ksean9999

chan also won 2 bracelets in 2003 and if you consider the fact that he doesn't even play that many tournaments, 3 bracelets in 3 years is pretty damn impressive. had anybody else won more than 3 since then? and i'm not gonna mention poker superstars 2 because the structure is a joke and it's not open to all players. however, the competition is stacked and you DO have to work your way through multiple rounds including heads-up play. thus even though it's a bogus tournament in many regards, to win is a tough test and with a $400,000 first prize and a title coveted by many top pros, it should not

youre right about that in general but all the players are listed now and out of the top 10 players (chan is 11th) there are only 2 that i dont know. and if you consider these facts:1) of over 600 entrants, a large majority are unknown. 2) of the top 10 (or 11) 80% are pros (and the 2 i dont know could very well be pros) it is quite impressive and obviously a result of the superior structure that reduces the luck factor. hopefully more tournaments will start doing the same.

i posted this before but didnt get any response, hopefully ill have more luck this time.does anybody know anything about pokerpoka.com?they have a massive bonus but i dont know anything about the site or its credibility or service.any info would be greatly appreciated.thank you.

i agree that they are "aware" of the difference between poor but legal play and outright cheating. my contention is that many amateurs are unaware of just how effective collusion can be and how to implement it.although collusion is illegal, it is a "skill" in a way that some do better than others and being given a demonstration by pros and seeing it work so effectively is serious trouble.as far as daniel being willing to collude, nobody knows that except him. my guess would be no because i dont think any pro would want to encourage amateurs to cheat against them (even though this would be diff

i dont think daniel is saying that the tourney organizers are "BAD" or that the other players who appeared to be colluding are "BAD." his point is that this type of tournament IS bad for poker. it's bad for the image and it sends the wrong message - especially in the wake of recent well-publicized incidents of online collusion and cheating.his problem isn't so much with the tournament - just the fact that he was a part of it and thereby PERCEIVED as "endorsing" it through participation.while this may seem obvious to some of you, i read many post that clearly missed the entire point of the blog

does anybody know anything about pokerpoka.com?they have an amzing bonus but they are not exactly well know or reputable so i was wondering if anybody knew anything about them.

daniel WAS a bit on the hyper side but his "wait i didn't mean it" after going all-in with 7-3 was one of the funniest things i've seen in TV poker.also, annie duke is not hot by any stretch of any imagination in any way under any circumstances. this is NOT my opinion... this is a scientific fact.matusow getting sucked out on the river by a ONE-OUTER didn't surprise anybody. matusow could flop a royal flush and still lose. the dealer would accidently turn a joker on the river giving his opponent 5-of-a-kind. although the TD would order a new deck to the table, the play would stand and mike wou

you're absolutely correct and the list goes on and on.

looks like a very cool event - the only thing i dislike is the fact that some really good pros who deserve to be there are not there in favor of some celebrities.i know nbc can do what they want and they need to get ratings but i don't think anybody's watching for jerry buss. any extra rating acquired because of a few celebrities would be slim at best if it would make any difference at all but the integrity compromise is great.i mean you can actually make a case for jennifer tilly seeing as she did win 2 major events even though they were female-only events but she won nonetheless.but i mean j

here's the thing. when you hold KK pre-flop, approx. 1 out of 20 times, one of your opponents will hold AA.thus theoretically, you should be folding your KK 1 out of 20 times against a single opponent at a full table.unfortunately, it's almost impossible to be accurate enough in our assessment of our opponent's possible holdings to make this a +ev play, although statistically it is the correct play 5% ofthe time which actually equates to quite a few KK laydowns over the course of a career.however, as many are saying that you should NEVER laydown KK pre-flop, some situations would disagree....

johnny chan won a wsop bracelet last year against a large field and has won 3 wsop in the last 3 years (2 in 2003 i believe). who else has won 3 bracelets in the last 3 years?i'm not sure off the top of my head but the list is short if it exists at all.not bad for a guy who hasn't won lately - and he's not playing nearly as many events as guys like ferguson et al.

at this point moneymaker is probably just as good as most of the tv players.i mean he's not john juanda or chris ferguson but how bad can he be? he's basically been playing poker and studying poker for over 2 years and playing with the best players. and it's not like he's dumb. the guy WAS an accountant. he was successful in the real world.yeah he was inexperienced when he won the wsop but i'm sure the guy plays a lot better than people think. i mean what do you think he chases every draw or plays any two suited cards or raises with any ace like an internet player?and he's had some decent res

NoWay. I thought she was like, 38 or so.she'll actually be 48 this year. i thought the guy was joking when he said 47!that is just incredible.i saw her at the wsop UP CLOSE and she looked barely over 30 - and hot.

ehh i think you're getting all bent out of shape for no reason. Barry isn't saying Joe is better or worse than Johnny Chan. I don't think Barry made the profiles to show who he thinks the best player is. They show a relationship of how a given player performs in different aspects of poker. He could make a profile for any no name and give him a "7" in NL. All it would show is that the player shows great understanding of NL games.i wasn't bent out of shape (i guess it sounded that way).i was just pointed out something that i thought was kind of funny.your point makes sense though. he probably

that's a good question. i guess i meant step-son or maybe "son that didn't live with him."i guess i just made it up.

and my point was not really to compare poker and golf... it was illustrating how silly it is to think that just because someone knows what they are talking about, doesn't mean they're speaking the truth - especially when it makes little sense.

i agree but wouldnt you say that someone with 2 years experience cannot hardly be compared to someone with a lifetime of experience who has grinded their way to the top and won many titles and millions of dollars.

that's not what i'm saying...obviously.i'm not saying he doesn't know, i'm saying he's not objective.do you honestly believe it's possible for joe sebok to be up to the level of chan or ivey in any aspect of nlhe?if you do then fine. that's you're right.that's like arnold palmer teaching his son to play golf for two years and then saying he's as good as tiger woods and you believing him because he's arnold palmer and he "knows what he is talking about."and for the record, many would argue that greenstein HIMSELF would be lucky to be considered as good as ivey or chan. i personally believe he i

that's not what i'm saying...obviously.i'm not saying he doesn't know, i'm saying he's not objective.do you honestly believe it's possible for joe sebok to be up to the level of chan or ivey in any aspect of nlhe?if you do then fine. that's you're right.that's like arnold palmer teaching his son to play golf for two years and then saying he's as good as tiger woods and you believing him because he's arnold palmer and he "knows what he is talking about."and for the record, many would argue that greenstein HIMSELF would be lucky to be considered as good as ivey or chan. i personally believe he i

that's not what i'm saying...obviously.i'm not saying he doesn't know, i'm saying he's not objective.do you honestly believe it's possible for joe sebok to be up to the level of chan or ivey in any aspect of nlhe?if you do then fine. that's you're right.that's like arnold palmer teaching his son to play golf for two years and then saying he's as good as tiger woods and you believing him because he's arnold palmer and he "knows what he is talking about."and for the record, many would argue that greenstein HIMSELF would be lucky to be considered as good as ivey or chan. i personally believe he i

had anyone read the player profiles on barrygreenstein.com?total garbage IMO.barry rates joe sebok basically about the same as many top pros.he rates joe a '7' in ' NLHE and also rates ivey the same - and chan too if i remember correctly. how is that possible that some kid who just learned how to play is already at the same level as ivey or chan in ANY aspect of poker whatsoever?certainly doesn't say much for ivey or chan.i know it's his son or half-son or whatever and i'm sure that joe is a decent player but cmon. if barry can't be objective then why even put him on the list.

crabs(sw, i think anyway)The jury is still out on whether Kristy and Kathy are actually dudes! Until we know for sure, they are disqualified from this discussion.Edit:THERE'S NO WAY IN HELL THAT I'M GOING TO BE THE ONE TO FIND OUT FOR SURE EITHER!damn!!! i KNEW it was too good to be true! (sw)

how come no one's mentioning kristy gazes?is there something wrong with her that i don't know about?she kind of reminds me of salma hayek. i mean a POOR man's salma hayek but even 2nd or 3rd rate salma is pretty damn good.evelyn is hot. 7.5/10grinder's wife has a beautiful face. 7.5/10isabelle mercier is highly bangable. 7/10clonie gowan is average at best. 6/10cindy violette looks a bit crazy to me (i kinda like that though) 6/10mimi tran - you can laugh but i'm sure you've had worse - 3/10kathy f''ckin' leibert - always looks like she just woke up - 2/10jennifer tilly - held to a higher stan

that's impossible. i sprained my right wrist once and it sucked!

i'm glad you wrote this theresa. very sincere and well written. i enjoyed reading it. it's nice to see someone who is SECURE enough to speak kindly about someone and their positive attributes. hiding behind insults to protect yourself is a cop out.i'm not saying that people have to worship daniel. if they don't like him or the way he plays than they are entitled to their opinion. but to flame you for having something nice to say is just silly.