erick lindgren should be barred from tournament poke

[Smasharoo 0]

It'd be cool if Daniel weighed in on this.With the attention-getting title he may very well.Saying what? "Erick's a great player and he's on quite a run right now."No kidding.

[Frantotti 0]

Smash you've an irratating way of trying to make everyone think that your on a far superior level to any of us. The question was" is there anyone better in the tournament scene at the moment"????? Instead of your BS answers go and name someone who is playing better Poker at the moment. 3 final tables so far in the main events. Of course he has got luck along the way I'm sure loads of it but nobody else can match that record this year hence the original post"if anyone thinks there is a better tournament player in the world at the moment, please object."What is your objection to the fact that he is playing the best poker this year so far???????

[Absolute 0]

there's a short list of players that (since my mentioned date, chosen because that's when he started playing tournaments regularly) have been about as successful.greenstein, ivey, juanda, negreanu, david pham, gus hansen. as for your raymer point, there should obviously be certain paramaters (such as a minimum amount of tournaments played, etc) for this bet. your initial argument was that there are 25 players as good, but not as lucky recently.so resorting to raymer's winning is really a deviation in itself. because i know you don't believe raymer is on lindgren's level.

[Absolute 0]

Smash you've an irratating way of trying to make everyone think that your on a far superior level to any of us. The question was" is there anyone better in the tournament scene at the moment"????? Instead of your BS answers    go and name someone who is playing better Poker at the moment. 3 final tables so far in the main events. Of course he has got luck along the way I'm sure loads of it but nobody else can match that record this year hence the original post"if anyone thinks there is a better tournament player in the world at the moment, please object."What is your objection to the fact that he is playing the best poker this year so far???????

Telling Smash he is obnoxious and pretentious is like telling George Bush that he is irresponsible and manipulative.Smash's response to my initial post is well within his own right, and pointing out the obvious only furthers the level of disdain in this dispute.

[Smasharoo 0]

as for your raymer point, there should obviously be certain paramaters (such as a minimum amount of tournaments played, etc) for this bet.Yeah whatever paramaters result in you being able to somehow win it, right?You set up the rules, I demonstrate how I'll win it, you change the rules.Like I'm going to trust you to pay now.I'm shocked at your hypocricay. Shocked, I say.Well, not really. Bored is a better description.

[jlgosse 0]

I'm going to have to agree with smash on this one for pretty much everything he has said.Reymer probably beats him with tourney winnings anyway (on an average), and that's reymer.

[Smasharoo 0]

because i know you don't believe raymer is on lindgren's level.Must be better, he has a higher RoI over the last year of tournament play.Right?See how this screws your entire argument yet?Let me know when you do.

[Absolute 0]

it is interesting you would object to what is a kind and supportive post for one of daniel's close friends who reads the website.but thanks for correcting me, ive come to realize he really is on a 2 1/2 year lucky streaksw

[Absolute 0]

I'm going to have to agree with smash on this one for pretty much everything he has said.Reymer probably beats him with tourney winnings anyway (on an average), and that's reymer.

oh man, i lose!

[PrtyPSux 0]

Daniel is gonna say E-dog is awesome, there is not much more he could say. He cant say there are 25 better players or 25 worse players than Erick. politics.

[Smasharoo 0]

it is interesting you would object to what is a kind and supportive post for one of daniel's close friends who reads the website. It is instresting that as you realize you're losing the argument you resort to pathetic techniquies like attempting to cache my pointing out an error in your post as being an attack on one of Daniel's freinds. I'd heard there were people that insecure but never actually witnessed it. It's like seeing an albino tiger in the wild. So far you've made an argument which I pointed out was wrong, made a bet which I pointed out I'd win, changed your arguemtn, changed the bet and argued against something I didn't say.Neat.I eat babies too.Don't forget that one.Done yet?You can transfer my $100 by whatever method is best for you.

[Absolute 0]

because i know you don't believe raymer is on lindgren's level.Must be better, he has a higher RoI over the last year of tournament play.Right?See how this screws your entire argument yet?Let me know when you do.

i realize this.if we really wanted to do this correctly, we would take a certain number of medians amongst the tournament winnings.or we could just include raymer's 5 million tournament win and call him the greatest tournament player alive.you made your point, found your loophole.but you know what i meant

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

Daniel is gonna say E-dog is awesome, there is not much more he could say. He cant say there are 25 better players or 25 worse players than Erick. politics.

Good call.

[Smasharoo 0]

you made your point, found your loophole. Ok. How do you want to get me the hundred?

[jlgosse 0]

I agree the guy is a good player, but I'll disagree that he's better than everyone else.Negreanu, and probably (I'm serious) 20 other players may be better. I know I'm a better player myself.

[PrtyPSux 0]

you probably wont know how good E-dog is until a few years from now. he's good but so are a lot of other people with much more experience and stats to prove it. ie. phil, Doyle, Chan etc..

[Absolute 0]

My initial point was that Erick has been the best tournament player of this year.this is true.my next point was that he has been more consistent than an average of 25 players since 2002.this is also true.if you would like to create a set of parameters for this bet that we both agree on and really research this, i am all for it.if you would like to hang on to your one point (which I have already admitted was looked over on my point), then do so and you win and raymer is the greatest tournament player ever and you eat babies.

[Absolute 0]

I agree the guy is a good player, but I'll disagree that he's better than everyone else.Negreanu, and probably (I'm serious) 20 other players may be better. I know I'm a better player myself.

i think everyone is going to take you pretty seriously after the last comment.

[jlgosse 0]

Reymer blows, but he has had alot of success on average.

[Absolute 0]

you probably wont know how good E-dog is until a few years from now.  he's good but so are a lot of other people with much more experience and stats to prove it.  ie. phil, Doyle, Chan etc..

a three-year average is perfectly fair to pull from in tournament poker, especially given the surplus of entries since that time.actually, including the winnings of chan, hellmuth and doyle would give the debate a very serious bias

[Smasharoo 0]

if you would like to hang on to your one point (which I have already admitted was looked over on my point), then do so and you win and raymer is the greatest tournament player ever and you eat babies.I just want my money. Where I come from if someone makes a bet and they set foolish paramaters, they lose the bet and pay the money. They don't get to change their mind when they realize they're goign to lose.We have this crazy thing called "integrity" though. I imagine you'll just argue to change the bet to the point where you think you'll win it.Erick's had the best results so far. That doesn't mean he played the best. It means he had the best results. It may very well be that he's playing the best. It may be that he's playing 42nd best. The point is that that results diffrence between the guy playing the best and the guy playing the 42nd best at this point in the year is driven primarily by luck.this is true.

[Absolute 0]

it is interesting you would object to what is a kind and supportive post for one of daniel's close friends who reads the website.  It is instresting that as you realize you're losing the argument you resort to pathetic techniquies like attempting to cache my pointing out an error in your post as being an attack on one of Daniel's freinds.  I'd heard there were people that insecure but never actually witnessed it.  It's like seeing an albino tiger in the wild.  So far you've made an argument which I pointed out was wrong, made a bet which I pointed out I'd win, changed your arguemtn, changed the bet and argued against something I didn't say.Neat.I eat babies too.Don't forget that one.Done yet?You can transfer my $100 by whatever method is best for you.

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. backtrack all you want.

[waterboy515 0]

The Party Poker Million ... was NOT a No Limit EVENT ... it was a LIMIT POKER event.He finished 11th yes ... if it had been NO limit ... LOL he would have probably won ... the draws & gutshots probably knocked him to 11th.LOLMy 2c

[Smasharoo 0]

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.

[Absolute 0]

if you would like to hang on to your one point (which I have already admitted was looked over on my point), then do so and you win and raymer is the greatest tournament player ever and you eat babies.I just want my money.  Where I come from if someone makes a bet and they set foolish paramaters, they lose the bet and pay the money.  They don't get to change their mind when they realize they're goign to lose.We have this crazy thing called "integrity" though.  I imagine you'll just argue to change the bet to the point where you think you'll win it.Erick's had the best results so far.  That doesn't mean he played the best.  It means he had the best results.  It may very well be that he's playing the best.  It may be that he's playing 42nd best.  The point is that that results diffrence between the guy playing the best and the guy playing the 42nd best at this point in the year is driven primarily by luck.this is true.

by this reasoning you would be saying that the primary difference between 1-5 and 41-45 is luck.and between 41-46 and 91-95 is luck. where do you draw the line?the only difference betweenDaniel Negreanu, David Pham, John Juanda, Hasan Habib, Gioi LuongandTony Tolentino, James Vogl, Gavin Griffin, Kirill Gerasimov, Paul Dardenis a string of good cards?you are wronghowever 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 wrong