dn's toc blog...give me a break

[srblan 0]

I seem to recall that Daniel opted out of the first UltimateBet WPT event in Aruba because he thought the way that it was set up showed a lack of integrity. Remember, that's the one where a bunch of amateurs worked (and paid IIRC) their way into the tourney for a chance to play heads-up against the winner of the pros tourney, which consisted of pros selected by UB. I do believe that Daniel would definitely voice his concern over the situation if he was one of the ones selected. I would have a hard time passing up a 2 million dollar freeroll in my current financial situation, but I don't think that it would surprise me if Daniel did (after all, he passed on FTP in favor of poker mountain because he believed that it was the right thing to do). I don't think that this is a case of sour grapes as OP implies, I honestly think that Daniel has the game's interest in mind.

[srblan 0]

Doyle Brunson agreed with me 100%. He felt like it was unfair. Phil, on the other hand is your prototypical "yes man" and somehow thinks he just "deserves" it because he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

why is doyle playing then? how is he any better than phil?

I thought about that too. Thinking it's unfair and passing up a chance at $2 million are two totally different animals, though.

[crowTrobot 2]

Doyle hasnt said he is or isnt playing yet... and to think Phil is better than Doyle hahahaha Phil is horrible just start messing with his head and anyone can beat him.

all 3 are playing and in the final 23whatever you think of phil's quirks or ego, he is undeniably one of the best NLHE tourney players in the world, and currently has a huge chip lead in this tourney.if doyle really "agreed 100%" he shouldn't be playing, he should be setting an example

[BDPoolie 0]

DN: have you talked with chan/brunson/hellmuth about their seat in the TOC? what do they have to say for it... im sure they wont give up the chance to win a million bucks...wouldnt they feel somewhat sheepish joining a tournament they never qualifed for?

Doyle Brunson agreed with me 100%. He felt like it was unfair. Phil, on the other hand is your prototypical "yes man" and somehow thinks he just "deserves" it because he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. As for Johnny, he had no comment, lol.

Brunson may have agreed with you, but he still played in the tournament. Did he have a comment as to why he still played in it?FYI: My opinion is that they should not have been asked to participate, but they were, so I don't fault them for participating.

[Golden 2]

DN: have you talked with chan/brunson/hellmuth about their seat in the TOC? what do they have to say for it... im sure they wont give up the chance to win a million bucks...wouldnt they feel somewhat sheepish joining a tournament they never qualifed for?

Doyle Brunson agreed with me 100%. He felt like it was unfair. Phil, on the other hand is your prototypical "yes man" and somehow thinks he just "deserves" it because he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. As for Johnny, he had no comment, lol.

Brunson may have agreed with you, but he still played in the tournament. Did he have a comment as to why he still played in it?

Because Doyle apparently likes money.

[BDPoolie 0]

DN: have you talked with chan/brunson/hellmuth about their seat in the TOC? what do they have to say for it... im sure they wont give up the chance to win a million bucks...wouldnt they feel somewhat sheepish joining a tournament they never qualifed for?

Doyle Brunson agreed with me 100%. He felt like it was unfair. Phil, on the other hand is your prototypical "yes man" and somehow thinks he just "deserves" it because he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. As for Johnny, he had no comment, lol.

Brunson may have agreed with you, but he still played in the tournament. Did he have a comment as to why he still played in it?

Because Doyle apparently likes money.

Exactly!

[crowTrobot 2]

Because Doyle apparently likes money.

it's pretty safe to say doyle isn't playing for the money. because of the structure anything other than 1st would pay pocket change to him. he would probably justify playing by saying it's for the "good of the game" or something.

[Firelotus 0]

I dont post much either, but I agree with DN that this is an important point.Like DN, I dont have a big issue with the invitations, per se. I can understand if they had said there would be three - or even five - "at large" seats. This is done in golf and in tennis (in terms of invitations offered to someone who didnt otherwise qualify) and I dont think anyone would have a problem with the three top bracelet winners getting the three "byes".The problem is changing the rules after the game has started.I think your emphasis on the equity, DN, detracts from the simplest and most straigh-forward problem - the change of the rules after the game had begun. That's really all that is relevant here, IMO.

[crowTrobot 2]

I dont post much either,

i'd say you post a little less than not much

[Tantalar 0]

DN is correct, and no, im not just saying that to agree with him. How would you like it if your local IGA was selling whitecastle cheeseburgers, and you went to go buy one and they were $1 a box, but your friend who's black tells you he got his for $2 a box. Is IGA doing a fair thing by advertising that Whitecastle cheeseburgers are on sale for $2 a box?Its false advertising, and for DN to go out of his way to try to make things right is well, going out of his way for a good cause, and doing the right thing. Feel free to critisize him, but just remember that you are wrong.

[TheZodiac 0]

Daniel is bang on. I liken it to the Annika Sorenstam situation in 2003. Annika did not QUALIFY for the Colonial she was a sponsor exemption I believe, VJ Singh and others were very critical of the PGA tour simply because she didn't QUALIFY like everyone else.

[ajs510 122]

Daniel is bang on. I liken it to the Annika Sorenstam situation in 2003. Annika did not QUALIFY for the Colonial she was a sponsor exemption I believe, VJ Singh and others were very critical of the PGA tour simply because she didn't QUALIFY like everyone else.

I can't give much weight to that analogy, just about every single pro golfer (up to and including Tiger Woods) has been a Sponsor's Exemption at one point or another during their career. The whole point behind sponsors exemptions is to stock the event with players that people will tune in to watch...I have a much smaller problem with this issue now that it's been disclosed that Pepsi, not Harrahs or the WSOP, exempted the three players into the tournament. Harrah's has already come out and said there will be 6 exempt spots in next years tourney, but they could have/should have made that more clear during qualifying.

[Firelotus 0]

Daniel is bang on. I liken it to the Annika Sorenstam situation in 2003. Annika did not QUALIFY for the Colonial she was a sponsor exemption I believe, VJ Singh and others were very critical of the PGA tour simply because she didn't QUALIFY like everyone else.

VJ is classless, and it had nothing to do with qualifying, because sponsors exemptions have been around for years and had been given to men and VJ never said boo. He just has a hang up about women.Completely different than this situation, where the exepmtion was made AFTER the rules were announced.

[tyfgine 0]

One of the most transparent shell games is to complain on others' behalfs when the only one who is complaining is the complainer. DN, you are upset YOU weren't chosen as one of the 3 exemptions. You are probably doubly irritated that Bill Fillmaf (I mean Phil Hellmuth) was one of the 3 chosen. Please don't try to make us believe you really think that the folks you mention who earned the right to play in the tourney are really that upset about $500 in lost equity..or having to play against a 3% larger field. Come on...YOU are upset not FOR the others but for yourself.

ok, the $500 lost equity might not be the biggest part to get upset about, the fact that the field is 3% larger is also not the point.Here is the point: Adding Doyle, Phil, and Johnny does not make the tournament 3% harder to win, it makes it 100% harder. These guys are obviously 3 of the best in the world, and not only are the players who actually qualified for the tournament going to have to make it past the other 100 qualified entries, now they have to make it past three of the toughest opponents in the world, who didn't even qualify for the tournament. What is the point of even having a qualifier? The point is that they should stick to their own rules of how to qualify, not add some big name players to make a few extra bucks by getting TV ratings.Hey, I'M upset they didnt invite ME!hehe

[teacher12 0]

One of the most transparent shell games is to complain on others' behalfs when the only one who is complaining is the complainer. DN, you are upset YOU weren't chosen as one of the 3 exemptions. You are probably doubly irritated that Bill Fillmaf (I mean Phil Hellmuth) was one of the 3 chosen. Please don't try to make us believe you really think that the folks you mention who earned the right to play in the tourney are really that upset about $500 in lost equity..or having to play against a 3% larger field. Come on...YOU are upset not FOR the others but for yourself.

you are 100% right. I heard there were like 7 people invited and DN was probably upset he wasn't one of them. ANd by the way rightfully so based on the way he is playing. He is just not in the class of those guys. Last year he would have been invited but this year his play has been subpar.

[blueodum 0]

I must have missed all the numerous wins and final tables Hellmuth has had this year at the WSOP and circuit events.

[jefrock21 0]

Look, is it right they asked them to play YesIs it right they accepted the invitation NoThis is the equivalent to saying well The New England Patriots have been to the Super Bowl so much we'll let them automatically advance to the game and play the winner of the playoffs. It wouldn't be right but would they refuse if given that opportunity, no.