borgata dn vs dw

[KowboyKoop 0]

Also, I like how DN says that Phil Hellmuth didn't "place" in any TV events in 2004 or 2005.....despite winning the Heads Up Championship WHICH WAS ON TV and final tabling the TOC WHICH WAS ON TV and even before that he got 2nd in the original TOC (better than DN) which was on TV and he final tabled the PL Omaha event at the WSOP..which was on TV.

I believe you have a point about the PL Omaha final table, which I assume Negreanu forgot about. The others don't count because Daniel specifically said OPEN events, and the events you listed were all invite only. Even worse, Phil didn't earn his invite to the most recent TOC. He was unfairly added into the tournament to boost ratings.

Oh, okay...because the "open" events are regarded so much differently than other events?? What, Hellmuth is supposed to not play because it isn't an "open" event?? He got invited to a poker tournament and he played in it?? What was he supposed to do. I guarantee that if it was DN who had won the Heads Up Championship or if it was DN who was invited and final tables the TOC, noone would say a word about it and instead they'd be talking about how DN was the "true fact of poker." People don't have to like Hellmuth, but quit trying to find weak excuses to discredit him. He's one of the best, bottom line.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

It's simply unfair to include results from events that were "staged" events and not open to the public. If you did that, you could conclude that Annie Duke has won the most money of any female in tournament poker because she won a one table sit n' go for $2 million! Hellmuth won a 64 player CLOSED field where Grac, Grinder, and others couldn't even play! In tournaments where Hellmuth can avoid playing the young players today he'll simply fair much, much better. He also came third in an event that... he didn't even qualify for! Take a look at his results in open events and you'll see that they aren't very good. Granted, when you add the TOC and Heads Up that makes him a winning player. Lastly, results don't "prove" anything at all. That's not how you measure a player, especially in the short term. As a professional player you measure them based on how they are actually playing the game. So, I would happily take that list of 20 that I provided against Hellmuth in OPEN NL Hold'em tournaments. if you seriously think that Hellmuth is a better bet than Grinder or Gracz right now, you'd quickly change your opinion if you simply watched them play close up. Grinder and Gracz play their butts off, while Phil is very rusty. Now, if Phil dedicated himself to playing more poker, I would agree with you 100%: he is one of the very best NL tournament players in the game. Fair enough?

[KowboyKoop 0]

Lastly, results don't "prove" anything at all. That's not how you measure a player, especially in the short term.

Lol..this makes no sense to me. People are so busy criticizing him because his recent, short term results have been "sub-par"....and then when the numbers are posted showing that his short term results are actually pretty good/decent...they now say that short term results aren't that important. So...does that mean we should now judge how good he is by his long term and overall results?? Because if we are going to use that...then it would show that Hellmuth is one of the greatest tourney players in history..if not the greatest. So...yeah, I'm kind confused. It seems to me like you're saying that instead of looking at short term OR long term results of Phil Hellmuth, we should instead only listen to your opinion that he isn't as good as a lot of other pros. That ain't right. Results and making money is what poker is about, and the numbers show that his results have been pretty damn good no matter how you look at it. I think the fact that most people find him annoying and don't like him is clouding everyone's judgement.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Lastly, results don't "prove" anything at all. That's not how you measure a player, especially in the short term.

Lol..this makes no sense to me. People are so busy criticizing him because his recent, short term results have been "sub-par"....and then when the numbers are posted showing that his short term results are actually pretty good/decent...they now say that short term results aren't that important. So...does that mean we should now judge how good he is by his long term and overall results?? Because if we are going to use that...then it would show that Hellmuth is one of the greatest tourney players in history..if not the greatest. So...yeah, I'm kind confused. It seems to me like you're saying that instead of looking at short term OR long term results of Phil Hellmuth, we should instead only listen to your opinion that he isn't as good as a lot of other pros. That ain't right. Results and making money is what poker is about, and the numbers show that his results have been pretty damn good no matter how you look at it. I think the fact that most people find him annoying and don't like him is clouding everyone's judgement.

First of all, I was never "that guy" who felt like his short term results are the reason for the criticism. It's the decisions he makes when he plays the game. Unfortunately, that's not something you, or the other posters are privy too. The only way to judge that is to actually watch him play. Maybe you'll get a little glimpse on the GSN High Stakes Poker show, or even an upcoming PPT event, but otherwise, you just wouldn't believe the decisions he's been making over the last little while.

[KowboyKoop 0]

Lastly, results don't "prove" anything at all. That's not how you measure a player, especially in the short term.

Lol..this makes no sense to me. People are so busy criticizing him because his recent, short term results have been "sub-par"....and then when the numbers are posted showing that his short term results are actually pretty good/decent...they now say that short term results aren't that important. So...does that mean we should now judge how good he is by his long term and overall results?? Because if we are going to use that...then it would show that Hellmuth is one of the greatest tourney players in history..if not the greatest. So...yeah, I'm kind confused. It seems to me like you're saying that instead of looking at short term OR long term results of Phil Hellmuth, we should instead only listen to your opinion that he isn't as good as a lot of other pros. That ain't right. Results and making money is what poker is about, and the numbers show that his results have been pretty damn good no matter how you look at it. I think the fact that most people find him annoying and don't like him is clouding everyone's judgement.

First of all, I was never "that guy" who felt like his short term results are the reason for the criticism. It's the decisions he makes when he plays the game. Unfortunately, that's not something you, or the other posters are privy too. The only way to judge that is to actually watch him play. Maybe you'll get a little glimpse on the GSN High Stakes Poker show, or even an upcoming PPT event, but otherwise, you just wouldn't believe the decisions he's been making over the last little while.

GSN High Stakes Poker is a cash game, and my posts have NOTHING to do with cash games. I am ONLY talking about tournament poker. Yes, his cash game is weak compared to many other top pros, and maybe even his tourney game in the very very recent past has been "rusty" or "off," but you yourself said you can't measure a player just off of the short term. His short term results and his long term results show that he is one of the best tourney players in the world.

[Ouch-8s 4]

You know I don't really have an opinion one way or another about this argument, but when I read Daniel's first couple of response I was surprised, as they seemed out of character from what (admitedly little) I know about him.Then I got to thinking: why would Daniel make a 'boast post'? And I wondered: is Daniel going to a game tonight where he will be playing Phil and wants to get under his skin a bit? Or did he already play him on HSP (for example), took Phil for a bundle, and wants to talk about it but can't because of a NDA prior to the show airing?And then came this:

Maybe you'll get a little glimpse on the GSN High Stakes Poker show,

and I smiled a little bit...

[alf13 0]

One thing that Daniel might or SHOULD agree with is that Phil has used his persona to make money off of poker. That has to count for something. He may be playing like crap, but his results are not bad. I know that those were "staged" events. But you gotta admit that even if they were staged...they did pass out chips...they did deal cards...they did have blind levels...it was still a tourney per say...and he performed. In the case of the HU championship...he did beat a pretty good field.I do understand completely about results....and that they indeed don't matter if you are playing well and just hitting the downside of variance. But Poker players in essence are con men and hustlers and phil may have a crappy game...but he has taken his crappy game and conned, hustled his way to plenty of MOBNEY through poker.

[Ouch-8s 4]

until daniel accomplishes all the things phil has there should be no question who is better

Such as?

im a huge Negreanu fan and a huge Hellmuth fan...Hellmuth hasnt made adjustments and still plays NL like its 1989, so he might not be in the top 20...(right now)But the guy is a World Champion, and no one can take that away from him.

Indeed. You have to acknowledge that Hellmuth has been a monster achiever in poker. You have to adjust for the past. That is what makes deciding on 'the best of all time' so hard.If you don't then you have to think that I'm better than Stu Unger, because, I've adjusted my game recently and won last night, but Stu, well, he just don't play so good no more.

[king_tanner 84]

Where is Phil Helmuth when you need him? I would like to see a response from him lol

[gilbertology 0]

Daniel, as well as most of the posters, are saying Hellmuth is no longer a top 20NL tournament player, not that he "once was a great player". There is no disputing that.He won the NBC Heads Up championship, but he didn't beat the WHOLE field. In fact, he only beat 6 people and didn't play the other 58. If you watched a couple of the matches, such as the third round vs Huck Seed, the match could have easily gone either way. Granted it didn't, but results alone do not speak volumes about how good a player is. How many tournaments have Chip Reese and Johnny Chan won recently? Are they worse NL players than Hellmuth because they don't have great tournament "results" the past couple years. Only Daniel and other pros will really know how well Hellmuth has been playing the past year or two, and from what most of them have said, he no longer has the skills in NL Hold'Em that he used to.

[Ouch-8s 4]

Only Daniel and other pros will really know how well Hellmuth has been playing the past year or two, and from what most of them have said, he no longer has the skills in NL Hold'Em that he used to.

No debating that, I think. Watching heavily edited TV coverage will give little to no indication of how someone plays. Looking at yearly/monthly results screams of Results Orientated Thinking, and we all know not to do that .Are there others 'on the record' saying that PH no longer has the skills he used to? Just wondering?

[the_charleroi_ki 0]

phil has 9 WSOP bracelets all in holdem including a main event title that should be proof enough

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Lastly, results don't "prove" anything at all. That's not how you measure a player, especially in the short term.

Lol..this makes no sense to me. People are so busy criticizing him because his recent, short term results have been "sub-par"....and then when the numbers are posted showing that his short term results are actually pretty good/decent...they now say that short term results aren't that important. So...does that mean we should now judge how good he is by his long term and overall results?? Because if we are going to use that...then it would show that Hellmuth is one of the greatest tourney players in history..if not the greatest. So...yeah, I'm kind confused. It seems to me like you're saying that instead of looking at short term OR long term results of Phil Hellmuth, we should instead only listen to your opinion that he isn't as good as a lot of other pros. That ain't right. Results and making money is what poker is about, and the numbers show that his results have been pretty damn good no matter how you look at it. I think the fact that most people find him annoying and don't like him is clouding everyone's judgement.

First of all, I was never "that guy" who felt like his short term results are the reason for the criticism. It's the decisions he makes when he plays the game. Unfortunately, that's not something you, or the other posters are privy too. The only way to judge that is to actually watch him play. Maybe you'll get a little glimpse on the GSN High Stakes Poker show, or even an upcoming PPT event, but otherwise, you just wouldn't believe the decisions he's been making over the last little while.

GSN High Stakes Poker is a cash game, and my posts have NOTHING to do with cash games. I am ONLY talking about tournament poker. Yes, his cash game is weak compared to many other top pros, and maybe even his tourney game in the very very recent past has been "rusty" or "off," but you yourself said you can't measure a player just off of the short term. His short term results and his long term results show that he is one of the best tourney players in the world.

I'm not judging his short term results, I'm judging his terrible play. The GSN show was a cash game, but the game was no limit hold'em. To make some of the plays he made in that show not only shows poor cash game skills, but terribly poor reading skills. Again, I admitted that when he plays his best he is a top NL tourmament player. I've given you that. I will not back down, though, from the fact that he is playing terrible poker these days and in nowhere near a top 20 threat, ESPECIALLY in the large field WPT events with tons of great young players in them.

[KowboyKoop 0]

Lastly, results don't "prove" anything at all. That's not how you measure a player, especially in the short term.

Lol..this makes no sense to me. People are so busy criticizing him because his recent, short term results have been "sub-par"....and then when the numbers are posted showing that his short term results are actually pretty good/decent...they now say that short term results aren't that important. So...does that mean we should now judge how good he is by his long term and overall results?? Because if we are going to use that...then it would show that Hellmuth is one of the greatest tourney players in history..if not the greatest. So...yeah, I'm kind confused. It seems to me like you're saying that instead of looking at short term OR long term results of Phil Hellmuth, we should instead only listen to your opinion that he isn't as good as a lot of other pros. That ain't right. Results and making money is what poker is about, and the numbers show that his results have been pretty damn good no matter how you look at it. I think the fact that most people find him annoying and don't like him is clouding everyone's judgement.

First of all, I was never "that guy" who felt like his short term results are the reason for the criticism. It's the decisions he makes when he plays the game. Unfortunately, that's not something you, or the other posters are privy too. The only way to judge that is to actually watch him play. Maybe you'll get a little glimpse on the GSN High Stakes Poker show, or even an upcoming PPT event, but otherwise, you just wouldn't believe the decisions he's been making over the last little while.

GSN High Stakes Poker is a cash game, and my posts have NOTHING to do with cash games. I am ONLY talking about tournament poker. Yes, his cash game is weak compared to many other top pros, and maybe even his tourney game in the very very recent past has been "rusty" or "off," but you yourself said you can't measure a player just off of the short term. His short term results and his long term results show that he is one of the best tourney players in the world.

I'm not judging his short term results, I'm judging his terrible play. The GSN show was a cash game, but the game was no limit hold'em. To make some of the plays he made in that show not only shows poor cash game skills, but terribly poor reading skills. Again, I admitted that when he plays his best he is a top NL tourmament player. I've given you that. I will not back down, though, from the fact that he is playing terrible poker these days and in nowhere near a top 20 threat, ESPECIALLY in the large field WPT events with tons of great young players in them.

If you feel that he is currently playing poorly, then that is fine and not something that I would be aware of. However, that doesn't mean that he isn't a top-tier tourney player just because of him playing poorly right now. I mean, if, for example, the best hockey player in the NHL has a bad month or something, does that mean that he is no longer an elite player??? No. Same with Hellmuth. He may not be playing his 'A' game at this very moment, but that isn't enough to say that he isn't an elite player anymore. If he were to play bad and have bad results for a couple years in a row or something, then maybe, but his results recently have still been good, so he is still an elite tourney player.

[king_tanner 84]

Daniel have you been sipping on the HATERade lately?

[Bill_Brasky 0]

Daniel have you been sipping on the TRUTHade lately?

Yes, I believe he has.

[stealfromblind 0]

the skill is of a cash nl cash game player transcend the skill of a nl tourney player. this should be obvious seeing as all of the first tier cash game players crush the tournament circuit whenever they take the time to play. yet when some of these "tv players" step into a high stakes cash game they get thrown around like a rag doll.

[KowboyKoop 0]

the skill is of a cash nl cash game player transcends the skill of a nl tourney player.  this should be obvious seeing as all of the first tier cash game players crush the tournament circuit whenever they take the time to play.  yet when some of these "tv players" step into a high stakes cash game they get thrown around like a rag doll.

Who are you saying this to and what are you trying to say?? Don't get what this has to do with anything. Also, Chip Reese is a "first tier cash game player" and is FAR from "crushing" the tournament curcuit. I'm sure there are other examples too..such as Barry G. and such....

[stealfromblind 0]

GSN High Stakes Poker is a cash game, and my posts have NOTHING to do with cash games. I am ONLY talking about tournament poker. Yes, his cash game is weak compared to many other top pros, and maybe even his tourney game in the very very recent past has been "rusty" or "off," but you yourself said you can't measure a player just off of the short term. His short term results and his long term results show that he is one of the best tourney players in the world.

my point was that you stating cash game play has no comparison to tournament play is absurd. anybody who plays on ub any amount of time has seen what a donkey phil has been the past 2 years. i've played on ub for the past 3 years and occasionally when phils name pops up i'll see what tables he's donking his money away at. i have yet to see him 'kill' a game on ub and constantly see him losing a couple thousand a night at pl omaha, limit hu holdem, and triple draw. also i noticed that you posted his 2004-2005 tournament winning record. what you didn't take into account is that to play the amount of tournaments he's playing takes a huge investment. so for 2004 because he only cashed something pathetic like $94,000 he was probly stuck well over $200k in buy ins easily. with the number of events going up in 2005 i doubt that he actually showed much profit.

[KowboyKoop 0]

GSN High Stakes Poker is a cash game, and my posts have NOTHING to do with cash games. I am ONLY talking about tournament poker. Yes, his cash game is weak compared to many other top pros, and maybe even his tourney game in the very very recent past has been "rusty" or "off," but you yourself said you can't measure a player just off of the short term. His short term results and his long term results show that he is one of the best tourney players in the world.

my point was that you stating cash game play has no comparison to tournament play is absurd. anybody who plays on ub any amount of time has seen what a donkey phil has been the past 2 years. i've played on ub for the past 3 years and occasionally when phils name pops up i'll see what tables he's donking his money away at. i have yet to see him 'kill' a game on ub and constantly see him losing a couple thousand a night at pl omaha, limit hu holdem, and triple draw. My argument has nothing to do with cash games. He is one of the best tournament players and is not that great of a cash game player, so you talking about his poor cash game means nothing to my argument. also i noticed that you posted his 2004-2005 tournament winning record. what you didn't take into account is that to play the amount of tournaments he's playing takes a huge investment. so for 2004 because he only cashed something pathetic like $94,000 he was probly stuck well over $200k in buy ins easily. with the number of events going up in 2005 i doubt that he actually showed much profit.

Wrong. The whole argument AGAINST Phil is that he "doesn't play nearly as many events as the top pros and is thus rusty." That is what everyone is saying, so you can't say that now he is playing is so many events that his total-buyin has caused him to lose money. That is just it. Phil plays way less events than most pros and still put up good numbers. Also, yeah, I know that the money he won in those tourneys is not all profit. That applies to every single pro in the world, I never said that it was all profit. Funny thing though, I don't hear anyone making this point when raving about DN's 4 million dollar year in 2004.....bottom line, Phil is one of the very best tourney players in the world when he plays. Has nothing to do with his cash game.

[stealfromblind 0]

bottom line, Phil was one of the very best tourney players in the world.

fypi can agree with you that he used to be one of the best in the world, much like doyle brunson used to be one of the best cash game players in the world. but now doyles the loser in the big game, and phil is a donk in the big mtt tournaments. the two big tournaments that phil took down in 2005 was 1st in the HU champ and 3rd in the TOC. the TOC is a very small tournament and because of the lower number of entrants phils TAG approach worked, lets not forget that the kid didn't every QUALIFY for the event. the HU tournament, although fun to watch, is mostly a card catching contest. all you have to do is go pick up a copy of "play poker like the pro's" to realize that phils strat. isn't successful against most of the overly aggressive tournament players on the circuit today. phil is a dinasour.

[KowboyKoop 0]

bottom line, Phil was one of the very best tourney players in the world.

fypi can agree with you that he used to be one of the best in the world, much like doyle brunson used to be one of the best cash game players in the world. but now doyles the loser in the big game, and phil is a donk in the big mtt tournaments. the two big tournaments that phil took down in 2005 was 1st in the HU champ and 3rd in the TOC. the TOC is a very small tournament and because of the lower number of entrants phils TAG approach worked, lets not forget that the kid didn't every QUALIFY for the event. the HU tournament, although fun to watch, is mostly a card catching contest. all you have to do is go pick up a copy of "play poker like the pro's" to realize that phils strat. isn't successful against most of the overly aggressive tournament players on the circuit today. phil is a dinasour.

lol...yeah...heads up holdem is a card catching contest. Yeah, now I know that you ain't got a clue. If DN wins that, people would be saying that "heads up NL is the truest test of skill..." blah blah blah. Please, give me a break, Phil is still one of the best in the world when he plays in the tourneys. Also, if you think that Phil plays like the strategy in his book, then you are just flat out clueless. That book is aimed at beginners/people who haven't played poker before....Phil plays NOTHING like that book...you thinking that pretty much takes away all your credibility. Phil is one of the best tourney players in the world and he had a better tourney year in 05 than DN, and had a very very good year as recently as 2003. Funny that with DN, people disregard his results in '05 and say that "poker is about the results over the long term, over the course of many years," but then with Hellmuth people are so quick to disregard the results of merely three and two and even one year ago and instead just focus on a current "bad run" if you will. On a side note, I'm watching Greg Raymer play right now and someone just brought up Phil Hellmuth being such a "tight player," and Raymer just confirmed that Hellmuth is nowhere NEAR as tight as people think. Thus, you really have no clue about how he plays.

[stealfromblind 0]

lol...yeah...heads up holdem is a card catching contest. Yeah, now I know that you ain't got a clue. with increasing blinds hu nl holdem is a card catching contest. a hu nl cash game is completely different. in a cash game you can ride out the variance and have some idea of who the better player is. in a hu nl holdem freezeout the blinds incrase at a rate in which the game is mostly luck.If DN wins that, people would be saying that "heads up NL is the truest test of skill..." blah blah blah. Please, give me a break, Phil is still one of the best in the world when he plays in the tourneys. why do you keep bringing DN into this dipshit? i haven't mentioned his n ame in a single post in this thread.Also, if you think that Phil plays like the strategy in his book, then you are just flat out clueless. That book is aimed at beginners/people who haven't played poker before....Phil plays NOTHING like that book...you thinking that pretty much takes away all your credibility. takes away all my credibility? ok so lets say that phil is one of the best, if not the best tournament players in the world. now we all know that phil has written a couple books and that NONE of them offer any valuable insight into tournament play or good game theory for advanced holdem players. every 1st tier pro who writes a book has some statements that could totally change your approach to the game(take ss and hoh for example) yet every book phil has written has been complete garbage. so your saying phil is one of the best in the world he just can't aritculate his ideas on the game? so is he mentally retarded or just a donkey now that he's out of his prime?Phil is one of the best tourney players in the world and he had a better tourney year in 05 than DN, and had a very very good year as recently as 2003. Funny that with DN, people disregard his results in '05 and say that "poker is about the results over the long term, over the course of many years," but then with Hellmuth people are so quick to disregard the results of merely three and two and even one year ago and instead just focus on a current "bad run" if you will. and again you bring DN into the rebuttal when i haven't even mentioned him. well lets think about this for a minute. like you stated earlier phil hellmuth made a whopping 97k in 2004. from watching his play on ub i say he could easily donk off 100k or more in the online games alone in a year. so lets say he's stuck atleast 240k for the year. show me within the past 5 years where daniel was in the red like this. and if you compare their cash earnings for the past 5 years hellmuth get crushed. On a side note, I'm watching Greg Raymer play right now and someone just brought up Phil Hellmuth being such a "tight player," and Raymer just confirmed that Hellmuth is nowhere NEAR as tight as people think. Thus, you really have no clue about how he plays.so you were watching raymer play online and a rail whore is asking him about hellmuth and his response makes you informed on his play? and this makes me have no clue how he plays? how? dumbass...i have yet to see any intelligent arguments out of you, mostly you just make yourself look like an arrogant prick with an attention whore complex.

[KowboyKoop 0]

lol...yeah...heads up holdem is a card catching contest. Yeah, now I know that you ain't got a clue. with increasing blinds hu nl holdem is a card catching contest. a hu nl cash game is completely different. in a cash game you can ride out the variance and have some idea of who the better player is. in a hu nl holdem freezeout the blinds incrase at a rate in which the game is mostly luck.If DN wins that, people would be saying that "heads up NL is the truest test of skill..." blah blah blah. Please, give me a break, Phil is still one of the best in the world when he plays in the tourneys. why do you keep bringing DN into this dipshit? i haven't mentioned his n ame in a single post in this thread.Also, if you think that Phil plays like the strategy in his book, then you are just flat out clueless. That book is aimed at beginners/people who haven't played poker before....Phil plays NOTHING like that book...you thinking that pretty much takes away all your credibility. takes away all my credibility? ok so lets say that phil is one of the best, if not the best tournament players in the world. now we all know that phil has written a couple books and that NONE of them offer any valuable insight into tournament play or good game theory for advanced holdem players. every 1st tier pro who writes a book has some statements that could totally change your approach to the game(take ss and hoh for example) yet every book phil has written has been complete garbage. so your saying phil is one of the best in the world he just can't aritculate his ideas on the game? so is he mentally retarded or just a donkey now that he's out of his prime?Phil is one of the best tourney players in the world and he had a better tourney year in 05 than DN, and had a very very good year as recently as 2003. Funny that with DN, people disregard his results in '05 and say that "poker is about the results over the long term, over the course of many years," but then with Hellmuth people are so quick to disregard the results of merely three and two and even one year ago and instead just focus on a current "bad run" if you will. and again you bring DN into the rebuttal when i haven't even mentioned him. well lets think about this for a minute. like you stated earlier phil hellmuth made a whopping 97k in 2004. from watching his play on ub i say he could easily donk off 100k or more in the online games alone in a year. so lets say he's stuck atleast 240k for the year. show me within the past 5 years where daniel was in the red like this. and if you compare their cash earnings for the past 5 years hellmuth get crushed. On a side note, I'm watching Greg Raymer play right now and someone just brought up Phil Hellmuth being such a "tight player," and Raymer just confirmed that Hellmuth is nowhere NEAR as tight as people think. Thus, you really have no clue about how he plays.so you were watching raymer play online and a rail whore is asking him about hellmuth and his response makes you informed on his play? and this makes me have no clue how he plays? how? dumbass...i have yet to see any intelligent arguments out of you, mostly you just make yourself look like an arrogant prick with an attention whore complex.

Lol...getting p*ssed off I see. That'd be a sure sign that you know I'm right. I don't really have any other points to make. Everything I've said stands. I am not sure how the quality of his books or the quality of his cash game play has ANYTHING to do with my argument that he is one of the best tourney players, yet you continue to pound on those points for whatever reason. You keep bringing up his cash game losses and such, when that has nothing to do with his tourney success, and for every tourney that Phil does well in, you are just trying to find some excuse to discredit it. The rules of every tournament Phil plays are the same as all the other tournaments, nothing Phil can do but play and when he does play, the results show that he does well. Yeah, he had one bad year, but he also had a TON of awesome years before the poker boom where there wasn't NEARLY as big of prize pools as now. Oh, but wait, according to your side's arguments, the long term results don't matter in terms of Hellmuth, but when talking about DN, you have to look at his long term success. Lol...whatever. I'm done, so if you want a response from me, just go back and look at what I wrote in previous posts.

[robert f 0]

I hope Koop becomes a lawyer. If he can argue a law case the way he does a forum topic. I am for sure to hire him to defend me.