disturbed by daniel's blog today

[majorleag 0]

You really put too much thought into Daniel's life.

Give me a censored break!!This has nothing to do with his life and everything to do with Poker and the behavior of pro's and the overall image and good of the game.Nothing positive can come from what Daniel did. Now if there is somethign more or missing from the story then I would love to hear it.

yes! This is bad for the game! He'll ruin Poker! Brilliant post. ffishhsw

Again completely out of context as usual!Did I say or even imply he would ruin poker?Please don't get all melodramatic on me.He nor anyone cannot ruin poker.

[Forrest Crunk 0]

So tell me, if you sit down at a $5-$10 NL table are you telling me that you fully expect that you will have $75k raises regularly?I don't think so.

when a loose-aggressive player sits down at your game, you must tighten up and wait for a monster hand so you can get paid off, like the guy with queens did - it's YOUR responsibility to play good poker, not the LAG's responsibility to play in a way so that you can play good poker.

[Socrates 0]

Personally I love it when people sit down with a ton of money and throw it around with Q3 off, it's like playing most cash games on any site. He was playing like a fish on purpose, and fully aware that he may in fact give up a bunch of moeny to someone, but not care.What's the diffference between Daniel sitiing at a 5/10 table and a very solid normal 5/10 player sitting at a .25/.50 table - Same thing right? The 5/10 player is probably leaps and bounds better than anyone at the super low limit tables - is that wrong?Are all the stories about ppl going to Vegas and saying "so this kid sat down with $1K at a 1/2NL game and asked how to play - he proceeded to lose all of his money" Was it the other players' fault that he was taken advantage of by them? SHould they not bluff or buy pots becasue he's not as good?Seriously, poker is not a wholesome family game, its about money and money usually brings out the worst in people or at least they can't have emotion or sympathy for another player. It's about obtaining as much of it in play as possible with your skill.

[majorleag 0]

hey don't be mad major, i'm just saying that every time there is a blog entry there seems to be someone who is personally affected by it in a negative way like you are about this latest one, and i think it's silly to post about it here so it can turn into a 128-reply post of whining and flaming, that's all, especially when you could write him an e-mail and probably get the response you are looking for from DN himself.

He does not have the time to respond, as I have sent him 2 pm's over th past 2 weeks, and have not had a response. I am not criticizing him here, I know he is a very, very busy man, so hold the flames on that one.

[The Canadian 0]

It's not like winning a couple of grand will affect Daniel's life much, but it sure as hell would affect me for example if I had a strong hand but Daniel kept betting $10k and I had to keep folding and ended up losing $2-3k.

If you have a strong hand, you should be calling these bets. If you're folding because someone's betting huge into you for no other reason than it's a huge amount of money that you don't want to lose, you shouldn't be at the table in the first place...why do you have more on the table than you're willing to lose?

Did you forget the sw?

The what?

So tell me, if you sit down at a $5-$10 NL table are you telling me that you fully expect that you will have $75k raises regularly?I don't think so.

If it's table stakes, I don't care one iota what the size of the raises are, because I wouldn't have enough money on the table to lose $75K in one hand. If you're disturbed by someone putting in gigantic raises, you're playing too high for your bankroll and you shouldn't have sat down in the first place.

[evesixer 0]

hey don't be mad major, i'm just saying that every time there is a blog entry there seems to be someone who is personally affected by it in a negative way like you are about this latest one, and i think it's silly to post about it here so it can turn into a 128-reply post of whining and flaming, that's all, especially when you could write him an e-mail and probably get the response you are looking for from DN himself.

I agree, I am sick of the flaming DN has received as well. Coincidence that he didn't blog for awhile after he was ripped on last week? So much for his fans supporting him. However, I also would never sit and play with money that I didn't intend to lose, but I would be soooooooo pissed off if someone raised the way he did constantly. I understand it is poker, but some people can only afford certain amounts, and he did treat it as a game. I am not judging DN, I love the guy, and all of my previous posts back it up, but he did treat money like it doesn't matter, when to most of the players he was up against probably needed the money more. But, he can do what he wants, that's fine. I would have had to leave the table before I busted out though.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

To answer your question, I don't think he has any responsibility to anyone. He is a POKER PLAYER, not a civil servant. He has made his living, and his fame by taking peoples money by lying (in a poker sense) and manipulating people. (also in a poker sense) He is good at what he does and I would bet not one person at that table would complain. I sure wouldn't. If you play at an all in table, you have the chance to be all in every hand. Everyone knows that. I don't think the Wynn will look down on him for playiing that table the way he did. I think it will generate more business for them. How many times has Doyle sat down at the 5/10 table? Perspective man. He is a poker player, not the president. I see your point but totally disagree.And you know I'm not a sheep or drink the kool-aid.

[Outlaw_IA 0]

Seems like he was having fun to me.

[majorleag 0]

Personally I love it when people sit down with a ton of money and throw it around with Q3 off, it's like playing most cash games on any site. He was playing like a fish on purpose, and fully aware that he may in fact give up a bunch of moeny to someone, but not care.What's the diffference between Daniel sitiing at a 5/10 table and a very solid normal 5/10 player sitting at a .25/.50 table - Same thing right? The 5/10 player is probably leaps and bounds better than anyone at the super low limit tables - is that wrong?Are all the stories about ppl going to Vegas and saying "so this kid sat down with $1K at a 1/2NL game and asked how to play - he proceeded to lose all of his money" Was it the other players' fault that he was taken advantage of by them? SHould they not bluff or buy pots becasue he's not as good?Seriously, poker is not a wholesome family game, its about money and money usually brings out the worst in people or at least they can't have emotion or sympathy for another player. It's about obtaining as much of it in play as possible with your skill.

Soc, with all due respect I very well know that Poker is not a wholesome family game.The point is being entirely missed here. There is no comparison between him betting $75k at a $5 10 game and me betting $100 at a .25 .50 game. NONE.Plus again I am talking about who he is and the fact that he is not a regular guy that is anonymous that nobody knows. He has a different responsiblity than you or I, in my opinion.Remember he is paid by The Wynn to be their ambassador of Poker. Again in my opinion this is NOT what you want in your ambassador.Are you telling me that their were no higher limits that he would have been more appropriate for him to play at, at his home casino?Or he couldn't sit at that $5 10 table and play a strong aggressive but good technical game without showboating, and showboating is exactly what he did?Don't come back over the top and tell me he was just making money, blah, blah blah like we all would. He doesn't need $2-3k.He would have done much more for The Wynn if he sat down and played a good strong game without the grandstanding, in my opinion.That is the point!

[Timdog1010 0]

To answer your question, I don't think he has any responsibility to anyone. He is a POKER PLAYER, not a civil servant. He has made his living, and his fame by taking peoples money by lying (in a poker sense) and manipulating people. (also in a poker sense) He is good at what he does and I would bet not one person at that table would complain. I sure wouldn't. If you play at an all in table, you have the chance to be all in every hand. Everyone knows that. I don't think the Wynn will look down on him for playiing that table the way he did. I think it will generate more business for them. How many times has Doyle sat down at the 5/10 table? Perspective man. He is a poker player, not the president. I see your point but totally disagree.And you know I'm not a sheep or drink the kool-aid.

Yeah, but you guys are ona first name basis now, so I could have guessed you'd take his side! :-)

[Teph 0]

A hundred people beat me to it.- If you don't want somebody to just throw their money at you (possibly losing a buy in before showing profit if they catch/have you beat) you shouldn't be playing uncapped 5/10NL. I do understand what you mean ML, my style of play would suffer incredibly from this type of play. Deep stack NL all in's are rather annoying, just because of the stakes. This does not mean that you should count on the game going the way you want. All I do know is that if I were sitting, in two seconds I would have asked for a seat change on his left in .00000000001 seconds, when possible . To Daniel: YOU BIG JERK! BAD DANIEL! GRRR. *Does the moose growl* For the record: LOL @ sitting with 125,000 @ 5/10NL.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

To answer your question, I don't think he has any responsibility to anyone. He is a POKER PLAYER, not a civil servant. He has made his living, and his fame by taking peoples money by lying (in a poker sense) and manipulating people. (also in a poker sense) He is good at what he does and I would bet not one person at that table would complain. I sure wouldn't. If you play at an all in table, you have the chance to be all in every hand. Everyone knows that. I don't think the Wynn will look down on him for playiing that table the way he did. I think it will generate more business for them. How many times has Doyle sat down at the 5/10 table? Perspective man. He is a poker player, not the president. I see your point but totally disagree.And you know I'm not a sheep or drink the kool-aid.

Yeah, but you guys are ona first name basis now, so I could have guessed you'd take his side! :-)

True, Nutcase, this is Daniel, Daniel, this is Nutcase.

[Timdog1010 0]

To answer your question, I don't think he has any responsibility to anyone. He is a POKER PLAYER, not a civil servant. He has made his living, and his fame by taking peoples money by lying (in a poker sense) and manipulating people. (also in a poker sense) He is good at what he does and I would bet not one person at that table would complain. I sure wouldn't. If you play at an all in table, you have the chance to be all in every hand. Everyone knows that. I don't think the Wynn will look down on him for playiing that table the way he did. I think it will generate more business for them. How many times has Doyle sat down at the 5/10 table? Perspective man. He is a poker player, not the president. I see your point but totally disagree.And you know I'm not a sheep or drink the kool-aid.

Yeah, but you guys are ona first name basis now, so I could have guessed you'd take his side! :-)

True, Nutcase, this is Daniel, Daniel, this is Nutcase.

I know you've had a woodrow all morning......and I don't blame you...

[majorleag 0]

To answer your question, I don't think he has any responsibility to anyone. He is a POKER PLAYER, not a civil servant. He has made his living, and his fame by taking peoples money by lying (in a poker sense) and manipulating people. (also in a poker sense) He is good at what he does and I would bet not one person at that table would complain. I sure wouldn't. If you play at an all in table, you have the chance to be all in every hand. Everyone knows that. I don't think the Wynn will look down on him for playiing that table the way he did. I think it will generate more business for them. How many times has Doyle sat down at the 5/10 table? Perspective man. He is a poker player, not the president. I see your point but totally disagree.And you know I'm not a sheep or drink the kool-aid.

You know I respect your opinion, and of course I know you are not a sheep and was not referring to you.I agree with most of what you said and I know he has no specific obligations.However I believe he does have one to The Wynn, and I don't agree that it is good for business and here is why:I believe that most people at that table after the initial wow factor of playing with Daniel has worn off and they realize that he will play the way he did, they will find another casino to play at.There are tons and tons of casino's to choose from in Vegas.All I am saying is that he could have played at that table and handled himself differently.I thought it was very funny when he was on the WPT and had a huge stack and would say "I bet $1 Million, yeah I like that number".That was funny stuff, but at the final table against other peers. I really don't think the two situations are the same.I didn't expect anybody to agree and wish I had placed a bet on said outcome as I would have won!

[GrinderMJ 0]

I understand he was having fun and can do what he wants, but it seems like his job as ambassador to make the poker playres happy. If they were happy having DN there betting ridiculous amounts and raising blind, then I have no problem. If they were upset and might not come back to taht game, then what he did was wrong.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

It was flattering to know that I have been noticed and have made my mark. Albeit, I have disturbed the owner of this site, maybe in a semi good way. For the record, I am not erect. I do have a bit of a smile though.

[majorleag 0]

I understand he was having fun and can do what he wants, but it seems like his job as ambassador to make the poker playres happy. If they were happy having DN there betting ridiculous amounts and raising blind, then I have no problem. If they were upset and might not come back to taht game, then what he did was wrong.

This is by far the best response yet.You are correct and that was my point, and in all fairness to Daniel I was not there and don't know the reaction.My guess is that it was probably mixed. I for one would have been very irritated, obviously by this behavior but others may have loved it.I don't know.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

To answer your question, I don't think he has any responsibility to anyone. He is a POKER PLAYER, not a civil servant. He has made his living, and his fame by taking peoples money by lying (in a poker sense) and manipulating people. (also in a poker sense) He is good at what he does and I would bet not one person at that table would complain. I sure wouldn't. If you play at an all in table, you have the chance to be all in every hand. Everyone knows that. I don't think the Wynn will look down on him for playiing that table the way he did. I think it will generate more business for them. How many times has Doyle sat down at the 5/10 table? Perspective man. He is a poker player, not the president. I see your point but totally disagree.And you know I'm not a sheep or drink the kool-aid.

You know I respect your opinion, and of course I know you are not a sheep and was not referring to you.I agree with most of what you said and I know he has no specific obligations.However I believe he does have one to The Wynn, and I don't agree that it is good for business and here is why:I believe that most people at that table after the initial wow factor of playing with Daniel has worn off and they realize that he will play the way he did, they will find another casino to play at.There are tons and tons of casino's to choose from in Vegas.All I am saying is that he could have played at that table and handled himself differently.I thought it was very funny when he was on the WPT and had a huge stack and would say "I bet $1 Million, yeah I like that number".That was funny stuff, but at the final table against other peers. I really don't think the two situations are the same.I didn't expect anybody to agree and wish I had placed a bet on said outcome as I would have won!

You wouldn't have gotten any action.Agree to disagree. When in Rome.

[The Canadian 0]

I can't imagine anyone being terribly upset. People play at tables with known pros all the time just for the thrill of saying they played with the best in the world. I watched Layne Flack absolutely abuse a short-handed NL table on Full Tilt, and the people he was beating up were coming back for more!It's like the quote from Rounders about Johnny Chan at the Taj: "And I'm watching these guys, and they're GIVING their money away, just so they could say, 'Ooh, I played with a world's champion!'"

[Nikki_N 17]

Okay I have a triple layer flame retardant suit on, as I fully expect about 4,000 degree flames coming my way.I of course like most of you have not met Daniel and would certainly like to at some point. I like his style most of the time and enjoy watching him play on TV.Having said all of that I really was not happy to read his entry today about his amusing antics at the $5.00-$10.00 table beating the hell out of the little guy.I think Daniel needs to reflect back to when he was a new and or less financially secure player and how he would have felt if a very wealthy pro sat down at his $5-10 table and started betting tens of thousands of dollars.

I would love for anyone to sit with 10k$ and donk off in my games. wouldnt you?

Also, if you can't stand the heat......

[majorleag 0]

I can't imagine anyone being terribly upset. People play at tables with known pros all the time just for the thrill of saying they played with the best in the world. I watched Layne Flack absolutely abuse a short-handed NL table on Full Tilt, and the people he was beating up were coming back for more!It's like the quote from Rounders about Johnny Chan at the Taj: "And I'm watching these guys, and they're GIVING their money away, just so they could say, 'Ooh, I played with a world's champion!'"

And how many times was Layne publicy bragging about it on a forum?Rounders is a movie!

[Timdog1010 0]

I can't imagine anyone being terribly upset. People play at tables with known pros all the time just for the thrill of saying they played with the best in the world. I watched Layne Flack absolutely abuse a short-handed NL table on Full Tilt, and the people he was beating up were coming back for more!It's like the quote from Rounders about Johnny Chan at the Taj: "And I'm watching these guys, and they're GIVING their money away, just so they could say, 'Ooh, I played with a world's champion!'"

I think you have a valid point but:In those situations people are buying into higher limits than they usually play for the thrill of playing against a 'name'. They make a conscious decision to do so, knowing the potential consequences.That's a little different than having someone who is clearly a superior player coming to your small stakes table with over 100k and just taking over. Again, I'm not particularly upset that he did this, but I do want to point out that difference...

[benhoug 0]

Players w/ big bankrolls have been "money-whipping" other players since poker began. Like other posters have said, it sure would suck to have the nuts and let DN PAY YOU OFF w/ crap that he hadn't even looked at...

[majorleag 0]

I can't imagine anyone being terribly upset. People play at tables with known pros all the time just for the thrill of saying they played with the best in the world. I watched Layne Flack absolutely abuse a short-handed NL table on Full Tilt, and the people he was beating up were coming back for more!It's like the quote from Rounders about Johnny Chan at the Taj: "And I'm watching these guys, and they're GIVING their money away, just so they could say, 'Ooh, I played with a world's champion!'"

I think you have a valid point but:In those situations people are buying into higher limits than they usually play for the thrill of playing against a 'name'. They make a conscious decision to do so, knowing the potential consequences.That's a little different than having someone who is clearly a superior player coming to your small stakes table with over 100k and just taking over. Again, I'm not particularly upset that he did this, but I do want to point out that difference...

Exactly.If you sit down to play with Daniel, at a $2,000-4,000 table for example, then you deserve everything you get.Can't quite compare that though to him joining a $5 10 table that you may have been sitting at for hours doing well, with say $100k.Don't the rest of you see the difference and the absurdity of the whole thing?

[SAM_Hard8 50]

people like you are the reason that DN 's going to stop blogging for us. can't be too much fun if you are going to log into your site and see people whining every time you fart and cough...players have the right to stand up and leave the table at any time they find that the conditions are not conducive to their style of play.

Oh please like DN going to start worrying about what is posted by people about his blog.I don't agree with the OP but he made some good points and he didn't do it in a mean way.