myenemy
-
Content Count
1,546 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by myenemy
-
-
Wonder who bubbled.
-
List of all time multiple bracelet winners.
Bracelets Player Years 11 Phil Hellmuth 1989, 1992, 1993 (3), 1997, 2001, 2003 (2), 2006, 2007 10 Doyle Brunson 1976 (2), 1977 (2), 1978, 1979, 1991, 1998, 2003, 2005 10 Johnny Chan 1985, 1987, 1988, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003 (2), 2005 9 Johnny Moss 1970, 1971 (2), 1974, 1975, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1988 8 Erik Seidel 1992, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007 7 Billy Baxter 1975, 1978, 1982 (2), 1987, 1993, 2002 7 Phil Ivey 2000, 2002 (3), 2005, 2009 (2) 7 Men Nguyen 1992, 1995 (2), 1996, 2003 (2), 2010 6 T.J. Cloutier 1987, 1994 (2), 1998, 2004, 2005 6 Layne Flack 1999, 2002 (2), 2003 (2), 2008 6 Jay Heimowitz 1975, 1986, 1991, 1994, 2000, 2001 5 Gary "Bones" Berland 1977, 1978 (2), 1979 (2) 5 Allen Cunningham 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007 5 Chris Ferguson 2000 (2), 2001, 2003 (2) 5 Ted Forrest 1993 (3), 2004 (2) 5 Berry Johnston 1983, 1986, 1990, 1995, 2001 5 Scotty Nguyen 1997, 1998, 2001 (2), 2008 5 Stu Ungar 1980, 1981 (2), 1983, 1997 4 Mickey Appleman 1980, 1992, 1995, 2003 4 Bobby Baldwin 1977 (2), 1978, 1979 4 Bill Boyd 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 4 David Chiu 1996, 1998, 2000, 2005 4 Artie Cobb 1983, 1987, 1991, 1998 4 Mike Hart / Harthcock 1984, 1990, 1991, 1994 4 John Juanda 2002, 2003 (2) 2008 [E] 4 Jeff Lisandro 2007, 2009 (3) 4 Lakewood Louie 1978, 1979 (2), 1980 4 Tom McEvoy 1983 (2), 1986, 1992 4 Daniel Negreanu 1998, 2003, 2004, 2008 4 Walter "Puggy" Pearson 1971, 1973 (3) 4 Thomas "Amarillo Slim" Preston 1972, 1974, 1985, 1990 4 Huck Seed 1994, 1996, 2000, 2003 3 Eli Balas 1992, 1999, 2004 3 Lyle Berman 1989, 1992, 1994 3 John Bonetti 1990, 1993, 1995 3 Farzad Bonyadi 1998, 2004, 2005 3 Jimmy Casella 1971 1974 (2) 3 John Cernuto 1996, 1997, 2002 3 Paul "Eskimo" Clark 1992, 1999, 2002 3 Hamid Dastmalchi 1986, 1992, 1993 3 Nani Dollison 2000, 2001 (2) 3 Barbara Enright 1986, 1994, 1996 3 Sam Farha 1996, 2006, 2010 3 Chau Giang 1993, 1998, 2004 3 Perry Green 1976, 1977, 1979 3 Barry Greenstein 2004, 2005, 2008 3 Jack Keller 1984 (2), 1993 3 O'Neil Longson 1994, 2003, 2005 3 Mike Matusow 1999, 2002, 2008 3 David "Chip" Reese 1978, 1982, 2006 3 Hilbert Shirey 1987, 1995 (2) 3 David Sklansky 1982 (2), 1983 3 Max Stern 1995, 1997 (2) 3 Dewey Tomko 1979, 1984 (2) 3 Don Williams 1982, 1985, 1988 2 Daniel Alaei 2006, 2009 2 Rafi Amit 2005, 2007 2 Howard Andrew 1976 (2) 2 Sam Angel 1973, 1975 2 Josh Arieh 1999, 2005 2 Praz Bansi 2006, 2010 2 David Baxter 1983, 1986 2 Chris Björin 1997, 2000 2 Buddy Bonnecaze 1992, 1993 2 Burt Boutin 2001, 2007 2 Dutch Boyd 2006, 2010 2 Humberto Brenes 1993 (2) 2 Starla Brodie 1979, 1995 2 Brandon Cantu 2006, 2009 2 Brent Carter 1991, 1994 2 William Chen 2006 (2) 2 Thomas Chung 1989, 1991 2 Scott Clements 2006, 2007 2 Hoyt Corkins 1992, 2007 2 Aubrey Day 1973, 1978 2 Freddy Deeb 1996, 2007 2 Jim Doman 1982, 1983 2 Tommy Fischer 1985, 1986 2 Scott Fischman 2004 (2) 2 Gene Fisher 1980, 1993 2 Eric Froehlich 2005, 2006 2 Matt Graham 2008, 2009 2 David Grey 1999, 2005 2 Thor Hansen 1988, 2002 2 Jennifer Harman 2000, 2002 2 Dan Harrington 1995 (2) 2 John Hennigan 2002, 2004 2 Randy Holland 1996, 2000 2 Jesper Hougaard 2008, 2008 [E] 2 Ryan Hughes 2007, 2008 2 Susie Isaacs 1996, 1997 2 Mel Judah 1989, 1997 2 J.P. Kelly 2009, 2009 [E] 2 Vasilis Lazarou 1990, 1997 2 Howard Lederer 2000, 2001 2 John Lukas 1983, 1985 2 Hans "Tuna" Lund 1978, 1996 2 Vitaly Lunkin 2008, 2009 2 Thang Luu 2008, 2009 2 Tony Ma 1996, 2000 2 Jeff Madsen 2006 (2) 2 Sam Mastrogiannis 1979, 1986 2 Juan Carlos Mortensen 2001, 2003 2 Ralph Morton 1982, 1987 2 Greg Mueller 2009 (2) 2 A.J. Myers 1980, 1981 2 Minh Nguyen 2003, 2004 2 Phi Nguyen 2003, 2004 2 Frankie O'Dell 2003, 2007 2 Rodney H. Pardey 1991, 1994 2 Brock Parker 2009 (2) 2 Max Pescatori 2006, 2008 2 David Pham 2001, 2004 2 John Phan 2008 (2) 2 Pat Poels 2005, 2006 2 James Richburg 2006, 2007 2 Dody Roach 1981, 1996 2 Brian "Sailor" Roberts 1974, 1975 2 Ray Rumler 1990, 1992 2 Eddy Scharf 2001, 2003 2 Tom Schneider 2007 (2) 2 Mark Seif 2005 (2) 2 Barry Shulman 2001, 2009 [E] 2 Marty Sigel 1993, 1996 2 Jan Vang Sørensen 2002, 2005 2 Jack Straus 1973, 1982 2 J.C. Tran 2008, 2009 2 Peter Vilandos 1995, 2009 2 David Warga 2002, 2010 2 Steve Zolotow 1995, 2001 -
Vote count is interesting.Notables left off?After months of hype and anticipation, the first-ever fan-voted World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions field is set. Over 350,000 ballots were submitted, and the voting was led by none other than Phil Ivey and Daniel Negreanu, who were separated by less than 30 votes.Also in the top ten are Doyle Brunson, Phil Hellmuth, Chris Ferguson, Johnny Chan Allen Cunningham, Scotty Nguyen, Barry Greenstein and John Juanda. Voting has been open since March 15, and the 20 players voted in today to play in the million-dollar freeroll will join Joe Cada, Annie Duke, Mike Sexton, Mike Matusow and Barry Shulman who were the five automatic bids, in addition to Team PokerStars Pro Bertrand "ElkY" Grospellier and Andrew Barton, who are both sponsor exemptions.“We’re very pleased with the response to this new format,” said WSOP vice president Ty Stewart. “The selections show that poker has a mass fan base that is knowledgeable about the history of the World Series of Poker.”The tournament of champions gets underway at 12 p.m. on June 27 and will play down to a final table on June 28. The final table will get underway on July 4, and fans can watch it all play out when it's televised on ESPN at 8 p.m. EST, on August 3.Here is a complete list of those who were voted in and the number of votes they received.1. Phil Ivey - 16,2672. Daniel Negreanu - 16,2393. Doyle Brunson - 13,7964. Phil Hellmuth - 12,6735. Chris Ferguson - 11,5856. Allen Cunninghan - 10,4867. Johnny Chan - 10,4348. Scotty Nguyen - 9,8349. Barry Greenstein - 9,80610. John Juanda - 8,83511. Erik Seidel - 8,80212. Jennifer Harman - 8,20613. Huck Seed - 8,18014. Dan Harrington - 7,34215. T.J. Cloutier - 6,28116. Sammy Farha - 6,08517. Howard Lederer - 5,59618. Greg Raymer - 5,40419. Joe Hachem - 5,27220. Antonio Esfandiari - 5,129 -
He probably blew it in the pits on the way back to his room.Sammy's got HSP money now!!!!! -
It really would be beautiful to see 100 tables of blacks!...I'd like to see Shaun Deeb play that one in blackface.When are they implementing the Black and Asian events? -
HA!
Must be fun...Do What You WantThe blinds right now are 90,000-180,000 and the players have basically resorted to just setting them as 100,000-200,000. Even after the flop, the players are resorting to just saying the betting amounts instead of actually grabbing the chips. Heads-up play has been going for about three and a half hours now. On top of that, these players started the day more then 13 hours ago at 3:00 p.m. yesterday! Anything goes really at this time. -
Long ass heads up match still going on right now!Sammy v. Dempsey(?)
-
DN's point is well stated and I for one agree that this is an incredibly petty issue. The one thing that is not being discussed is the awesome subtext, i.e. his hate for Annie Duke. Thats the real fun here.Hear, hear here!
-
This blog was an interesting choice for Doyle....
-
I wonder who else played in that game.
-
In theory I agree but sometimes I am in the mood for a shitty subway sub. Its at least unique in its shittiness. But it is what is and you shouldnt expect better. Like drinking Sunny D and expecting OJ, you'll be sorely disappointed but if you expect shitty, puddle water Sunny D, mmmmm tasty!subway is literally the worst sub shop in the country, and you're all just a bunch of fucking robots. -
Played in both Harrah's and Lumiere a few months ago when I was there for work. I prefered Lumiere. As someone said, much more action. Also, it took me a few hours to learn that I should be calling large bets on the river OFTEN, of course YMMV.
-
How are you making out?I just started it and I am the same point that you were above.I am having a hard time with this book. I usually read before bed and sometimes before work if I have a little time, that's like 2 pages with this book. I often just find myself not messing with it. I probably need to carve out a few hours to do some damage to it. I'm around 110 pages and still don't have a friggin' clue what the hells going on. It's also very tedious writing and I often find myself re-reading lines and text to see if I missed something or if there was anything that might be remotely important about it. The footnotes suck as well. They often are obvious, explaining a medical symptom or something. Others are 6 pages. BTW, there is a massive footnote that's a dozen pages or so, #304 that has been noted already under #304sub. Should I read that whole thing now or wait? Please to god I hope this picks up because I have a stack of books calling my name. -
How can I get an enlarged version of you getting the tat?
sidenote: I may have to use this as my avatar.
-
I wont even address your point about prisons, as it has been said already. no one is concerned with what the prisoners themselves could accomplish.In the case of NYC, there is no question that the threat of a terror attack is increased by bringing terrorists here, clearly to a lesser extent for other locations, BECAUSE OF THEIR NICE TERRORIST FRIENDS. When you say it shouldnt be discussed when discussing closing Gitmo, I disagree. They have to go somewhere, and that somewhere becomes more of a target than it was before, period. Im not talking about criminals, Im talking specifically about terrorists and specifically muslim terrorists. If you dont think their goal is to "send a message" and scare us to the point of bringing down our infrastructure and economy than you dont understand terrorism. And what better place to do that than the place that we are holding their "soldiers". Im with BG, the bigger issue is the legal stuff but more terror is a legitimate concern.I don't know if you are being serious or not.Is it your position that terrorist acts would increase worldwide if everyone at gitmo was transferred to the mainland somewhere? Is it your position that these people would be housed in general population with other inmates? Do you understand what supermax prisons are? Do you realize how foolish your post seems from the bolded? -
Right, because companies and individuals are always held accountable for their actions in other countries... Do you think there is another oil producing country on Earth in which BP would not have rather had this happen?When the Exxon Valdez had its oopsie, Exxon was hit with a MONSTER judgment for economic damages and punitive damages. Which was reduced greatly by the appellate court. And then was reduced MORE by the Supreme Court.I am sure BP will come out of this fine in 10 years or so after they have made everybody stay in court for a decade.America! **** yeah!
I dont know about that. Legal rights is probably the most important issue but what about the possibility of inciting more terrorist action by bringing these people to the US? One reason citizens of NY dont want trials here and understandably why other citizens wouldnt want them coming soon to a local prison near you. Its not as if they havent been trying. Why would any city/state/town want to attract this kind of attention to itself?You do realize these are people we have in custody right? What are they going to do? Escape from Supermax prisons when no one has ever done so? There IS NO DANGER. This is all part of the supernatural hype. Everything surrounding this issue is fear and nonsense, not comprehension.If I ran a state, I would agree to take them in exchange for pork. People dont escape from supermax prisons.....there is no danger. -
HAHAHA@eskimoclark. I asked Barry Greensteinberg to stake me and that cheap jew turned me down 4:24 PM Nov 20th, 2009 via web -
Total entry fee: $237,500.
-
What a tease. (Should I already know the answer to this?) -
The doom switch is real, right?Honestly, variation cannot explain the mathematical oddities that are my life.Two, TWO, nut full houses beaten by quads in the same session by the same guy. Is there a way I can find out what the odds of this happening are?
-
I have no choice but to believe the OP is correct. By the way BBFIDTS.
-
Player TEAM W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO P. Hughes NYY 5 0 1.38 6 6 0 0 0 0 39.0 22 6 6 1 0 14 39 WOW!
-
-
This is not a change of rules to the game in any way. There are game rules and casino rules (laws?), you cant spit in someones face but a flush still beats a straight. I know its a matter of semantics but I think calling this a "rule change" goes further to blowing this out of proportion.I can see that argument, but I don't think TV production values ought to be the rationale behind changing the rules of the game.
I cant tell you how much I disagree with everything you said here. Theyre not leveling the playing field so that everyone has an equal chance of success, what would be the point of playing poker? They're trying to prevent people from cheating. There's a small but important difference... The 'Poker is a skill game' argument that players make to the government has no bearing on people wearing sunglasses to potentially cheat. And PS this is really close to belonging in the political forum.No, of course not, and I realized after the fact that I could have worded that post better. I wish politics didn't come into play here, but "level playing field" has more than one definition, and "equal chance of success" is exactly what some people would say the definition is. [it's a loaded example, but I'm using it without prejudice ... segregated school districts argued that if they had one black school for every white school, that met the legal requirement of "equal." The Supreme Court ruled that numerically equal was not the same as materially equal, and that the inequality was so great that segregation was irretrievably broken and had to be done away with.] Some people would say that "level playing field" means equal treatment under the rules. Others would say that's not enough to create a level playing field, that significant gaps in ability between participants must be addressed too. [Which is why there are plenty of books and training tools out there -- to fill those gaps.] As a nation, we go back and forth between both definitions depending on circumstances, and this is an ambiguous circumstance. Is a field that includes both Phil Ivey and a bunch of fish really level at all?My main point was the latter part of my post. Pros can say that sunglasses give wearers an advantage and that they want a level playing field by banning them. But I think it's an equally legitimate claim for wearers (who are usually not top pros) to say that pros have significant advantages over them* and that they are the ones trying to level the playing field.*(an argument that pros themselves use in defending poker as a game of skill)I'm not staking out a hard and fast position on this. I don't play at the level where sunglasses would be anything but hilariously pretentious (or possibly a sign that one of the players has dropped acid). I'm just pointing out the alternative argument because I'm not sure that a rule change (as opposed to a culture/fashion change) is the way to go.
How'd You Get There
in General
Posted