The sheer hypocrisy in Malmuth's post

ClaytonN · #1 03-06-2005, 11:47 PM

I was under the impression that poker is a game of playing the right odds in the long run.

At least, that's what I learned in TOP.

Should I be looking for the next 2+2 book, "How to proclaim your poker school's train of thought is the greatest off the results of one tournament"?

Lame.

maurile · #2 03-06-2005, 11:49 PM

Have a beer, dude. Relax. A little cheerleading never hurt nobody.

Army Eye · #3 03-06-2005, 11:50 PM

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see any such proclaiming.

ClaytonN · #4 03-06-2005, 11:50 PM

For the time being, I won't.

If MM is referring to something else I'll back off.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I missed it but I didn't see any such proclaiming.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Doyle, Ivey, Chan... nothing else needs to be said"

I don't know why Doyle's in there (didn't he get beat by Billy Baxter?), but when I read the above in context I view it as a proclamation in the defense of those who think Ivey and Chan have something on DS.

Like one tournament is gonna say anything. Please.

TheShootah · #5 03-07-2005, 12:04 AM

Wow! Have a couple beers. Plz also note Sklansky beat Doyle Heads up in the WPT event. You kinda spazzed right there.

That guy · #6 03-07-2005, 12:17 AM

"How to proclaim your poker school's train of thought is the greatest off the results of one tournament"?

dude, please post Masons hypocritical statement because it doesn't exist on this site..
you might want to work on your reading comprehension as you probably also missed a lot of what is in TOP...

maryfield48 · #7 03-07-2005, 12:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Doyle, Ivey, Chan... nothing else needs to be said"

I don't know why Doyle's in there (didn't he get beat by Billy Baxter?), but when I read the above in context I view it as a proclamation in the defense of those who think Ivey and Chan have something on DS.

Like one tournament is gonna say anything. Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Time and again on these boards it has been argued that DS' lack of tournament success should be used as a rebuttal of his place as a poker theorist. So there is probably a bit of "Nyah, nyah, nyah nyah nyah" in MM's post.

But also, they are likely good friends, and there's nothing wrong with getting a little giddy over a friend's success. Add to that the enhanced prospects for 2+2 arising from these results, and I think that's all the context that you need.

Oluwafemi · #8 03-07-2005, 12:21 AM

come to think of it, i can no longer find the [Doyle, Ivey, Chan] thread. was it deleted? hmmmmmm.

"nothing else needs to be said".

Best Wishes,

Oluwafemi

Oluwafemi · #9 03-07-2005, 12:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
come to think of it, i can no longer find the [Doyle, Ivey, Chan] thread. was it deleted? hmmmmmm.

"nothing else needs to be said".

Best Wishes,

Oluwafemi

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, it's back. whew! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

ClaytonN · #10 03-07-2005, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Time and again on these boards it has been argued that DS' lack of tournament success should be used as a rebuttal of his place as a poker theorist. So there is probably a bit of "Nyah, nyah, nyah nyah nyah" in MM's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something inherently wrong with making a comment like that, though. Do you see why?

Of course, his comments could be totally on a tangent to what I perceive his words to be, at which point I'd look stupid. But I'm willing to deal with that.

If he's saying "Har har! You all thought the DS school of thought couldn't hang with the big boys because you never see DS or me finish high in any of the big tournies, well THIS SHOWS YOU!", then I think 2+2 followers should be offended.