greenstein talks about winners in the big game.

[na3r0k 0]

Ok well first off I'ma start off saying that I'm not really a fan of greenstein, mainly because of the way he looks... j/k j/k. Anyway getting to the point however, reading through the posts I've noticed a lot of negativity, and I really feel that many have taken the wrong tone from the espn article. Now the simple fact is barry greenstein (while his track record is somewhat unknown) really has the back up to prove that he is in fact one of the best players in the world. I feel like much of the negativity in the post has come from the statement he made in which he stated who the five best players were (one of which was himself). The overall tone of the article though was barry's displeasure in a lot of the televised poker winners gaining rockstar like status, but being acclaimed as some of the greatest players. Now I'm not saying that players have to play in the big game to be considered a great (negreanu would definately be one i would consider), but it does support the theory. However do consider what you watch on tv, and you can see a lot of basis to his statement. For example, FSN claims that their show poker superstars is a tournament in which the greatest players duke it out in a tournament style even to see who comes out on top (and possibly be considered the best). I did enjoy the roster they had in the first season, but the players in season two is almost comical. Now some might disagree, but personally I think people like Chris Moneymaker (who i think is one of the people barry points is finger to), isnt that great of a player. Sure he won the WSOP, but that event has become so large now that it almost seems while there is some skill needed, a lot of luck is needed as well. Not to mention many pros have come out saying that most likely a pro will not ever win the main event again. While people might dislike greenstein, he is nicknamed the robin hood of poker, and with good reason. Anyway though, I'm sure the debate could go on and on, but i feel that people have just mistook the overall tone of that article, which is all i've basically hope to have pointed out.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

While people might dislike greenstein, he is nicknamed the robin hood of poker, and with good reason.The reason is likely because he's the only one who flaunts his generosity so much, not because he's the only one who gives. Since Daniel is a Christian (who believe in giving without looking for something in return), if he's giving to a charity, we likely wouldn't hear about it, least of all from him. That doesn't make Daniel any less generous, it just makes him more willing to do something nice without public recognition.

[custom36 4]

While people might dislike greenstein, he is nicknamed the robin hood of poker, and with good reason.The reason is likely because he's the only one who flaunts his generosity so much, not because he's the only one who gives.

:clap:

[JaysonWeber 0]

It's good to give that much money when you're a millionaire once April 15th comes around

[Guest]

Ok well first off I'ma start off saying that I'm not really a fan of greenstein, mainly because of the way he looks...

He looks like Count Chocula!http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...opic.php?t=3239

[grass Da 55 0]

my only comment to make is about just how charitable BG is. What i find interesting is that everytime there is anything on him it is on how he always gives his tourney money away. I am starting to think he is just doing it so that he gets this great public image and not to actually help out. The person who does things for good and not to get credit is a much better man. If i recall not that long ago DN paid for someone to go over to help out with the Tsunami relief effort. Funny how none of us initially knew about it and he has yet to go brag about it like BG.

not to actually help out? you are a fuucking dumbass. most of the people in poker would be flat broke if they gave all their tourney winnings to charity including daniel, so consider the talent and effort. it's obvious who the better cash game player is.

[custom36 4]

most of the people in poker would be flat broke if they gave all their tourney winnings to charity

BG doesn't give all of his winnings to charity. He gives all of his tournament winnings to charity. There's a huge difference. In the cash games he plays in, tournament winnings don't mean a whole lot.

[AngloBoy 0]

Barry needs to learn to have a little Respect.But as I'm sure he's pretty sure he's always right let's let him have the last word by quoting him from the ESPN article ""Do you really think these people would worry about making a few hundred-thousand (dollars) selling DVDs and videos if you could make millions playing poker? It's pretty obvious, isn't it?""....Greenstein, by the way, is coming out with a book called "Ace on the River - An Advanced Poker Guide" ...."I think it's obvious to everyone what he's saying.

[grass Da 55 0]

most of the people in poker would be flat broke if they gave all their tourney winnings to charity

BG doesn't give all of his winnings to charity. He gives all of his tournament winnings to charity. There's a huge difference. In the cash games he plays in, tournament winnings don't mean a whole lot.

why are you reapeating what i said?

[grass Da 55 0]

Since Daniel is a Christian (who believe in giving without looking for something in return), if he's giving to a charity, we likely wouldn't hear about it, least of all from him.

yeah we do, it's just so small a figure nobody gives a crap about it. barry was giving to charity way before poker was in the public eye. it was his foxwood million dollar win that gave his charity work explosure.people are getting so stupid in here. just because greenstein gave a bold statement about over-rated tournament players not being the best players in the world doesn't make him an azz. i always hear the words "best female poker player" everytime i read about annie duke, so anyone who diagree w/ it is an azz? back in the late 90s people considered daniel arrogant and egotistical, unlike a barry greenstein, danny-boy didn't have the money to back up his mouth. as for today considering the big game and cash play, greenstein is outta negreanu's leauge.

[mattster 0]

At least Hellmuth tells bad players that they are bad. Greenstein tells the good players that they are bad. I think its hilarious. Touche!

[AngloBoy 0]

Maybe it's true that Greenstein makes a lot more money that Daniel playing in cash games. If you're going to judge by cash games. I really don't know that much about cash games, except that some players post their winnings and others just say they do really well.But as an earlier poster says, people don't get to see cash games......for all we know Michael Jordan is out there losing a bucket load of cash in one-on-one basketball matches against the "real pros".And maybe there's a reason Greenstein wants to only be judged by cash games :2004 Player Of The Year Standings1 Daniel Negreanu Final Tables: 11 Winnings: $4,420,221 6 Barry Greenstein Final Tables: 9 Winnings: $2,097,717 Everyone has their own opinion.

[Scruff 0]

This is because Phil is a bot. Well, an AI cyborg with no concept of ego other than by definition.

I'm still laughing out loud, and actually read all 5 pages of the thread since the comment before got around to posting this.

[grass Da 55 0]

if you compare the top cash game and tournament players at pokerstars or any other site, there is really no comparasion. 90% of the site's best cash player would not play in 99% of their tournament because it's -ev for them meaning their time is worth more invested in their cash games. it's the norm for all cash game players. if one of the top tournament player at pokerstars were to step into their 100-200 game, that person would be considered "dead money'' unless proven otherwise. there're reasons why most of the named tourney players doesn't play high stake cash games, they tried and failed.

[Vanillathunder 0]

The more I think about this, the more I think BG is an ignorant ass.Saying that Ring Game players are "better" than tourney players is asinine, because I think they're two different beasts. Some people can jump between easily, most can't.It's like saying the Arena League and the NFL are the same because they're both called football. To the untrained eye, they're both football and they look the same, but they are radically different after learning even a tiny bit of the game.Barry is bitter and jealous that he's not a "big" name in poker on the celebrity level of the popular TV players. Doyle has even said a few times that the "Cash game players will always be better" and I have to dispute that. Doyle certainly didn't complain or slander his title when he won, neither did many other legends of the game. Now that the new guard is getting all that attention.. they have to take a dump on them.Is the WSOP a crapshoot/lottery these days? Maybe, maybe not. It does seem that with such a large field that "crowning" the winner the World Champ is just a slight bit pretentious. There are a few players that can make that final table every year (harrington and others) but during the "boom" it seems that people with a lesser skill set are winning. ...but isn't that what the nature of poker is? If you're truly "top 5" you'll be able to overcome that, right?

[Vanillathunder 0]

But as an earlier poster says, people don't get to see cash games......for all we know Michael Jordan is out there losing a bucket load of cash in one-on-one basketball matches against the "real pros".

Bad analogy.It's more along the lines of a street ball player scrapping it in the NBA and Michael Jordan playing in a NY street court / cash game.Like I said before they're both "basketball" but after about 10 minutes, you realize they're not really even the same sport except for the ball and hoop (or checks and cards in this case).

[grass Da 55 0]

It's like saying the Arena League and the NFL are the same because they're both called football. To the untrained eye, they're both football and they look the same, but they are radically different after learning even a tiny bit of the game.

there's a reason why people play in the Arena League. they were ethier kicked out or was never invited to play in the NFL. saying the Arena League players are as good as the NFL players is absurd.

[Vanillathunder 0]

there's a reason why people play in the Arena League. they were ethier kicked out or was never invited to play in the NFL. saying the Arena League players are as good as the NFL players is absurd.

You missed the point completely... and I never said they were the same skill level. Stop with the semantics, already.The point is this... it's comparing apples and oranges when it comes to tourney vs. Ring game play. There's a ceiling on how much you can win (with regards to chip count) and a basement on how much you can lose. If you bust out in a cash game, you can just buy-in again.. for as much money as you can scrape together.That dynamic alone makes the two types radically different. Take a bad beat from a poor player in a ring game and you can just rebuy and win your chips back. Do that in a tourney and you're finished (unless it's a re-buy tournament)It's also faster in tournaments and it's more about survival that about cash. What the point to a ring game? Make money. You can wait out good hands for as long as you want. You can fold for 4 straight hours for the perfect situation if you want.In a tournament, you're forced to play hands and survive or you'll get blinded out. Survival is the point in a tournament.The two "sports" are as related as Rugby League and Rugby Union.

[AngloBoy 0]

Isn't that the point ?? That the games are different ?? Isn't that why people are getting offended by Barry Greenstein saying that only those who play the "big game" can be considered among the best.Daniel does well in cash games and tournaments. I don't see him having a need to try and belittle other players just because he was player of the year last year !Some people can play both games well, some can't. If I was picking a fantasy poker team for a tournament, I wouldn't pick Greenstein.And on a seperate point "saying the Arena League players are as good as the NFL players is absurd." I'm sure Kurt Warner would agree with this......

[Mattnxtc 0]

my only comment to make is about just how charitable BG is. What i find interesting is that everytime there is anything on him it is on how he always gives his tourney money away. I am starting to think he is just doing it so that he gets this great public image and not to actually help out. The person who does things for good and not to get credit is a much better man. If i recall not that long ago DN paid for someone to go over to help out with the Tsunami relief effort. Funny how none of us initially knew about it and he has yet to go brag about it like BG.

not to actually help out? you are a fuucking dumbass. most of the people in poker would be flat broke if they gave all their tourney winnings to charity including daniel, so consider the talent and effort. it's obvious who the better cash game player is.

A few comments on this one...First off learn to read. My comment on BG was that he seemed to be giving away his money in order to get publicity not to help out. Its a much better person that does good deeds not to be recognized for them but because it is the good thing to do. second its laughable that you say most people woudl be broke. BG doesnt exactly play that many tournaments as compared to others. So for someone that focuses on the 4k-8k of course hes not gonna care to much about the money. There are quite a few pro players that have the bankroll that could choose to stick mainly to cash games and do ok. If DN decided to play more cash games and less tourneys as BG does, do u think hed be hurting for money? Not likely.

[grass Da 55 0]

Daniel does well in cash games and tournaments. I don't see him having a need to try and belittle other players just because he was player of the year last year !And on a seperate point "saying the Arena League players are as good as the NFL players is absurd."  I'm sure Kurt Warner would agree with this......

uh...he belittles david sklansky and phil hellmuth all the time.and on a seperate point, Kurt Warner was a great quarterback. keyword is "was". the guy was great though, i brought two of his jerseys.

[jerr496 0]

I know it has been before, but it does not get old.

Just look at the economics of this whole thing. If you were getting paid for having your face on a cereal box for 15 years; your bankroll could definitely handle the BIG game.

[Guest]

If I were to begin hawking a book, it would probably be a good idea to associate myself with one of the most famous poker authors to ever publish a manual. It would also be a good idea to say that most of the other people promoting books (Hellmuth, Harrington, Cloutier, etc.) are chump change compared to myself and Doyle. Why would Greenstein worry about his poker book sales, when he says that people who are making the real money playing poker don't bother with books and DVD's you ask? Well, if I sat across from a guy every week which the world thinks is GOD, and has sold a bazillion poker books, and if I was a guy who considered myself to be this poker god's equal or better in every way, I'd have to sell some books too, right?This is all rampant speculation, but his actions and words just don't line up. "I'm the best there is, and tournaments are a waste of time for the true poker pro, 'cause we make too much money in other games. I'll play them though, giving up days upon days of cash game winnings just to make a point." No one argues that he's good, and no argues that he gives the cash away. What's his motivation then, if success is indicated by total earnings, to play tournaments? Why not just donate 2 million per year from the cash game, since he makes a ton more there anyway? Wouldn't that be more efficient? Why make a spectacle of your charity, and reduce the effectiveness of your charity in the process? It's gotta be ego. Has to be. I think he gets off on the "Robin Hood" moniker, and I think he wants his book to sell like Super System did, simply for the credibility and ego boost that comes with it. Going public with the statement that pretty much everyone else in the poker world who us laymen look up to sucks, except for me and 4 others is a pretty good way to pique some interest. It'll also give yourself some ego affirmation in the process. In spite of my speculations, I have to add that I do have a very healthy respect for Greenstein's ability, from the limited amount of him I've seen and from what I've heard from people's posts who've sat with him. Anyone who can play that cash game regularly and not get beat up by now has to have some serious skill. I also respect anyone who gives to charity, regardless of their motivation. You can't blame a guy for rooting against him in any heads up matches he plays with DN though, unless of course he donates that money to charity too, heh.

[tskillz187 0]

I just want them to play the 10 heads up matches, i think that will be some of the greatest poker ever and they should jointly agree to tape it and sell it. But as for everything else I've been reading on this thread there has been a lot of contradictions posted by the DN blind faithful. Some people saying that BG doesnt play any tournaments and then someone saying he was only the 6th in POY tournament player. Obviously if BG was strictly a tourney pro he'd be in the top 5 if he isnt even playing that many and got 6th last yr. The guy can flat out play "street ball/arena football" and "NFL/NBA" he's not just a cash game freak and the best players in the world are the cash game players. How do you become the best at something? You beat the best. The best players are playing in the biggest cash games there is not 90% dead money diluting the talent. I know that getting money from dead money and then winning a tournament is a poker skill, one that DN is amazing at, but he plays the big game because he wants to be the best! He knows that is where the best players are and he is competitive, so he wants to beat them! I guess I'm just rambling at this point but BG is taking a horrible rap, sure he's cocky, sure he's saying junk to get under DN's skin, but the coolest thing about it in my mind is DN basically challenged the world to poker and BG stepped up (after stating on forums that he thought heis best game was whatever he has been playing) and said fine I'll beat (play) you in all of them. It's going to be the greatest rivalry ever if this 1 on 1 takes place.

[elkang 0]

At this point, I'm trying to figure out how much is posturing and how much is hyperbole and flat out lying.Barry claims:

"There are five top players: There's Doyle Brunson, there's Chip Reese, there's Chau Giang, there's Phil Ivey, there's myself," Greenstein says. "Those are the five people who beat the biggest game. There isn't any tournament player you're going to put in our game who's going to beat it. They'd be drawing dead. They'd be the live ones. We'd play 'til they're broke. But they already are broke, for the most part. The public says, 'Oh he's a great player.' He's a live one in our game."

BG lumps everyone outside the big 5 as donators for the big game. Daniel names additional winning players in the big game and casts doubt on BG's winning record.I'm loving it and hope this keeps going until the matchup.