|
|
#11
10-03-2005, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dan Harrington is the SHIZNIT!!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "second place is unacceptable" [/ QUOTE ] In the WSOP, second place is unacceptable. If you truly believe that second place is acceptable, tell that to T.J. or Dewey Tomko who have finished 2nd twice. Being 1st in the WSOP is everything. Imagine if Varkonyi or Moneymaker finished second. How much would we be talking about them now? Most likely zero. Just like we're not talking about Kevin McBride (2nd place to Scotty Nyugnen). Also, imagine if Chan won against hellmuth in 89. That would mean that right now, Chan has 11 bracelets, hellmuth has 8, and Hellmuth is not a marketing scheme because he doesn't have the world champion bracelet. Also realize that Chan would have won it 3 straight years and put to rest all the "best run in WSOP" quarrel. [/ QUOTE ] You missed the point - TJ Cloutier played as close to perfect tournament poker as anyone can play in 2000 when he was heads-up against Chris Ferguson, and he still lost. The people in poker who say "second place is unacceptable" are telling you right away that they either don't understand or are ignoring the fact that you can make every right play and still not get first place - it's not a meritocracy in the short run. While first is obviously desirable, if you get second in a tournament, that's fine - what's unacceptable is if you played less than your best game, whether that caused you to finish first or last in the process. [/ QUOTE ] Um, I rather play like utter [censored] HU if it gets me 1st than play perfectly and get 2nd. 
|
|
#12
10-03-2005, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dan Harrington is the SHIZNIT!!
[ QUOTE ]
Um, I rather play like utter [censored] HU if it gets me 1st than play perfectly and get 2nd. [/ QUOTE ] What you're saying makes no sense. Of course you'd rather finish first than second. So would everyone. The point is that you partially only control your own destiny in poker. It's not like in basketball where if you outplay your opponent, you win the game. And obviously if you play well you have a better chance of winning than if you don't. So I really don't understand what point you're making here.
|
|
#13
10-03-2005, 09:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dan Harrington is the SHIZNIT!!
its called results oriented thinking, and the more people that think this way, the fatter my br.
|
|
#14
10-06-2005, 01:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dan Harrington is the SHIZNIT!!
Harrington should have called his book "The Nuts!"
Vince
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
