Daniel Negreanu Out Of Line?

[TraptSteve 0]

just ran across this clip on youtube now that I have the wonders of a broadband internet connection back.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnpMCAAeEakImo, i think Dan was out of line for bringing up how Mike asked to borrow money for the game. If I, in confidence, asked a friend of mine who was to be playing at a live game to borrow some money it would be pretty shady to bring it up in the middle of the game. It's a vindictive act; I understand table talking at the poker table to upset an opponent, but I think what DN did was a betrayal of trust.Of course I don't know if it was public knowledge that Mike M. asked for a buy-in or not. i'm just saying...

[CzechRazor 0]

I'm sure it's public knowledge that Mike borrows.Also, Matusow had been chattering away like he always does, so it's not like Daniel's comment was unprovoked.

[Yoda 1]

You are out of line for pressing the New Topic button. Please don't do it any more. Thanks.

[Dogpatch 2]

That would be the famous napkin match, right? I believe it was common knowledge. Also, while it did seem to really get Mike mad, it's probably normal banter between friends.

[MyPlayIsRAB 0]

if you watched the WSOP TOC this year, youll see they had a big segement about how daniel an dmike are very close friends and like to needle each other. mike is a world class player when he stays in line, and DN likes to remind him how he plays like a donk the other times

[No_Neck 0]

yeah maybe a little but so what, he is human, you try sitting next to Mike for 16 hours while losing your shirt to bad beat after bad beat.

[WowThats 0]

This is between them... I really don't care what the outcome is... Why does anyone care?

[Marc-O 0]

This is between them... I really don't care what the outcome is... Why does anyone care?

[TylerSalzman 0]

just ran across this clip on youtube now that I have the wonders of a broadband internet connection back.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnpMCAAeEakImo, i think Dan was out of line for bringing up how Mike asked to borrow money for the game. If I, in confidence, asked a friend of mine who was to be playing at a live game to borrow some money it would be pretty shady to bring it up in the middle of the game. It's a vindictive act; I understand table talking at the poker table to upset an opponent, but I think what DN did was a betrayal of trust.Of course I don't know if it was public knowledge that Mike M. asked for a buy-in or not. i'm just saying...

It is okay for Mike to call everyone idiots and say how bad of players they are?Danial has a very good point, you aren't that great of a player if you don't have any bankroll management, or in Mike's case, any sense at all.

[sirphatticus 0]

not to mention that mike was in fact staked for that game as well...you think mike cares that the world knows he's broke? the guy will openly answer/admit to anything you ask him.

[mtdesmoines 3]

just ran across this clip on youtube now that I have the wonders of a broadband internet connection back.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnpMCAAeEakImo, i think Dan was out of line for bringing up how Mike asked to borrow money for the game. If I, in confidence, asked a friend of mine who was to be playing at a live game to borrow some money it would be pretty shady to bring it up in the middle of the game. It's a vindictive act; I understand table talking at the poker table to upset an opponent, but I think what DN did was a betrayal of trust.Of course I don't know if it was public knowledge that Mike M. asked for a buy-in or not. i'm just saying...

Why would you borrow and THEN run at the mouth? You're asking to get your nuts cinched. Oh, wait. It's Matasow.

[mrdannyg 274]

its not a question of being out of line, its a question of poor arguing.they're arguing a strategic point. negreanu's argument:- matusow thinks he is right about this, so he thinks he is right about everything (true, but only because its matusow)- he can't be right about everything since he's brokenegreanu is embarassed at losing an argument, so he commits an 'ad hominem' fallacy and looks like a dope in the process. then again, looking like a dope because he's not able to argue things he is certain he is right about is nothing new for DN.

[LuckyMcCatcher 0]

its not a question of being out of line, its a question of poor arguing.they're arguing a strategic point. negreanu's argument:- matusow thinks he is right about this, so he thinks he is right about everything (true, but only because its matusow)- he can't be right about everything since he's brokenegreanu is embarassed at losing an argument, so he commits an 'ad hominem' fallacy and looks like a dope in the process. then again, looking like a dope because he's not able to argue things he is certain he is right about is nothing new for DN.

I agree . I watched all the episodes and Mike wasnt really at all out of line. Sure he was saying everyone plays bad, etc, but its not like anyone thinks he believes that. Its obvious to anyone with a brain that Mike became the whipping boy for any other pro who was steaming. Also it was funny how "scared money" Laak and pretty boy Esfandiari were giving him the needle. I mean who the hell are these guys. Neither have accomplished half of what Mike has regardless of his other habits.

[SpiderGuard 0]

I agree . I watched all the episodes and Mike wasnt really at all out of line. Sure he was saying everyone plays bad, etc, but its not like anyone thinks he believes that. Its obvious to anyone with a brain that Mike became the whipping boy for any other pro who was steaming. Also it was funny how "scared money" Laak and pretty boy Esfandiari were giving him the needle. I mean who the hell are these guys. Neither have accomplished half of what Mike has regardless of his other habits.

Laak was scared money, but Chan played just as tight in the first round. Was he scared, or was he just a good player?

[Oziumrules 0]

This subject was beaten to death awhile back....there buddies and take nothing personally.

[LuckyMcCatcher 0]

Laak was scared money, but Chan played just as tight in the first round. Was he scared, or was he just a good player?

He made bad lay downs a couple of times so Im not sure he was scared just getting outplayed. I dont think Chan is quite the cash game player everyone wants to give him credit for.

[ThreeBet 0]

He made bad lay downs a couple of times so Im not sure he was scared just getting outplayed. I dont think Chan is quite the cash game player everyone wants to give him credit for.

Wow .... 2 sentences / 2 off-the-wall sattements, imo. I thought Laak played very well. Yes, he was playing over his head (he readily admitted it in his column in Bluff) but he appeared to me to have a very good read on a lot of the players. I know he made some good laydowns (along with some not-so-good maybe), as well as some other good plays.Chan and Cash Games? I'm gonna guess you're wrong.

[nutzbuster 7]

This subject was beaten to death awhile back....there buddies and take nothing personally.

QFTThey ALWAYS stick each other. Ain't no thang....

[LuckyMcCatcher 0]

Wow .... 2 sentences / 2 off-the-wall sattements, imo. I thought Laak played very well. Yes, he was playing over his head (he readily admitted it in his column in Bluff) but he appeared to me to have a very good read on a lot of the players. I know he made some good laydowns (along with some not-so-good maybe), as well as some other good plays.Chan and Cash Games? I'm gonna guess you're wrong.

I was referring to Chan making bad laydowns. Also with Laak how about that flop call against DN where he has A2c on like a paired all red board. He also ran very well. I didnt see one spectacular or even noteworthy play by him.Also "guessing" Im wrong is very persuasive. Im gonna "guess" that if Chan were half the cash game player he is credited as being he would be playing in the big game daily.

[Clamps 0]

I agree . I watched all the episodes and Mike wasnt really at all out of line. Sure he was saying everyone plays bad, etc, but its not like anyone thinks he believes that. Its obvious to anyone with a brain that Mike became the whipping boy for any other pro who was steaming. Also it was funny how "scared money" Laak and pretty boy Esfandiari were giving him the needle. I mean who the hell are these guys. Neither have accomplished half of what Mike has regardless of his other habits.

Laak was one of the best players at the table. The fact is that he walked away as one of the biggest (if not the biggest) winners in the game. Last time I checked, poker was about making money, not making cute plays to impress people. And if you honestly think Antonio isn't a good player then you have your head up your ***. He was one of the best players out of both seasons, regardless of the bad beats he took.

[LuckyMcCatcher 0]

Laak was one of the best players at the table. The fact is that he walked away as one of the biggest (if not the biggest) winners in the game. Last time I checked, poker was about making money, not making cute plays to impress people. And if you honestly think Antonio isn't a good player then you have your head up your ***. He was one of the best players out of both seasons, regardless of the bad beats he took.

You are the one using short term results to make a point. I used a specific example. Also point out where I said that Antonio was a bad player. Also Laak left before one show was even over when he was running extremely well. Who does that? Typical scared money trying to lock up the big win.

[Clamps 0]

I was referring to Chan making bad laydowns. Also with Laak how about that flop call against DN where he has A2c on like a paired all red board. He also ran very well. I didnt see one spectacular or even noteworthy play by him.Also "guessing" Im wrong is very persuasive. Im gonna "guess" that if Chan were half the cash game player he is credited as being he would be playing in the big game daily.

I'm gonna "guess" that because he has a family and is now one of the biggest celebrities in poker that he has obligations that get in the way of playing side games.

You are the one using short term results to make a point. I used a specific example. Also point out where I said that Antonio was a bad player. Also Laak left before one show was even over when he was running extremely well. Who does that? Typical scared money trying to lock up the big win.

What else do you have to base your opinion on than short term results? If you want to make that criticism then you have to make it about every player at the table, since they were all playing on a short term. Just because Laak played tight/aggressive and didn't make a bunch of risky plays doesn't mean that he's a weak player.

[LuckyMcCatcher 0]

I'm gonna "guess" that because he has a family and is now one of the biggest celebrities in poker that he has obligations that get in the way of playing side games.What else do you have to base your opinion on than short term results? If you want to make that criticism then you have to make it about every player at the table, since they were all playing on a short term. Just because Laak played tight/aggressive and didn't make a bunch of risky plays doesn't mean that he's a weak player.

He is the only poker player that has a family and obligations? Look fanboy, stop assuming that your heroes are the best ever just because you read it or hear Norman Chad say it and try thinking logically. Also being a poker celebrity doesnt make you one of the best cash game players in the world.

[Clamps 0]

He is the only poker player that has a family and obligations? Look fanboy, stop assuming that your heroes are the best ever just because you read it or hear Norman Chad say it and try thinking logically. Also being a poker celebrity doesnt make you one of the best cash game players in the world.

When did I say that Chan was one of my heroes? Anyone with half a brain can come to the conclusion that he has other endeavors that make him more money than he can get playing at the big game. And even if he didn't, why does he have to play there to prove he's one of the best in the world? You do understand that some of the best players in the world play in cash games with weak opposition for a reason, right? Not everyone wants to to play in a game where they don't have an edge.

[LuckyMcCatcher 0]

When did I say that Chan was one of my heroes? Anyone with half a brain can come to the conclusion that he has other endeavors that make him more money than he can get playing at the big game. And even if he didn't, why does he have to play there to prove he's one of the best in the world? You do understand that some of the best players in the world play in cash games with weak opposition for a reason, right? Not everyone wants to to play in a game where they don't have an edge.

If he doesnt have an edge than my argument is correct and you are arguing for no reason. Try to stay with the thought at hand rather arguing things that have no relevance to the topic. My argument was that Chan was not the cash game player people give him credit for being. Also anyone who is one of the best in the world (cash games) would have to play in the big game. Its like an entrepeneur passing up a no-lose investment opportunity.