Daniel Negreanu - will you ever win again?

[DHamilton97]

Well he doesn't play any small tournaments anymore as they mean nothing and he can't focus on them enough when the first place prize isn't really worth it in many of the 1k or 2k buyins. These tournament fields are HUUUUGE. Lots of these 10k tournaments these days now have 400-500 people at least. Pretty hard making it to the final 6 or 9 of these. Without a doubt he's involved with other business dealings that probably does distract him from playing. He's a very smart person to get on the business side of these dealings. So is Hellmuth. Hellmuth says he's the best etc, we know he isn't and isn't close. But he will make more $ with all his [censored] he has out ( I really can't stand most of it but hey there gonna sell ) than you could ever make at the green felt. Also when you play in a cash game that high, it's hard to take a lot of tournaments seriously. It's just like playing a 2/4 or 3/6 NL game and then entering a 30-50 dollar buyin tournament. Your not going to be as hungry as you would if you were playing in a .25/.50 cent game. I admit I am getting tired of reading his blog lately. All his non poker [censored] he writes isn't exciting. I wish more of the highest limit players would write a blog about there experiences in that game.

[D. B. Murdock]

Negreanu had made more money in poker tournaments than most players will ever make in their careers and your doubting him. It's poker, he could go a couple years on a bad run, that still wouldn't put any doubt that he will continue to dominate poker tournaments throughout his career.

And Phil Hellmuth is not even close to being the best?... Just look at his record. When it comes to NL Hold'em tournaments, Hellmuth is easily one of the best in history, despite how much the guy bitches on suckouts.

[billyjex]

I feel dumber for having read this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's a terrible argument, since Joe Hachem is first on that list for winning ONE major tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

better argument?

He's done good in '05 placing 3rd in a 10K and 4th in a 20K tournament. This isn't chess your not going to see one player winning every tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. Much better.

I wasn't disagreeing with the other poster's point of view, but his "evidence" was basically meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're kidding right? You couldn't be bothered to click Negreanu's name yourself? Pathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about it. If his original intention was to refer to Negreanu's cashes, he would've done so. But he didn't, he referred to an all time money list. Pathetic.

[jackblack73]

You're truly a moron. First of all, his intention, was my intention. I posted the all time money list because I wanted to show his total cashes. When I first referred to it I had no idea he was number 2 on the list. When you looked at that list, did you really believe the bulk of his cashes came in only one or two events? Were you really too lazy to actually click on his name and see what his cashes were comprised of? Do you really need to be spoon fed, or do you have any logical reasoning skills? You're completely incapable of logical thought.

[ QUOTE ]
You're truly a moron. First of all, his intention, was my intention. I posted the all time money list because I wanted to show his total cashes. When I first referred to it I had no idea he was number 2 on the list. When you looked at that list, did you really believe the bulk of his cashes came in only one or two events? Were you really too lazy to actually click on his name and see what his cashes were comprised of? Do you really need to be spoon fed, or do you have any logical reasoning skills? You're completely incapable of logical thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is that you make assumptions. Your argument is like me giving a like to wikipedia, and saying, "find the information yourself."

I hope your sad attempts at berating someone over the Internet brightens up your day.

[jackblack73]

Yes, I assumed someone would actually look at my original post and use their brain a little bit. How you could possibly read that post and say it was "meaningless"? Are you completely incapable of independent thought?

[willie]

yeah, i'd say he'll win another

and i can't even create a set time for it, he's a damn fine player but it takes a lot of luck and skill to get through these tournies... and a stretch w/out a gigantic win is to be expected.

Your "evidence" was meaningless.

If you still can't get that through your thick head, stop, breathe, read it again, formulate a rational thought, and then post.

Anyways, I'm out. If you want to continue posting like a moron, enjoy. But I'm not going to stay around all night to keep your tiny brain company.

[jackblack73]

It's meaningless to post the amount a poker player has won in tournament play in order to show that he's a good tournament player? You're a bright one aren't you.