if you didn't hate Annie Duke before you will now

[Al_Capone_Junior]

al

[bigfishead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From Daniels own website

If you had a chance to read the trilogy I wrote recently regarding alcohol, you’d know I went through some tough times during all of the year 2000, and then most of 2001. What I left out, however, was some of the things that led me to drink and self-destruct. The most damaging was being involved in an unhappy relationship.


The relevant article is the woman who broke me

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but the incidents that occured involving Annie that Daniel refers to happened after Daniel became sober. Carson is alleging that he was drunk when they happened to dispute his credibility. I know Daniel went through a battle with alcohol, but he has been recovered from that for over 3 years and almost a full two when the Annie Duke feud began.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well that wasnt mountain dew he was dreaking two years ago when I dealt to him in 3 handed 200-400 limit triple draw lowball. And his eyes werent red as washington delicous apples becuz he just got out of the pool at 4am in the morning.

However, he was in fact a class act even when loaded at the time. I'm sure y'all are correct that he has "blown it" at the table before. But every time I see him he's been a class act. I am speaking of just the times I see him in person playing or have dealt to him. I've only seen a few minutes of the WPT show where he was supposed to be outta line with Hansen so I dunno bout that. I just wish more players were like him at the tables.

[ncskiier]

I'm just saying she knew it was televised she could clean herself up a little and lose the corduroys.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
she may have been whiny, but the bottom line is that the last time I checked very few top names were left - a bunch of internet nobodys are still in... like i told you it would be about a million times and no one would listen. poker is a friggin' idiot fest now, a luck contest with a tiny portion of skill for good measure. The variance has gone WAY up, particularly in collosally huge internet fueled tournaments. you either get the hands or you go bust. maybe annie did needlessly bluff into loose calling stations, i am not commenting on that, but basically what she said WAS true, albeit whiny.

al

[/ QUOTE ]


That is the biggest load of shilt and you know it. If a top player (i.e. her brother, Hanson, Doyle, Chan, anyone) had picked off her bluff like that, she would be praising them for a "great call" and a "good read". Just b/c it was a no-name, doesn't make the call any less spectacular or less of a good play.

Like Whiskey said, a good bluff uncalled is a great play, a bluff picked off is a great call, regarldless or who made the play.

You are about clueless.

You need to realize that there are a lot of good, hell even great poker players that don't play the tournament circuit or aren't pros. They may play a handful of local tourney's or online or very rarely play the bigger evnts, but that doesn't make them less of player b/c they don't play often and they aren't "BIG-TIME" pros. They may not have the funds, the backing, the access or even the desire to play often in the big events. A great player is a great player, regardless.

Get a clue.

[jmark]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to realize that there are a lot of good, hell even great poker players that don't play the tournament circuit or aren't pros. They may play a handful of local tourney's or online or very rarely play the bigger evnts, but that doesn't make them less of player b/c they don't play often and they aren't "BIG-TIME" pros. They may not have the funds, the backing, the access or even the desire to play often in the big events. A great player is a great player, regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on now. Everyone knows that whatever the "named pros" do is the correct move and whatever the "amateurs" do is completely wrong.

Everyone should play strictly "by the book", that way we can take all the guessing out of poker and reduce it to a computer program. We'll just deal random hands in turbo texas holdem with everyone programmed to play "like a pro should" then go get a cup of coffee. When we come back someone will be millions richer and everyone will be happy cause they all played like they should.

I mean who do these amateurs think they are. There should be some sort of a qualifying round where they have to beat a bunch of other players in a smaller tournament to show that they can actually play. They should do this to weed out the poor players. Say everyone puts up $100 and 100 people play. The winner gets a $10k entry into next year's WSOP and we'll let him play because he actually earned it. He'll of course be booted out of the WSOP immediately by the director if he does something his "pro" opponent doesn't agree with. Now that's poker!

[brassnuts]

OK, I'm not nearly as opinionated about Annie as most of you. However, I did find it funny that after all of things said in this thread, there is a clip of her on this week's WPT saying, "My dad never let us win and he taught us that winning is everything." IMO this isn't the best attitude towards anything, but it might explain why a lot of you see her as such a whiney bad sport.

[West]

Anyone who has played online for a while has seen bluffs exactly like what Annie Duke did on many occasions. Sure it took balls to call that bluff, but you can bet the guy didn't call it KNOWING that he was beat - he called because he liked the chances she was bluffing. And evidently he was right.

I just got back from the series, my friend qualified for it and I had half his action. His aces got cracked by tens early Monday after he got it all in preflop (32k pot). Anyway, I had no idea that Annie Duke had this reputation until I got home tonight and decided to check out 2+2 and read this thread. The funny thing was, my initial impression of Annie Duke from seeing her at the tournament was that she kind of walked around like she owned the place in a way. Hard to describe what I mean. Then my friend was on the rail for her calling the floor on Gank (I'm sure there are threads on this somewhere). Anyway, if the "pros" can't/don't adjust to their opponents, then they aren't getting the job done. Instead of whining that the winning hand "shouldn't" have called them, they should say, "I made a bluff I thought would work, and I was wrong, and I'm out of the tournament because of it. Maybe I could have played the pot differently and taken it down. Hats off to the guy who called me, he did it with the best hand."

I watched Negreanu from right behind him on the rail from the very beginning of the tournament. If he whined in his post tourney interview (haven't seen/heard it, but heard at the tournament that he said he made the mistake of trying to bluff to many unbluffable amateurs), it's nice to see that he has since come to the correct conclusion

http://www.recpoker.com/article.php?gID=1&ID=396923

- that he was too impatient, and tried to bluff too much when he shouldn't have (against opponents who were "calling too much"). Fact is, if they called you down, then you shouldn't have bluffed!

Anyway, I saw Daniel play from the beginning until his table got moved to the featured table, and I was a little surprised at how much he was playing, and I got the impression that he was in fact playing too impatiently. Of course that was just an impression - I obviously didn't get to see what his cards were most of the time. I did witness a few of the calls made against him where he unsuccessfully bluffed. One time a guy raised from early position with what turned out to be A8, and Daniel called from one of the blinds I think. I forget the flop, but it was checked, and Daniel bet out 600? or something on turn, and the guy called with just his ace high bad kicker, river checked, A8 wins. Another time a guy who I understood from talking with someone in the bleachers was not a very experienced player, raised up I think with QQ, and Daniel called, again from the blinds I think. Flop came AAK, and Daniel bet it either on the flop or turn, queens called, and he backed off and checked. QQ held up. From watching the table it seemed like Daniel was basically going to bet it if you checked and looked weak. I think one time he bet king high on the turn, was called by queen high, river was checked and he won that one.

There were two more interesting hands I witnessed, one where I think he laid down AA on the turn (never saw what), and another where he either bluffed or had a real nice hand, and got another guy (who was clearly an experienced player) to lay down AQ, TPTK on the river. The first hand was against the guy who called him with the A8. I think someone limped, then Daniel limped, then A8 guy raised it up (blinds were 75/150 if I recall right). Folded to Daniel who pondered and called. Flop came K high (K32 maybe?), rainbow I think, other guy bet strong if I recall correctly, and Daniel again pondered and called. Turn was another K, the guy bet strong and Daniel quickly folded...we figured it was probably aces (unless he called preflop with one of his fav suited connector hands (54?), and if it was aces, was a good laydown since the guy showed AK.

Later a hand against a guy who I think was listed as V. Shjhjflflhf (couldn't tell you the last name exactly, I think this is the guy), who gave the impression of being very experienced, pretty aggressive, and who chatted a lot at the table, particularly with Daniel I think. Can't remember the preflop betting, but flop came QJsomething low, and V bet 1500, and Daniel called...turn was a blank I think, and V bet 1500, and again Daniel called. Daniel was one of the blinds, and after the river 8 came, he bet out 4000 which was more than half his stack I think at the time. So losing the pot would have put him in real trouble. V wound up folding AQ and showing it. Couldn't here all the talk at the table after that, but I think he was telling Daniel that he had T9, and I think Daniel was denying it. Bluff? T9? QJ? Trips? A minute or so later, Daniel stood up and was just looking around, and I almost got the guts to say from the rail, "Hey Daniel, the fans want to know what you had there", but didn't. I don't expect he would have said, but I'm sure he probably would have laughed.

Was also on the rail for when Johnny Chan got knocked out. Shortly before that occurred, an interesting situation came up. Johnny was the BB and the hand had been folded to the SB. I didn't see this happen, but apparently, somehow the lady to his right exposed one he cards to Johnny. She did not dispute this, but said it was unintentional. A floorperson was called, and the floor quickly stated that the hand would play, but that the woman would receive a 10 minute penalty (could not play any hands for ten minutes, automatically folded). Anyway, she had AK, raised it, Johnny folded, and she showed it. She had a lot more chips than Johnny and given that it was AK, I can't think of any reason why she would show the card intentionally, but she was pretty snippy about being penalized, saying that nothing was affected by it. You could tell Johnny didn't want to argue about it, but he pointed out that that wasn't the point, that there's good reason why you can't show cards to other players, and that's why they penalize you whether it's intentional or not. Not having much live tournament experience myself, it was interesting observing the many occasions where the floor was called to various tables. One time there was a table where they wound up calling over just about every official in the place, and someone in the bleachers said they thought it was because a player was claiming that a pot had been divided incorrectly. Anyway, Johnny was out a few hands later, limped utg with JJ, raised by QQ, he went all in and was called.