Dan Harrington is the SHIZNIT!!

[cincy_kid24]

From H.O.H Vol. 1, pg. 240, "About a year ago a tight player in the BB raised me. I actually thought he had AA, I was in early position with KK. I made a modest raise and he reraised...(long story short) He actually had the AA.
I almost threw the hand away, but I couldn't do it. Just not savvy enough...And here's a little secret from teh world of top-class poker. Nobody else is that savvy either, no matter what they tell you."

Have you ever seen a more humble, down-to-earth millionare in your life? In this weird and burgeoning world of "poker celebrity" where you got your Hellmuth's and Antonio Esfandiari's who just cant wait to get on TV and let everybody know just how great they are, and then you have Harrington who obviously posesse a much deeper understanding of the game than either of those idiots and probably 3/4 of the professional world (tournaments at least) and he's simply confident enough to let his guard down and not pretend to be somebody else, HOH is simply an excellent book.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
From H.O.H Vol. 1, pg. 240, "About a year ago a tight player in the BB raised me. I actually thought he had AA, I was in early position with KK. I made a modest raise and he reraised...(long story short) He actually had the AA.
I almost threw the hand away, but I couldn't do it. Just not savvy enough...And here's a little secret from teh world of top-class poker. Nobody else is that savvy either, no matter what they tell you."

Have you ever seen a more humble, down-to-earth millionare in your life? In this weird and burgeoning world of "poker celebrity" where you got your Hellmuth's and Antonio Esfandiari's who just cant wait to get on TV and let everybody know just how great they are, and then you have Harrington who obviously posesse a much deeper understanding of the game than either of those idiots and probably 3/4 of the professional world (tournaments at least) and he's simply confident enough to let his guard down and not pretend to be somebody else, HOH is simply an excellent book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here here - a little bit of humility goes a long way with me personally, especially in this game. I always found it humorous that chess grandmasters generally aren't anywhere near as arrogant as some of the top poker players are; given the nature of both games, you'd think it would be the other way around. That's why I appreciate the input of people like Greg Raymer, Phil Gordon and Dan Harrington so much - there's no bullshit to them; they're true class acts in a profession teeming with insecure egomaniacs, and I tip my hat to them.

[Malachii]

[ QUOTE ]
I always found it humorous that chess grandmasters generally aren't anywhere near as arrogant as some of the top poker players are; given the nature of both games, you'd think it would be the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure about that one Jordan. Granted, becoming a chess grandmaster is probably more difficult, but if you managed to be completely secure for life financially just through playing a card game, I think you have every right to be a just as egotistical.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure about that one Jordan. Granted, becoming a chess grandmaster is probably more difficult, but if you managed to be completely secure for life financially just through playing a card game, I think you have every right to be a just as egotistical.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I meant more along the lines of "if there weren't luck involved, I'd win every one" or the ESPN interviews where the guys at the final table say silly things like "I'm going to win this bracelet today" or "second place is unacceptable" - if I didn't know any poker players or chess players, I would think it far more likely that "second place is unacceptable" would come out of a chess player's mouth than a poker player's.

But statements like "I'm great at poker because I have a 1.2BB/100 winrate at the $2,000/$4,000 game at the Bellagio over 300,000 hands" aren't egotistical - I was referring more to the statements that some poker players make that satiate their ego at the expense of their sounding at all knowledgeable about their occupation, like "today I'm going to win" or "I just cannot possibly play any better" or some such.

[George Rice]

Shhhh. You're giving away a big secret. The reason why many of us have been reading these forums (and 2+2 books) for years is that the sponsors and many of the regular posters are more concerned about being right than being liked, looking cool or feeding their egos in other visible ways.

Another big secret is that one of the main reasons that poker is so lucrative is that it draws these big ego types, most of whom can't back it up but will dump thousands trying. And when they fade away there are more to take up the slack. Now that poker is in the public eye like never before it draws these types like flies to honey.

[Brad22]

Even more amazing to me - he won this in 1995, and had a similiar demeanor.

I was watching the 1995 WSOP the other night, and when he won, the interviewer asked him about the last hand. Harrington says "let me explain" as he flips over the flop cards, and explains his decision to call a pre-flop raise, and his opponent's all-in bet, based on all the factors at play. They go back to the commentators:

Comm. #1: "It was fascinating to thear Dan Harrington analyze that last hand."

Comm. #2: "He made an extraordinary call, his reasoning was absolutely correct all the way through the hand."

Comm. #1: "From hearing him analyze that hand, I'm pretty sure we'll see him next year at the final table of the WSOP."

Good stuff.

not that this is meant in a serious way, given the astronomical chances of it happening (again), but if another 2+2er makes it to a "big game" where they sit you down in front of a camera for one of those little interviews, and they dont come off as humble as Raymer did, or as Harrington is...

I elect to be the head of the 2+2 posse that hunts them down and hurts them.

Seriously, those interviews are so ridiculous... people like Arieh, Hellmuth, Esfandiari... all Im saying is that if I ever do make it that far, I at least wanna be able to watch the episode over and over without cringing.

[Swax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I always found it humorous that chess grandmasters generally aren't anywhere near as arrogant as some of the top poker players are; given the nature of both games, you'd think it would be the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure about that one Jordan. Granted, becoming a chess grandmaster is probably more difficult, but if you managed to be completely secure for life financially just through playing a card game, I think you have every right to be a just as egotistical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? There's a huge difference between taking pride in one's accomplishments and becoming a product of your own arrogance and vanity. I'm sure Harrington and Raymer are well aware that they are millionaires and among the top 10 or 100 or whatever players in their chosen field the same way Hellmuth and Arieh or whatever example of egotism that you want to use is. How people choose to handle success, however, is totally up to them. There is no correlation between being successful and being a condescending ass. The fact that people think that there should be is ridiculous and what creates the BS obsession with fame.

Being egomaniacal is always a bad trait, and it doesn't matter what's fueling. Whether you're full of yourself because you're a world class athlete or because you were the captain of your high school football team is irrelevant. Maybe if I somehow saved a bunch of lives or cured cancer, then perhaps I might be a little self-indulgent. Becoming a millionaire from playing a game should make someone feel thankful, not cocky.

[Sykes]

[ 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.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ 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.