Our gracious host...

[mark33f 0]

But how about someone at leasts admits daniel was out of line as opposed to bashing me?? Why is Daniels actions always right?

[iveyfan30 0]

But how about someone at leasts admits daniel was out of line as opposed to bashing me?? Why is Daniels actions always right?

mark i still dont think he was that outaa line...i think you are just gonna have to let this one go lol...if it makes u feel anybetter , danny was a little wrong,....ok there i said it ..lets move on ..

[mark33f 0]

I ended this with you a while ago...they brought it back up I aint gonna not let done and not defend my point when people are bashing it and me.

[deviper 0]

Explain to me how he was sooooo right in deciding he should play in that freeroll over men????? And explain to me how he was right in complaining that he should be in when he know that in lobbying for his placement in that tournament would result in the getting rid of another player???????????

Now you sit there and tell me that danny dident deserve to play in that freerole. HE WAS THE BEST PLAYER FOR THE WHOLE MONTH OF THE WSOP. come on if i was him i would of done the same thing he deserved to be in that free role and he took the nessasary steps to get in.

[deviper 0]

I ended this with you a while ago...they brought it back up I aint gonna not let done and not defend my point when people are bashing it and me.

sorry if you think im bashing you mark i have no probalam with you.

[mark33f 0]

Same I got no problem with you...all in the sake of discussion... but as far as who deserved to be there I would argue for my table if you wanted because you can look at that tournament short term (one month) or over the last say 15 or 20 years (my opinion long term and under that daniel wouldnt be there)

[deviper 0]

Same I got no problem with you...all in the sake of discussion... but as far as who deserved to be there I would argue for my table if you wanted because you can look at that tournament short term (one month) or over the last say 15 or 20 years (my opinion long term and under that daniel wouldnt be there)

I see your point, but i think that if you have the best overall month at the wsop you deserve to be there. lets look at annie wat is she doing there if you talking about 15 or 20 years ago.

[deviper 0]

talking about 15 or 20 years of results that it.

[brando 0]

Explain to me how he was sooooo right in deciding he should play in that freeroll over men????? And explain to me how he was right in complaining that he should be in when he know that in lobbying for his placement in that tournament would result in the getting rid of another player???????????

Now you sit there and tell me that danny dident deserve to play in that freerole. HE WAS THE BEST PLAYER FOR THE WHOLE MONTH OF THE WSOP. come on if i was him i would of done the same thing he deserved to be in that free role and he took the nessasary steps to get in.

This tournament was not based on recent or past success soley...if it was recent than Phil Ivey wouldn't have been there (no bracelets in 04)...if it was past Men would have been there. I just don't see how it's right for someone to take someone else's spot. That's just silly

[mark33f 0]

Exactly...no matter who good of a series you had it doesnt give you the right to decide who should play or shouldnt play...and I dont think Annie Duke should have been there talking about recent or historical success. She has one bracelet. If you wanted a woman it should have been Jennifer Harman. The problem was they had those who had a not so good series that year (Ivey, Reese-who could care less about the WSOP based on how much he has player, Chan, Brunson) and then those who had the good series...Lederer (no bracelet but 7 cashes I think), Annie, Raymer, Hellmuth (2 final tables so-so)....I mean if Daniel was deserving solely on his POY award then so were the others who finished top 5 in the POY standings becaue they obviously had a better month than Ivey, Reese, Chan, Brunson??? Yes Daniel had a great series...I am not denying that, but when he shows consistency over 5 or 10 years than he will be more than desrving...which he probably will do. Everyone says long term success is the goal in poker....so the TOC should be those who have shown long term success.

[Eclypse 0]

Did everyone miss this was advertised as the WSOP Tournament of Champions??? As in from the World Series and not the World Poker Tour...Gus has had more recent success and its not a matter if he is better than Phil or not. In reality, reguardless of how good he is he doesnt own a bracelet...period. Not to mention Phil has 9! It does not matter that at this point in time Phil isnt a good player or Gus could beat him headsup. I mean besides the bracelets, second all time money leader only to Raymer and second in cashes! He should be the third person picked at minimum! He won two bracelets back in 2003...he isnt that washed up Please explain your basis of Hansen, and Lederer and Harman before Phil in case I missed something...

Because the whole point of your thread was Daniel's comment about "the best poker players in the world"NOT the best WSOP finishers or WSOP players or WSOP braclet owners.

[mark33f 0]

I am sorry I mis read your original post!

[deviper 0]

Exactly...no matter who good of a series you had it doesnt give you the right to decide who should play or shouldnt play...and I dont think Annie Duke should have been there talking about recent or historical success. She has one bracelet.  If you wanted a woman it should have been Jennifer Harman.  The problem was they had those who had a not so good series that year (Ivey, Reese-who could care less about the WSOP based on how much he has player, Chan, Brunson) and then those who had the good series...Lederer (no bracelet but 7 cashes I think), Annie, Raymer, Hellmuth (2 final tables so-so)....I mean if Daniel was deserving solely on his POY award then so  were the others who finished top 5 in the POY standings becaue they obviously had a better month than Ivey, Reese, Chan, Brunson???  Yes Daniel had a great series...I am not denying that, but when he shows consistency over 5 or 10 years than he will be more than desrving...which he probably will do.  Everyone says long term success is the goal in poker....so the TOC should be those who have shown long term success.

Ok so now you saying that he hasent had long term success. Danny has been aroundlonger than you think. Hes had alot of succes before this year. now wtih that being said i think since he had the best wsop he should of been there. because i dont think that the tourny was based on just people that have been winning for 15+years it should be a mix and i cant think of another person that should of been there inplace of danny.

[mark33f 0]

Who has had more long term success...Eric Siedel or Daniel..Who has had more long term success...Men or Daniel...Who has had more long term success...Berry Johnston or Daniel??? Who has had more long term success Chris Ferguson or Daniel?? Who has had more long term success Scotty Nguyen or Daniel?? I would say those players are more derserving than Daniel...You said it should be a mix of short term and long term players...Since when does one good series make a player great or worth to be considered one of the top ten champions ??(not talking about daniel here because he is about in the middle)

[bearshadoe 0]

Come on now guys, we are beggining to sound like a bunch of children.LOL. Every player would have different players up there on that list, no one would have the same players because everyones opinions very. If they didn't this would be a very boring place to live.