Jump to content

erick lindgren should be barred from tournament poke


Recommended Posts

by this reasoning you would be saying that the primary difference between 1-5 and 41-45 is luck. Over a few months? Of course it is.however if you care to resort to an oversight on my part which had absolutely nothing to do with your original argument (even when I proposed we mutually agree on a set of parameters, which obviously could favor neither you or I more than the other) then so be it.but youd still be wrongWrong about what, exactly?So I take it that you're not going to accept that wager after all, which you recognise you'd lose and not pay, right?Just want to clarify your complete lack of integrity here.Please make it clear for me.Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It's interesting that you resort to defending yourself in what was an unnecessary and incorrect reply to my original post.how else do you perceive your reply?commenting that a player has just been "lucky" (when he hasn't) is rude.Of course it isn't rude, and of course it was correct.Erick would tell you the same thing as would anyone with any sort of basic understanding of big buy in NL tournaments.Making a bunch of final tables in a row or a short span of time means you've caught cards, won coin flips and played well.  It doesn't mean you suddenly started playing better than the month you didn't make any final tables.What's rude is the implication you offer that he was somehow playing worse when he wasn't making a lot of final tables.questioning a great players ability like that is just sad coming from the likes of you.backtrack all you want.You can't win this by the way.  Even were I wrong, you wouldn't be able to win a rhetorical contest.  Considering I'm right, you're really screwed.
i am guessing erick would say he's just better than most everyone else.but i don't know that for sure, and apparently you do. you must be pals.as far as your proposed "rhetorical contest", that is the dorkiest (hows that for rhetoric) shit I have heard on this page in ages.and completely inane.because you should know i don't lose those.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am more than willing to come together on a set of parameters for the contest. but obviously i want the contest to be based on the original point, which was that erick has been a better tournament player since 2002 than an average of any 25 other players.clearly money winnings doesn't bring us to a conclusion here.Glenn Hughes won more money in the WSOP this year than did Daniel Negreanu. but that wouldn't be the end all justification for the quality of their poker play

Link to post
Share on other sites

because you should know i don't lose those.I know you have some sort of complex about admitting it, about paying when you lose a bet you made up the rues for, etc.Just demonstrates your complete lack of credibility better than I could ever dream of doing. I imagine people would retain some sort of vague respect for you if you could say "Ok, you're right, he's been lucky." Considering you can't thouh, it just makes you a cartoon caricichure of the grossly insecure average kid who can't deal with the fact that most people are smarter than he is./shrug. I don't know why. Most people are average, after all. Nothing wrong with it.Not uncommon. Lots of people are terribly inseucre and can't deal with ever being wrong.Really just makes it more amusing for everyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a solution to this.Whip it out right now and put it on the table. Whoever's is biggest wins. As we underage drinkers say in Athens bars, "Man up and take it to the face!"(sw)Seriously though, as some of the more frequent posters on this website, our opinion is probably looked up to by some. I know I respected y'all's opinions when I first started lurking and posting here, and I still do. We ought to be setting an example for people, not flaming and resorting to ad hominem attacks.Let's agree to disagree.And be happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am more than willing to come together on a set of parameters for the contest. but obviously i want the contest to be based on the original point, which was that erick has been a better tournament player since 2002 than an average of any 25 other players.clearly money winnings doesn't bring us to a conclusion here.Glenn Hughes won more money in the WSOP this year than did Daniel Negreanu. but that wouldn't be the end all justification for the quality of their poker playYeah it was a bad bet for you to make.I guess that means you don't have to pay.Credibility = zero.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd imagine just picking Raymer, Moneymaker, Action Dan, Hellmuth, Ivey, and Doyle could give Smash the win if this was a real bet....which it obviously isn't, seeing how Absolute has been backing out of it.Lindgren is very good. No doubt about it. But is he THAT MUCH better than an Ivey, Greenstein, Doyle, Negreneau, Chan, Farha, etc.?Some days, yes. Some, no. So what's the thing that his given him that edge? Luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously though, as some of the more frequent posters on this website, our opinion is probably looked up to by some. I know I respected y'all's opinions when I first started lurking and posting here, and I still do. We ought to be setting an example for people, not flaming and resorting to ad hominem attacks. There's really only one thing that bothers me in life, and that's self reighetous people who can't deal with it when they're proven wrong and operate under the assumption that if they just keep talking or posting or whatever, that eventually the other person will just give up and humor them.Sorry, that's not me.Absolute is wrong, knows he's wrong, and can't deal with it. When he can, I'll have a ton more respect for him. Untill then, I can only operate under the assumption that he's either 1) Not very birght. or 2) Insecure to the point of requiring clinical help./shrug.

Link to post
Share on other sites
because you should know i don't lose those.I know you have some sort of complex about admitting it, about paying when you lose a bet you made up the rues for, etc.Just demonstrates your complete lack of credibility better than I could ever dream of doing.  I imagine people would retain some sort of vague respect for you if you could say "Ok, you're right, he's been lucky."  Considering you can't thouh, it just makes you a cartoon caricichure of the grossly insecure average kid who can't deal with the fact that most people are smarter than he is./shrug.  I don't know why.  Most people are average, after all.  Nothing wrong with it.Not uncommon.  Lots of people are terribly inseucre and can't deal with ever being wrong.Really just makes it more amusing for everyone else.
I don't recall when we ever agreed to making this bet.I proposed the bet and then you ran with it.It's like going to a pool hall and someone saying,"Hey we could play for $1000 to 7"and then you saying"give me a 6 game lead. i win, pay up"i propsed an idea for a bet, and then you pointed out the obvious (which I credited you for) and demanded your 100 bucks.that's not how bets go.there is negotiation and conversation and parameters involved.but if you really want to be a bitch, fine, you win.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously though, as some of the more frequent posters on this website, our opinion is probably looked up to by some. I know I respected y'all's opinions when I first started lurking and posting here, and I still do. We ought to be setting an example for people, not flaming and resorting to ad hominem attacks.  There's really only one thing that bothers me in life, and that's self reighetous people who can't deal with it when they're proven wrong and operate under the assumption that if they just keep talking or posting or whatever, that eventually the other person will just give up and humor them.Sorry, that's not me.Absolute is wrong, knows he's wrong, and can't deal with it.  When he can, I'll have a ton more respect for him.  Untill then, I can only operate under the assumption that he's either 1) Not very birght.  or 2) Insecure to the point of requiring clinical help./shrug.
i just looked up irony in the dictionary...irony - i·ro·ny 1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. 2. Smasharoo calling someone self-righteous and insecure in the same post.as for your "if he could admit he's wrong id have more respect for him" comment.how fucking Winston Churchill of you.are you a neo-conservative or something?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously though, as some of the more frequent posters on this website, our opinion is probably looked up to by some. I know I respected y'all's opinions when I first started lurking and posting here, and I still do. We ought to be setting an example for people, not flaming and resorting to ad hominem attacks.  There's really only one thing that bothers me in life, and that's self reighetous people who can't deal with it when they're proven wrong and operate under the assumption that if they just keep talking or posting or whatever, that eventually the other person will just give up and humor them.Sorry, that's not me.Absolute is wrong, knows he's wrong, and can't deal with it.  When he can, I'll have a ton more respect for him.  Untill then, I can only operate under the assumption that he's either 1) Not very birght.  or 2) Insecure to the point of requiring clinical help./shrug.
that's the only thing in life that bothers you?dramatic much?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pick 25 players invited to the PPT and accumulate their average tournament winnings since the beginning of 2002 against lindgren's average since that date.I don't even kow what the PPT is.  Litterally.  I'll pick 25 people who played tournaments, how's that?
sure, chances are the 25 you pick are all on the PPT anyway, so i guess that was a moot pointwhere do you get the results of every tournament for these players?thats a website id like to visit
First page, about halfway down.See where you say "sure"?Tradionally that means yes. Well, at least one good thing will come of this thread. Everyone will realize that you can't be trusted with cash or a the promise thereof or a wager of any kind.That's good to know, I guess.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pick 25 players invited to the PPT and accumulate their average tournament winnings since the beginning of 2002 against lindgren's average since that date.I don't even kow what the PPT is.  Litterally.  I'll pick 25 people who played tournaments, how's that?
sure, chances are the 25 you pick are all on the PPT anyway, so i guess that was a moot pointwhere do you get the results of every tournament for these players?thats a website id like to visit
First page, about halfway down.See where you say "sure"?Tradionally that means yes. Well, at least one good thing will come of this thread. Everyone will realize that you can't be trusted with cash or a the promise thereof or a wager of any kind.That's good to know, I guess.
you mean the sure with the comma after it and the point about the PPT selection?i think you took that out of context.but my initial proposal was made, and you somehow accepted it without mutual consent.ill send you the money through partyPM me your info
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pick 25 players invited to the PPT and accumulate their average tournament winnings since the beginning of 2002 against lindgren's average since that date.I don't even kow what the PPT is.  Litterally.  I'll pick 25 people who played tournaments, how's that?
sure, chances are the 25 you pick are all on the PPT anyway, so i guess that was a moot pointwhere do you get the results of every tournament for these players?thats a website id like to visit
First page, about halfway down.See where you say "sure"?Tradionally that means yes. Well, at least one good thing will come of this thread. Everyone will realize that you can't be trusted with cash or a the promise thereof or a wager of any kind.That's good to know, I guess.
now that's what you call verbally backing someone into a corner.And Absolute, usually the person offering the bet works out those perameters beforehand. Now it looks like you're just trying to put together rules that would make you win the bet.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure I'm the only person close to neo-con compared to any resident of Massachusetts.But I still think I have a pretty hippie attitude towards life and online forum posting when It's 8 a.m. on a sunday morning and I've been awake for 30 hours straight.So let's just be happy."But if you're talking about destruction... don't you know that you can count me out...""All you need is love.""Imagine all the people living life in peace..." :roll: :roll: :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pick 25 players invited to the PPT and accumulate their average tournament winnings since the beginning of 2002 against lindgren's average since that date.I don't even kow what the PPT is.  Litterally.  I'll pick 25 people who played tournaments, how's that?
sure, chances are the 25 you pick are all on the PPT anyway, so i guess that was a moot pointwhere do you get the results of every tournament for these players?thats a website id like to visit
First page, about halfway down.See where you say "sure"?Tradionally that means yes. Well, at least one good thing will come of this thread. Everyone will realize that you can't be trusted with cash or a the promise thereof or a wager of any kind.That's good to know, I guess.
now that's what you call verbally backing someone into a corner.And Absolute, usually the person offering the bet works out those perameters beforehand. Now it looks like you're just trying to put together rules that would make you win the bet.
Creating a set of parameters we would both agree to makes it look like I am trying to put together rules that would make me win the bet?huh?
Link to post
Share on other sites

ill send you the money through partyPM me your infoYou can transfer it to my wife's account. It's thecandle. It's not worth $100 for me to give you my Paty name :)I'll offer you a one time exchange, though.Admit that you were wrong, that you did, indeed accept the bet, that I didn't take that out of context, and that you'r just arguing because you can't deal with being wrong and stop posting on this thread and we'll forget the $100.Deal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Creating a set of parameters we would both agree to makes it look like I am trying to put together rules that would make me win the bet? We did both agree to them.Also you later posted that there was "No way he (me) can win this" so clearly you were attempting to put together paramaters that would make you win the bet. You just got outsmarted is all.Happens.More to you than me, I imagine, but you know...that's life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi.Luck.He's no better than 25 other players who haven't been as luckey lately.Get past this thinking the guy who plays the best wins the most tournaments in the short term.  Not how it works.
Being a statistics guy and all, you should know how incorrect you are.I guarantee if you select 25 of the players selected to be on the PPT at random, and accumulate their tournament results over the last 3 years, the average winnings per tournament of those 25 won't even be close to lindgrens.ill put 100 on itdeal?
Maybe you shoulda talked about those "parameters you'd both agree on" first. These are the parameters you set. THIS is your bet. He accepted. Then you tried to reneg on it.Yes?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you shoulda talked about those "parameters you'd both agree on" first. These are the parameters you set. THIS is your bet. He accepted. Then you tried to reneg on it. Nah, I didn't agree to the PPT part, because I ahve no idea who the players are on it and he said "sure, that point is moot" etc.But basically, yes. He agreed. Whatever, though. I have no expectation of getting the money or the truth out of him. Just something to do while I make coffee this morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ill send you the money through partyPM me your infoYou can transfer it to my wife's account.  It's thecandle.  It's not worth $100 for me to give you my Paty name :)I'll offer you a one time exchange, though.Admit that you were wrong, that you did, indeed accept the bet, that I didn't take that out of context, and that you'r just arguing because you can't deal with being wrong and stop posting on this thread and we'll forget the $100.Deal?
Have I not already admitted that I would be certainly wrong given my own initial rules of the bet?i most certainly am.im plenty adult to own up to that.my original bet was pretty outrageous by all standards, but it was a mistake. hence my wanting to take it back and set fair parameters.id want my money too if i were you.furthermore, who likes to admit being wrong?i dont, but in the case of the bet i most certainly was.i do stand by my original comment that e-dog is better than an average of the 25 best players in the world, and im sure you stand by yours that hes no better or worse. thats just opinion though, hence all the rhetoric.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you shoulda talked about those "parameters you'd both agree on" first. These are the parameters you set. THIS is your bet. He accepted. Then you tried to reneg on it.  Nah, I didn't agree to the PPT part, because I ahve no idea who the players are on it and he said "sure, that point is moot" etc.But basically, yes.  He agreed.  Whatever, though.  I have no expectation of getting the money or the truth out of him.  Just something to do while I make coffee this morning.
Heh, yeah. And it gave me something to do while I finish clearing my Interpoker bonus.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...