proof is he has admitted blowing his big bankroll playing live. he has done so in articles. look them up.

How do you know he was successful in ring games? you are saying he was successful. How do you know?

I don't write this stuff about daniel out of jealousy. yes i wish i was in his shoes sitting on a 4 million + bankroll like all of us would. But i wish i had barry g's bankroll too but hav eyou seen me attack him? its because of danny's arrogance and the way he conducts himself i have said the stuff i have said. but as i stated above i wish i hadn't as danny probbaly is a nice guy and never did anything to me. i wish i could take back what i said. if is ee him or any other players play a hand i think they misplayed i will state it. but i am backing off on this stuff. if i knew him i would tell him i was sorry for attacking him. we sometimes go overboard. he did as well when he attacked annie on rgp. im sure he was sorry too.

Vincent Lepore · #65 07-28-2005, 02:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
you are taking it too serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not.

Vince

MicroBob · #66 07-28-2005, 02:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
your forum Moderator does selective Banning based on who he likes or dislikes. I didn't start anything. I asked a question concerning the posting policy of the forum moderator. The childish behavior is his and those other here that sling the first arrow and then take offense when someone retaliates

[/ QUOTE ]

yes Vince. we all know that you feel this way.
the reason we all know this is because you have expressed this opinion in SEVERAL different threads, most of which were not originally about moderator policies.

you have made your point and you are not likely to convince any more people here to agree with you by constantly hijacking threads that were originally about other poker topics so that you could harp, yet again, about your beliefs regarding moderator policy.

it is growing very tiresome.

some people agree with you...while others don't.
but not every thread you decide to part-take in has to be steered towards this issue.

Smoothcall · #67 07-28-2005, 02:58 AM

I forgot to answer your statement about you wondering or thinking i think i'm a better limit holdem player than daniel. My answer is i don't know. But bet if he played the limits i play i doubt he would do much better than me. Not that i'm great. Just that i play pretty good(and don't feel he is a great as everybody else does) and i can't see how he could make much more of an hourly in my limit than me. espceially since he plays too many hands. i also think most of the top mid to high stakes pros section guys would make more than daniel if daniel played the same limits as they do. Just a guess. my reason for this guess is they discuss technical play and show there talent and understanding of limit holdem. daniel doesn't discuss these things. doesn't mean he doesn't know them. but i know they do know these things. i don't know daniel does. so i'll go with them and take my chances.

Again not attacking daniel and would apologize for some of the personal comments i made if i knew him. but with the technical stuff i dont think thats attacking. its just discussion. not meaning to insult anyone. if he wasn't as good as the mid to high stakes pros wouldn't be an insult as they are pretty darn good.

Mason Malmuth · #68 07-28-2005, 03:04 AM

Hi dog:

I think there's a good chance you're right. I suspect that Daniel has found his new position somewhat boring.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason Malmuth · #69 07-28-2005, 03:09 AM

Hi Mike:

I agree. While I'm sure he's getting a lot by most people's standards, $3 million sounds way too high.

best wishes,
Mason

MicroBob · #70 07-28-2005, 03:34 AM

i don't think granny just made up that $3 million rumor out of thin air.

pretty sure I had heard that once or twice around here as well (although maybe it was in previous granny threads, not sure).

anyway, I'm positive granny is not the only one who thought it was a $3-million deal (not disputing Michael or Mason here...just saying granny isn't the only one who had heard this).