ksean9999

these kinds of expressions never get old and they crack me up every single time... and by "every single time," i mean "every single time."

i see what you mean but i didn't get the impression that he was comparing himself to will hunting in the sense that he was a "genius" or as smart as will hunting - it seemed to me that he related to the character from a social point of view.will hunting is a bit of an "intellectual outsider" if you will... he has knowledge without the formal eduaction that would normally breed such knowledge - and above all he is street smart whereas many of the ivy league students in the movie are not.society would look at a "will hunting" as uneducated, even though he is smarter than many of the so-called ac

i don't know who's avatar cracks me up more... you or the jimrome guy.

it's funny that some people are so passionate about this topic... like saying, "if you don't think poker is gambling u should kill yourself."take it easy. to say poker is gambling is an incomplete statement in my opinion.gambling is part of it but in that regard there is also gambling in golf and business and pretty much every other aspect of life. i know this sounds obvious but i have a point.for example. if you are playing phil ivey in a heads up match (any game), make NO mistake about it.... you are gambling.he is not. or at least not as much. i mean no more than purchasing real estate in l

i see what your saying but i'm not sure it's really the same thing if it's not at the same level. i mean i've won some mtt's with over 300 people but the biggest one was a $100 buy-in. (not too much obviously)i was happy of course but i don't think it can be compared to winning a $10000 buy in tournament with many top pros.i COULD get lucky but my "luck" is much better at lower levels. it's kind of like scoring 81 points in your garage league basketball game and then comparing yourself to Kobe. (maybe not exactly but you get my point)does winning this tourney make daniel a god? nowas 2004 infl

TY man, I have not as yet read these although they are in my poker-pile. Suprisingly though, I am not having too much trouble winning pots approaching these sizes, It is not difficult to get a 3 way pot by overbetting your monster with a 10x BB pf raise! Which of course leads to the inevitable pot raise on the flop of somewhere around $8 with one caller here u are looking at a $25 pot more than half of which is profit!Also to ksean, of course Gus Hansen has bought more 'slam-dunk' tv 'excitement' to these donks however, it never hurts to suck out against AK with 7d9d! lol! BUt only when you kn

you're right of course but that's the whole point. people aren't playing poker only to win money. they are playing for many reasons. some are addicted, some are bored but in my opinion, many play because they see it on TV - and that's how they learned to play.it's no coincidence that gus hansen is so popular - it's because he plays garbage hands and gets away with it (or at least he did when the cameras were rolling). people use this to justify their inabilty to wait for a good opportunity. they say,"i'm an aggressive player. i play like gus."well god bless gus hansen!! he's made me a lot of m

I cant tell you the relief i felt when i saw that DD was the author of this posting. I've read enough douche from posters like cemo and teacher to last a life time.Does that mean I'm not a douche? you seem like a good guy who makes strong contributions to the forum. your posts seem to be positive.people like you make it a better forum but unfortunately a lot of people here only want to talk trash. if you say anything good about daniel or support him they act like you're performing deep-throated felatio on him. they have to be negative and cynical about everything or they feel inadequate.but

just because your "source" has something to say, doesn't make it true or untrue whether or not you mention the source or not. it is in fact, an opinion - nothing more.with that being said, i think the point you're trying to make is that daniel and e-dog are over-rated, not frauds. are they over-rated? of course they are. phil ivey is too. and so is doyle brunson - and even stu unger and every other player that has been built up to be a god by tv and mike sexton. but are they "poker frauds?" HELL NO!daniel won before his big year and even though this year had been poor by his standards - he has

ok. i'm making a new rule for this website....if you are a guy, you are NOT allowed to have a picture of a female as your avatar.

i think the question is, "just how accurate of a read are u looking for?"if you are a clear winner over the course of 200 sngs than you'd probably be at least a "winner" over a much longer term. (assuming you're playing the same limit)i've played roughly 300 sngs at the lower limits (under $25) and i am a staggering winner. but i would not expect to maintain this pace. however, although i would expect a drop at some point, i would not expect to become an actual losing player unless i possibly played at the $200 level or something like that.prognosis - you need to play a minimum of 35,567,249 s

was stu ungar a pro?btw, guarantee matusow makes more playing poker than he loses. the money goes into other things like sportsbettingthat's a good point. although it seems to me that unger won in poker and lost on gambling - almost exclusively.matusow, while he obviosly loses money on sportsbetting, he is clearly (and almost bragging about it) losing more money on internet poker than anything else. while i'm not his accountant and really don't care, if he has to borrow money for basically everything, he can't be winning that much. i mean sportsbetting can't be blamed for everything. (after al

how is MM even considered a "professional poker player?" doesn't a pro have to WIN more than they LOSE so they can support themselves? or am i the crazy one?

canada doesn't have whitecastle but they do have "Harvey's" which u cannot get in the US.

ok guys. no need to argue about. thanks for the info. my tv guide said it was 2005 but i guess it was wrong.on a lighter note, knowing that he also came in 3rd last year (even though he made what was IMO a sick call and got suckd out) i am even more impressed by ivey.

is it just me or wasn't it reported that ivey won the monte carlo millions tourney? not the live fox special with one table but the mtt.it aired last night (maybe or maybe not for the first time) and some finnish guy hit a straight on him and ivey finished in 3rd.was anybody else under the impression or heard that ivey had won? i could've sworn i saw it on cardplayer.com.

i saw a little and x was calling on the river with nothing. i'm no poker expert but i can't imagine why. at least raise. the guy also caught some freaking miracles on the river to take a couple of substantial pots.maybe i just don't know what i'm talking about but i can't remember seeing anybody play so bad and do so well.

the fact is that there are hundreds of stu ungers all over vegas and anywhere else really. but most of them aren't 3-time wsop champions. they play lo limit games against people like us. (not all of us, i'm sure some of you are high rollers)i see them all the time and do we give any thought as to what happens to them after we take their money when we hit that flush on the river to crush their 2-pair. no we don't. we just rake their(our) chips in and think about how well we played the hand.i understand being curious about any inight daniel may have regarding stu unger but clearly you're trying

i think mike's funny at times but it seems like the tv cameras are encouraging him to just be prick. i guess for some people that's funny in the same way the mike tyson is good boxing.

very interesting. are thy 50$ ones much different from the $1 or are you just that good that you can beat them all? (serious question)

i have been playing $1 single table sng's for a couple of months now and smashing the hell out of them. obviously this is not on account of my skill moreso because of the extreme donkedness of my opponents. my question is that while i assume it gets tougher as you ascend in buy-ins, at what point does it get really get difficult.$10 sng's, 25$, 100...etc.also, what pokersites are generally the toughest/easiest?

recycled joke:a guys dies and goes to heavenhe is greeted at the pearly gates by st.peter...st.peter: welcome to heaven young man, would you like a tour?man: yes st. peter, i would love that.st. peter: follow methey approach a room and jimi hendrix is there, playing guitar...man: wow, jimi hendrix. they approach a 2nd room and pablo picasso is there, painting a mural...man: wow, pablo picasso. this is awesome.they approach a 3rd room and stu unger is there, playing heads up against phil helmuth...man: what? phil helmuth?! i didn't know he was dead.st. peter: oh no, no, no dear child... that's

So the real question here is: Who is Steve Dannenmann going to kill first ? Even money on Hellmuth ? Dannenmann's wife 4 - 1 ? Dannenmann's next door neighboor 8 - 1 ? What do you think ? The real guy who needs to be made fun of is Steve Dannenmann. He is brand new to the spotlight. Hellmuth is an established player. He isn't going anywhere EVER. His fans are so loyal that he could have punched the tourney director in the face and they would still love him. I think Steve has a problem with social situations. He's always grinning, too and that scares me. And tha

i thought of this too. the idea of dn assembling an all-star hit squad to take out dreamclown and his entire posse.but i can't imagine it happening although i think there would be pros willing to help his cause to protect the integrity of the belief that they are so much better than us. however, it would appear to me from what i've read about daniel that he is extremely competitive and prides himself in being a poker player first and a business man second. the last thing he wants to be considered is a "poker fraud" (i think he actually quoted this) and if word ever got out that he conspired t