Exclusive: Phiil Gordon Bvs Dn

[AVENGEDDDDD 0]

Phil Gordon: 2.3 million reasons, and the fact I've sold 300,000 books, led more hours of tv commentary than any other pro, and work hard to help the gamePhil Gordon: no, I don't think I'm better than DNPhil Gordon: Daniel has a long history of attacking players that disagree with him. Annie Duke, Greg Raymer, for instance. I'm not the first player he's publicly chastized, and I won't be the last.Phil Gordon: I have business interests that keep me away from the table. I *choose* to do more business than poker. I'm comfortable with that choice. If that makes me less of a "pro" so be itPhil Gordon: I've never had a losing year. 8 years pro. Phil Gordon: then do this for me: talk to someone varginator (Observer): im speaking intelligently and honestly bi partisan as well, i read and know a lot about poker Phil Gordon: varg, please go somewhere elsePhil Gordon: its totally unfair for DN to post something like that on his blog without copying the entire article. what he said was taken out of conte: varginator (Observer): another strike against you is your game plan to win the WSOP 2006 with u getting lucky against phil ivey at the final talbe, it just seems like you fel your above a lot of people : Phil Gordon: the point is, I was trying to help people play better by giving them an honest assessment of how I go about entering a final table. I make a game plan for each player.varginator (Observer): but people in the top 2 piers think you have no right to pass judgement because they think they can crush you, is the main point, they think you cant say what you said because your not at the limit and level thay are at that is the core pointXJoKeR15x: varginator (Observer): phil most people would say you are out of your leage against DN and erickya phil gordon banned my chat i took 1 for the team of FCP

[quadaces 0]

Why is everything posted twice?

[outsider13 0]

Why is everything posted twice?

I thought that was me. Hard to read much???If you think this is AVENGING, try making it easy to read so people will read it. I want my 7 minutes back (slow reader)

[obrien64 0]

Phil Gordon: Daniel has a long history of attacking players that disagree with him. Annie Duke, Greg Raymer, for instance. I'm not the first player he's publicly chastized, and I won't be the last.

i think this is a good point that he brings up I know we are on DN's forum but in a way this points out that DN does his fair share of calling out of people in some aspects not directly related to playing poker (criticism of the WPT lawsuit and the people involved) which is totally fine and most people can agree with. However when Phil Gordon does something in this same realm by criticizing Lindgrens game, it is seen as uncalled for and wrong because Phil Gordon isnt as good of a pro poker player whereas DN commenting on the lawsuit and not being a lawyer was just fine. A lot of us agreed with what DN had to say and thought it was right in line even though he may not have been as "qualified" as Greg Raymer (who was involved in the lawsuit) beings as he graduated with a law degree. However we dont agree with Phil Gordon even though him and DN are in the same profession because we view Phil Gordon as not being as "qualified" as other pros therefore meaning his commentary was out of line. seems like a bit of a double standard to me but I can understand as this is FCP's forums, not Phil Gordons

[Sid Simelia 0]

I agree with what Obrien has to say. I also think it's kind of bush league to go into the big guys chat and try to ambush him. They had put their differences aside last I heard anyway.

[TheCinciKid 0]

ya phil gordon banned my chat i took 1 for the team of FCP

Umm. No. You didn't. If anyone at FCP really gives that much of a damn, then they really need to get a life. Gordon has a point. DN does have a long history of attacking people who disagree with him. Does that make me less of a fan of DN? Maybe, but I still really respect his game, think he's a great player and a great person and I really appreciate what he does for his fans and this forum. He disagreed publicly with something Phil Gordon said. Gordon should have every right to defend himself and none of this gives you any right to harass Gordon in observer chat on FTP. That's just stupid, pointless and bush league. You deserved to have your chat banned.

[hank213 1,823]

varginator (Observer): but people in the top 2 piers think you have no right to pass judgement because they think they can crush you, is the main point, they think you cant say what you said because your not at the limit and level thay are at that is the core pointXJoKeR15x: varginator (Observer): phil most people would say you are out of your leage against DN and erickya phil gordon banned my chat i took 1 for the team of FCP

Just because someone plays at higher limits than others does not automatically make them "untouchable." Isn't part of learning and improving one's game to critically analyze the tendencies of others and how they may approach the game/situations? Saying that one must play at certain monetary level to discuss the abilities of others takes away all learning value from televised poker, especially ring games like HSP, since the majority of players don't play at that level. Should we of the lower stakes not analyze hands where Mike M pulls a meltdown because he plays at bigger limits than us? Should we not question what Daniel, Helmuth, or any other televised player could have done differently to prevent a suckout or better exploit a situation for maximum profit? Should we not attempt to analyze and assess what the reasoning behind certain actions in certain situations by these "top tier" players may have been? To say that anyone that doesn't play at a certain level has no place to say anything about "name" players and their game negates any reason to watch poker, televised or live, other than pure entertainment value. That kind of attitude is supremely elitist and terribly condescending.

[jooka 0]

i think this is a good point that he brings up I know we are on DN's forum but in a way this points out that DN does his fair share of calling out of people in some aspects not directly related to playing poker (criticism of the WPT lawsuit and the people involved) which is totally fine and most people can agree with. However when Phil Gordon does something in this same realm by criticizing Lindgrens game, it is seen as uncalled for and wrong because Phil Gordon isnt as good of a pro poker player whereas DN commenting on the lawsuit and not being a lawyer was just fine. A lot of us agreed with what DN had to say and thought it was right in line even though he may not have been as "qualified" as Greg Raymer (who was involved in the lawsuit) beings as he graduated with a law degree. However we dont agree with Phil Gordon even though him and DN are in the same profession because we view Phil Gordon as not being as "qualified" as other pros therefore meaning his commentary was out of line. seems like a bit of a double standard to me but I can understand as this is FCP's forums, not Phil Gordons

well said.

[AngloBoy 0]

i think this is a good point that he brings up I know we are on DN's forum but in a way this points out that DN does his fair share of calling out of people in some aspects not directly related to playing poker (criticism of the WPT lawsuit and the people involved) which is totally fine and most people can agree with. However when Phil Gordon does something in this same realm by criticizing Lindgrens game, it is seen as uncalled for and wrong because Phil Gordon isnt as good of a pro poker player whereas DN commenting on the lawsuit and not being a lawyer was just fine.

Interesting, but for me completely wrong.Phil Gordon's so far up his own..........

[djrobo 0]

I was there, and the OP was being a total ***. Phil asked nicely several times for him to leave / find a purpose in life. Eventually he was perfectly right in getting his chat banned.