ksean9999

I agree with this assessment of Dannenman 100% -- he really showed a Jekyll & Hyde part of him tonight, and made a fool of himself chastising Phil "You're a punk and NO ONE should buy your books or dvd's!"...sounds like a 6 year olds tantrum to meI couldn't agree more. The way Dannenman overeacted showed poor charcter on his part. It was like he thought it was ok to go off on Phil because Matusow kept getting away with it. The difference is Matusow and Phil know each other and Matusow was just trying to get under his skin to gain an edge. Phil knows this. Dannenman was just being a ba

it could mean anything but i think in most cases it stands for, "BITTER LITHUANIAN MATADOR." or at least that's what i was always taught.

very well said... i'm a hellmuth fan and i totally agree... hellmuth is a SICK hold 'em tourney player but it seems to me that he's looking to make the big laydown instead of looking to take a big pot.. that said, i just watched the TOC final table for the 2nd time tonight and anyone who thinks phil played poorly is a a complete idiot...i think part of the problem is that when you're held to such a high standard (in a lot of ways phil's fault) people are critical with a microscope(like in the case of tiger woods). i mean let's face, none of these poker players are THAT good. they're better

very well said... i'm a hellmuth fan and i totally agree... hellmuth is a SICK hold 'em tourney player but it seems to me that he's looking to make the big laydown instead of looking to take a big pot.. that said, i just watched the TOC final table for the 2nd time tonight and anyone who thinks phil played poorly is a a complete idiot...i think part of the problem is that when you're held to such a high standard (in a lot of ways phil's fault) people are critical with a microscope(like in the case of tiger woods). i mean let's face, none of these poker players are THAT good. they're better

part 1 is great because of it's clarity and it's very thorough but part 2 taught me to tink about poker in a completely different way. i've heard that some pros have even citicized hoh2 for divulging too much info. i obviously can't verify this but it strengthened by a wide margin.

i personally don't like phil helmuth because i think he can't handle losing like a man. but with that being said, and i hate to admit it, he makes as many great reads as anybody. let's not forget that a lot of great players (even phil ivey who is fantastic but not nearly as good as the deity everybody thinks he is) don't actually win first place in a major tournament for a couple of years. (neither did tiger woods by the way) helmuth has been at several final tables and won the huc during this supposed "slump." the problem with phil helmuth is that even though he is arguably the most naturally

most americans eat like this or worse. hence all the fat people. i like this post by the way. it made me go to the store to buy junkfood.

my advice would be to stick to what you're good at and get ever better. also HOH is an excellent book(s) and improved my game significantly.