"high stakes poker: final day"

[doublemeup 0]

Phil Hellmuth was the best player at the table.

doyle was there. you think phil is better than doyle?

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

Not that there's any way in hell Daniel would comment on this...But I find it funny that it's possible that Daniel's implying Jerry Buss could be better than Phil Hellmuth.

[doublemeup 0]

Not that there's any way in hell Daniel would comment on this...But I find it funny that it's possible that Daniel's implying Jerry Buss could be better than Phil Hellmuth.

he implied that? not saying he didn't but can you give me a quote or a link to where he said this?

[typesick 0]

Yes, I think Phil is a better Hold 'Em player than Doyle.

[blueodum 0]

We don't know if Buss was at the table at the time. Remember, DN was the only one there for the whole show - the others came and went.

[greatwhite 0]

Is that 8/8? I wouldn't be suprised based by his book. Who else was there?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Phil Hellmuth was the best player at the table.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but if you asekd the top players in the world who was a better hold'em player Doyle or Phil, then Phil would get precisely one vote...

[insano 0]

Phil Hellmuth was the best player at the table.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but if you asekd the top players in the world who was a better hold'em player Doyle or Phil, then Phil would get precisely one vote...

Wouldn't it be 2 votes?

[doublemeup 0]

Phil Hellmuth was the best player at the table.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but if you asekd the top players in the world who was a better hold'em player Doyle or Phil, then Phil would get precisely one vote...

got that right. Doyle has been doing this before Phil could spell poker. Doyle is a much better hold'em player.

[chrozzo 19]

Phil Hellmuth was the best player at the table.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but if you asekd the top players in the world who was a better hold'em player Doyle or Phil, then Phil would get precisely one vote...

Wouldn't it be 2 votes?

1 Phil Hellmuth vote for himself = 1 vote

[chrozzo 19]

Phil Hellmuth was the best player at the table.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but if you asekd the top players in the world who was a better hold'em player Doyle or Phil, then Phil would get precisely one vote...

Wouldn't it be 2 votes?

1 Phil Hellmuth vote for himself = 1 vote

and another vote possibly from Hellmuth's therapist in which Phil payed him to vote for him in order to feel more appreciated

[typesick 0]

What makes you think Doyle is a better Hold 'Em player than Phil?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

What makes you think Doyle is a better Hold 'Em player than Phil?

Doyle is a winning hold'em player against the world's best. Phil is a losing hold'em player against the world's best.

[Guest]

What makes you think Doyle is a better Hold 'Em player than Phil?

Doyle is a winning poker player against the world's best. Phil is a losing poker player against the world's best.

fyp

[typesick 0]

When I watch Phil play Hold 'Em, I consistently see him playing tremendous poker. He almost always plays quality cards, and if he doesn't, there is a legitimate reason. He makes great decisions and almost always gets his chips in with the best hand. Doyle, on the other hand, plays a lot looser and seems to consistently get his chips in on draws and weak hands. He makes a lot more "donkish" plays, such as limping to the small blind, then calling a decent bb raise. He gets his chips in badly way too often. He is undoubtedly a talent and has contributed immensely to the game; however, I think his advantage over other top opponents is gone. I'm continuously more impressed with players like Hellmuth, Negreanu, and Lederer. Players such as Brunson, Flack, and Forrest pale in comparison...

[DaBruins 0]

When I watch Phil play Hold 'Em, I consistently see him playing tremendous poker. He almost always plays quality cards, and if he doesn't, there is a legitimate reason. He makes great decisions and almost always gets his chips in with the best hand. Doyle, on the other hand, plays a lot looser and seems to consistently get his chips in on draws and weak hands. He makes a lot more "donkish" plays, such as limping to the small blind, then calling a decent bb raise. He gets his chips in badly way too often. He is undoubtedly a talent and has contributed immensely to the game; however, I think his advantage over other top opponents is gone. I'm continuously more impressed with players like Hellmuth, Negreanu, and Lederer. Players such as Brunson, Flack, and Forrest pale in comparison...

how many cash games have you seen? I would tend to agree with a high stakes pro moreso than the edited and limited amount of tournament poker hands we actually get to see on espn. Hellmuth is an unbelievable tournament hold 'em player, but he would not be near my top pick in any other type of poker game.

[doublemeup 0]

What makes you think Doyle is a better Hold 'Em player than Phil?

Doyle is a winning hold'em player against the world's best. Phil is a losing hold'em player against the world's best.

[srblan 0]

Phil Hellmuth was the best player at the table.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but if you asekd the top players in the world who was a better hold'em player Doyle or Phil, then Phil would get precisely one vote...

Wouldn't it be 2 votes?

Phil and Phil's ego are not two separate entites, despite evidence to the contrary.

[srblan 0]

When I watch Phil play Hold 'Em, I consistently see him playing tremendous poker. He almost always plays quality cards, and if he doesn't, there is a legitimate reason. He makes great decisions and almost always gets his chips in with the best hand. Doyle, on the other hand, plays a lot looser and seems to consistently get his chips in on draws and weak hands. He makes a lot more "donkish" plays, such as limping to the small blind, then calling a decent bb raise. He gets his chips in badly way too often. He is undoubtedly a talent and has contributed immensely to the game; however, I think his advantage over other top opponents is gone. I'm continuously more impressed with players like Hellmuth, Negreanu, and Lederer. Players such as Brunson, Flack, and Forrest pale in comparison...

I can't believe I saw the word "donkish" in a sentence describing Doyle's play. You're entitled to your opinion, but, seriously... That said, you are watching edited tournament poker, not cash games. I'm not exactly sure which particular show you are referring to where Doyle is making these terrible plays, probably the 6-handed NL WSOP. Doyle was playing very aggressively in the hands that they showed, which is true to his style. He outdrew a couple of times, but I hardly consider the spots that he did so donkish.Go back to your archives and watch Doyle's performances at the 2004 WSOP with fischman at his table, and the 2004 legends of poker. Some of the plays that he makes in these tourneys are extremely sophisticated. I find it extremely ironic that you include Daniel in the first list and leave him out of the second list. I am nearly positive that if you asked Daniel to rank the players in those two lists in one big list that the players in the first list would be at or near the bottom of his list. He has shown tremendous respect for Forrest's ability (refer to the Poker at the Plaza show for evidence), and obviously Doyle's, so it's very surprising that with their similar games which rely on reading ability after the flop in playing the majority of their hands you would decide to exclude Daniel from the second list.I think I'm rambling now, but I hope I got my point across.

[doublemeup 0]

When I watch Phil play Hold 'Em, I consistently see him playing tremendous poker. He almost always plays quality cards, and if he doesn't, there is a legitimate reason. He makes great decisions and almost always gets his chips in with the best hand. Doyle, on the other hand, plays a lot looser and seems to consistently get his chips in on draws and weak hands. He makes a lot more "donkish" plays, such as limping to the small blind, then calling a decent bb raise. He gets his chips in badly way too often. He is undoubtedly a talent and has contributed immensely to the game; however, I think his advantage over other top opponents is gone. I'm continuously more impressed with players like Hellmuth, Negreanu, and Lederer. Players such as Brunson, Flack, and Forrest pale in comparison...

I can't believe I saw the word "donkish" in a sentence describing Doyle's play. You're entitled to your opinion, but, seriously... That said, you are watching edited tournament poker, not cash games. I'm not exactly sure which particular show you are referring to where Doyle is making these terrible plays, probably the 6-handed NL WSOP. Doyle was playing very aggressively in the hands that they showed, which is true to his style. He outdrew a couple of times, but I hardly consider the spots that he did so donkish.Go back to your archives and watch Doyle's performances at the 2004 WSOP with fischman at his table, and the 2004 legends of poker. Some of the plays that he makes in these tourneys are extremely sophisticated. I find it extremely ironic that you include Daniel in the first list and leave him out of the second list. I am nearly positive that if you asked Daniel to rank the players in those two lists in one big list that the players in the first list would be at or near the bottom of his list. He has shown tremendous respect for Forrest's ability (refer to the Poker at the Plaza show for evidence), and obviously Doyle's, so it's very surprising that with their similar games which rely on reading ability after the flop in playing the majority of their hands you would decide to exclude Daniel from the second list.I think I'm rambling now, but I hope I got my point across.

everyone will have to outdraw once in a while to win a poker tournament and it just so happens that Doyle seems to do it on Tv a lot. Does that mean hes not as good as Hellmuth? Gimme a break.

[typesick 0]

You're absolutely correct. I should not use the hundreds of hands I've them play on television to determine whom is the better Hold 'Em player. From now on, I'll only use the following two criteria:1) Hold 'Em bracelets2) Hold 'Em cashesThanks.sw

[DaBruins 0]

You're absolutely correct. I should not use the hundreds of hands I've them play on television to determine whom is the better Hold 'Em player. From now on, I'll only use the following two criteria:1) Hold 'Em bracelets2) Hold 'Em cashesThanks.sw

not to bash you (ok maybe a little), but have you ever played a non-tournament game of Hold em? There is a world of difference and i doubt you've seen any of Phil's live, non-tournament play.

[srblan 0]

everyone will have to outdraw once in a while to win a poker tournament and it just so happens that Doyle seems to do it on Tv a lot. Does that mean hes not as good as Hellmuth? Gimme a break.

Exactly. He usually did it pushing the hands though, not calling, which is very indicative of his style.

[doublemeup 0]

everyone will have to outdraw once in a while to win a poker tournament and it just so happens that Doyle seems to do it on Tv a lot. Does that mean hes not as good as Hellmuth? Gimme a break.

Exactly. He usually did it pushing the hands though, not calling, which is very indicative of his style.

yea its not like doyle is calling with middle pair. hes raising with it so he has the opportunity for his opponents to fold. then again, if doyle called, its doyle. he knows what hes doing and nobody can question him.

[doublemeup 0]

You're absolutely correct. I should not use the hundreds of hands I've them play on television to determine whom is the better Hold 'Em player. From now on, I'll only use the following two criteria:1) Hold 'Em bracelets2) Hold 'Em cashesThanks.sw

i know hold'em bracelets are waaaay overated. i mean, i'm sure you have at least 15 of them compared to his 9. 9 is nothing. Theres 2 people ahead of him!! He could've even be considered to be in the top 10.