Paul Phillips "Top 10"
JN
stock in his rankings and he's pretty open to the fact that he could be
wrong. But that all being said here is his list for tournament players:
"Top Ten: Daniel Negreanu, Scotty Nguyen, John Juanda, Phil Ivey, Doyle
Brunson, Layne Flack, Gus Hansen, Can Kim Hua, Meng La, me.
Next Group: Erik Seidel, Barry Greenstein, Johnny Chan, Chris Ferguson,
Howard Lederer, Carlos Mortensen, Huck Seed, Alan Goehring, Allen
Cunningham, Amir Vahedi, Ram Vaswani, David Chiu, Stan Goldstein, Russ
Hamilton, Chip Jett, Chau Giang, Surinder Sunar, Marcel Luske, Tom Jacobs,
Minh Nguyen, Thomas Keller, John Hennigan, Bill Gazes, Billy Duarte
Next Group: That's as far as I'm going, field broadens quite a bit now.
Group Of People I Should Note I Didn't Just Forget About Who Don't Make My
Top Two Groups Because I Think They Each Have At Least One Material
Weakness: TJ Cloutier, Men Nguyen, Hoyt Corkins, Eskimo Clark, Ted
Forrest, Mel Judah, Mike Matusow, Mike Laing, and of course the always
popular Phil Hellmuth."
Now here is my humble opinion.
1) First off I think that he should definetly take one name off his top
ten. His own. Not because he doesnt deserve to be there, (although I'm not
convinced he does) but wouldnt every pro put him/her self in the top ten?
So I think making a top ten list with you on it is kinda tacky.
2) His list of people not even in the top two tiers is very interesting. I
must say that a lot of those people (from what I have seen) are overrated.
Cloutier and Men would be two examples. But to say that, for instance,
Stan Goldstein is a better tournament play than Phil Hellmuth is just
complete crazyness. And yes this is supposed to be a tournament specific
list, dont forget that.
3) On the site that he posted this list on he said that the rankings were
not done on wins or cashes or final tables. So that leaves..... Not a
whole lot. I agree that it seems to me some of these players are not as
good as their records, but dont the records have to mean something? I mean
at least base it on cashes over 20 years or something really broad like
that. That would be a good study/list.
But again in all fairness he says this is just his personal opinion and he
is certainly entitled to it. I'm sure he also knows a hell of a lot more
than me. But these were my thoughts. I'm interested to hear what some of
you guys/gals think.
JN
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Fatal Error
like you to copy and paste his livejournal and critique it here
Gary Carson
>You know what i think, i think when paul quit RGP he did'nt want people
>like you to copy and paste his livejournal and critique it here
I think he did.
--
Gary Carson
http://garycarson.com
Raider Fan
> >
> >You know what i think, i think when paul quit RGP he did'nt want people
> >like you to copy and paste his livejournal and critique it here
>
>
> I think he did.
>
Once again, Gary is right on the money. Paul's departure gave him the
ability to say whatever he wants without worrying about meeting
opposition. Instead of participating in discussions, he can now simply
sound off. There isn't any doubt in my mind that Paul likes to see his
stuff discussed.
Erik Seidel
involved in putting this list together. I hope that he is willing to
defend some of these opinions with some of that dotcom cash. :P
-Erik Seidel
cwsiggy
Wouldn't he destroy Paul in most cases. I'd like to think so.
checkraise02
While I don't think his list is that bad, I would definitley take himself
and Gus off and put you and Lederer in the top 10. Gus, are you kidding
me? Just cuz the guy sold his soul to the devil and is luckier then fuck
doesn't make him a top 10 player.
mikejfitch
"Erik Seidel" <anon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:415c1a2b$0$27668$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> Well I can only speculate that some vodka and a dartboard were somehow
> involved in putting this list together. I hope that he is willing to
> defend some of these opinions with some of that dotcom cash. :P
>
> -Erik Seidel
I don't know if he read his crap Erik, but here's his site.
Personally, i think Paul's more arrogant than Phil, but with
a lot less BACKBONE.
http://extempore.livejournal.com/
snippet
Put absolutely no stock in these rankings. And if you're one of the people
listed here (or worse, not listed here) please don't hunt me down. It's not
a challenge, it's just an opinion, and one that probably splits hairs far
more finely than I am capable of. Plus I'm sure I'd have mentioned more
names if I scrolled any further down my prospects list.
Further, I realize it's fairly grandiose to put myself in the top group
given some of the names in the other groups, but hey, as far as I'm
concerned everyone can put themself in their own top group. That way we can
all feel warm and fuzzy about our own lists.
Hopefully that's enough disclaimers for me to survive the rest of the year.
There may be further iterations of this list.
Tad Perry
news:415c30bc$0$27659$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> LOL
>
> While I don't think his list is that bad, I would definitley take himself
> and Gus off and put you and Lederer in the top 10. Gus, are you kidding
> me? Just cuz the guy sold his soul to the devil and is luckier then fuck
> doesn't make him a top 10 player.
Whoa! I don't care what his play *looks* like, if Gus gets the results, he
gets the rating.
And he does get the results.
(My play also looks strange to people and keeps stacking the chips.)
As for Paul, he needs to put a string of finishes together that goes beyond
the two tournaments he final tabled last year in order to be taken more
seriously, but I think we all understand that he's a really high-caliber
player. (Maybe just a tad touchy, if I can say it that way.)
tvp
Gaash
record and simply put it is amazing these past two years.
Gaash
..ZING
Raider Fan
(Maybe just a tad touchy, if I can say it that way.)
>
> tvp
Not that there's anything wrong with that....
_____________________________________________________________________
* RGP RSS feed : http://www.recgroups.com/rec.gambling.poker/rss/
Lucas Ford
>> >
>
> Once again, Gary is right on the money. Paul's departure gave him the
> ability to say whatever he wants without worrying about meeting
> opposition. Instead of participating in discussions, he can now simply
> sound off. There isn't any doubt in my mind that Paul likes to see his
> stuff discussed.
Livejournal allows anyone to comment on journal entries. There is
plenty of discussion on his journal entries, so I somehow doubt he
minds "participating in discussions."
goingtopotodds
were
not done on wins or cashes or final tables.<<
Based on some other things I have seen him write, I believe the
criteria was probably wins and cashes RELATIVE to actual participation
and quality of competition.
In other words, you don't get as much credit for a few bracelets and
cashes if you played in every WSOP and WPT event for the last 5 years
as another player that accomplished 50% as much in 10% as many tries.
You also get more credit for a major win/cash like the WSOP main event
than a minor tournament win.
"JN" <anon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<415bb922$0$27705$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
Raider Fan
>
> Livejournal allows anyone to comment on journal entries. There is
> plenty of discussion on his journal entries, so I somehow doubt he
> minds "participating in discussions."
The big difference is Paul has the ability to remove comments there.
There is only discussion because he allows it. What you don't see are the
comments he doesn't like.
NeverToBePro
Rich
> Once again, Gary is right on the money. Paul's departure gave him the
> ability to say whatever he wants without worrying about meeting
> opposition. Instead of participating in discussions, he can now simply
> sound off. There isn't any doubt in my mind that Paul likes to see his
> stuff discussed.
He's admitted he still lurks here.
Rich
John Forsberg
> The big difference is Paul has the ability to remove comments there.
> There is only discussion because he allows it. What you don't see are the
> comments he doesn't like.
It seems he takes the time to regularly flame someone a new asshole, so
somehow I don't think he usually removes stuff he doens't like.
Lucky
I agree. Lederer doesn't even belong in the top 100. What has he ever
actually won?
* Posted via RGP ACCESS at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
50% NETeller Bonus w/ 20% Reload Bonuses at
http://www.LiveActionPoker.net
John Forsberg
> I agree. Lederer doesn't even belong in the top 100. What has he ever
> actually won?
Money?
Steve Brecher
>>> Lederer in the 2nd tier?????????????????
>
> I agree. Lederer doesn't even belong in the top 100. What has he ever
> actually won?
Yeah, the guy has only two WSOP bracelets and two WPT titles. Pffft!
--
For mail, please use my surname where indicated:
st...@surname.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)
Lucky
While playing in every single tournament in the universe. Varkonyi and
Moneymaker won bracelets in their first attempts. I don't care what
anyone says. Howard Lederer is the most overrated poker player in the
game, period.
A. Prock
>>>Yeah, the guy has only two WSOP bracelets and two WPT titles.
>
>While playing in every single tournament in the universe. Varkonyi and
>Moneymaker won bracelets in their first attempts.
Varkonyi has been playing in the WSOP for years.
- Andrew
Lucky
That doesn't change the fact that Lederer is overrated. And there's no
way either him or his sister would've won the TOC if they weren't
cheating by dumping chips back and forth.
A. Prock
>According to A. Prock:
>>According to Lucky <nospam>:
>>>
>>>While playing in every single tournament in the universe. Varkonyi and
>>>Moneymaker won bracelets in their first attempts.
>>
>>Varkonyi has been playing in the WSOP for years.
>
You're the one who brought it up.
DaVoice
"Lucas Ford" <lucas...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Livejournal allows anyone to comment on journal entries. There is
> plenty of discussion on his journal entries, so I somehow doubt he
> minds "participating in discussions."
You are totally incorrect. LiveJournal allows you to block posters, in
fact, Paul makes ad-hominem attacks on me constantly, but I can't reply.
He's BLOCKED me. Gary is right on the nose, he doesn't want to debate his
stands, just to be worshipped by his kool-aid drinking followers.
RC
Howard Treesong
> Wouldn't [Lederer] destroy Paul in most cases. I'd like to think so.
I think the distinctions between these players are pretty small, so
"destroy" is a strong word to use. Moreover, I believe Paul's recent
tourney record is probably stronger than Howard's -- but having never
played with Howard and only a bit with Paul, I have no clue who is
really stronger.
-Howard Treesong
atticus
and maybe erik or barry , or someone else, knows the answer.
i read in all in magazine that jack binion's wife (forget her
name) "barred" paul phillips from playing in the WSOP. does
anyone know what this is all about?
atticus
JohnnyD
--
JohnnyD
www.JohnnyDPoker.com
"atticus" <atti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:170dbed2.0410...@posting.google.com...
NutN...@aol.com
go to google.com
type in
"paul phillips becky behnen"
there's the start of the story.
rgp archives have plenty of followup to that.
Jonathan
wherever you go, there you are...
Lou Krieger
>> NutN...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gduql0dsh0jkbio4s...@4ax.com...
i read in all in magazine that jack binion's wife (forget her name) "barred"
paul phillips from playing in the WSOP. does anyone know what this is all
about? <<
It wasn't Jack Binion's wife. It was his sister: Becky Binion Behnen
Howard Treesong
Yep. You will, too, if you read the google archives. Gary Carson and
Paul had a spirited debate on the issue, to put it mildly. It's
interesting reading.
-Howard Treesong
Daniel Negreanu
>
Paul is a decent player.
> I would only lay him 6 to 5 in a no-limit hold'em tournament
> crossbook.
You'd "ONLY" lay him 6-5, lol. Wow, that's funny. What would you
"ONLY" lay me Barry? I'll take that 6-5 if it's on the table :-)
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
www.pokermountain.com
Bill Reich
Gary Carson had WORDS with someone. OUR Gary. Well, he must have been mightily
provoked.
Will in New Haven
--
"I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." --Professor Bernardo de la Paz
In Robert A. Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Barry Greenstein
> "ONLY" lay me Barry? I'll take that 6-5 if it's on the table :-)
>
> Daniel Negreanu
> www.fullcontactpoker.com
> www.pokermountain.com
Daniel,
Winning tournaments is all about beating up on bad players. Your
record shows you are good at it. I would expect you to crossbook me
even. (I would lay you odds in stud and lowball.) In a high-limit
side game you could get odds because I don't think you are experienced
enough yet. I know it is out of you range, so you may need some
backers, but any time you want to crossbook with me in the big game
(usually 4000 and 8000 with Chip Doyle, Phil Ivey, Chau, et. al.)you
can get 6 to 5. Move down to the next level (2,000 - 4000 with the
Bellagio crew) you only warrant 11 to 10.
I always get a kick out of tournament players mascarading as
high-limit players.
Barry
Bill Bradley
> "Top Ten: ....me.
Wow....either delusions of grandeur or he's smoking some really good shit.
Barry Greenstein
Before you (with good reason) get worked up about the last line in my
earlier post, I admit you are one of the few tournament players who I
would classify as a high-limit player. I have heard that you have had
a very good year in the Bellagio game. Your post was the third
response I made (Paul Phillips and two others privately) and I was on
a roll.
My crossbooking offers still stand, of course, although my girlfriend
is upset at me for challenging you publicly, since as you know, she is
good friends with Laurie.
I didn't intend to make disparaging remarks against you. I was only
counteroffering a challenge you made to me.
Barry
Tony Popejoy
Barry,
By all means don't take this as any kind of insult, as I have played
with you live ( albiet at the lowly 400/800 level), and I think you are as
classy as they come and you deserve all the success that you have had.
Also your charity work is superhuman. Now having said all of that. Do you
think that because you're a high-limit player that automatically makes you
one of the elite tournament players? I mean you seemed to imply by your
post that you were offended by Pauls comments, yet are his results
comparable to yours in tournament play? Also you stated that you would lay
Daniel 6-5 in lowball in a crossbook of results. What odds would you give
someone you've never heard of? Just curious, I might scrimp and save if
the price is right. I have 8 whole months. Anyway, please do not take
offense to my post as my only intentions are to figure out how you view
these situations. also if it's not too much trouble please tell me who you
think are the top ten no-limit tournament players in the world. I will
include mine just for kicks. Thanks in advance.
1. Johnny Chan
2. Phil Hellmuth
3. Daniel Negreanu
4. Howard L.
5 Doyle B.
6. TJ. Cloutier
7. Erik Siedel
8. Layne Flack
9. Surrendar Sunar
10. ( a sober ) Mike Laing
Bill Reich
Barry, I am out of my league as a player in this discussion but I have to
ask. Why would anyone play cash poker with his or her peers or near-peers?
"Beating up bad players" is how I make money at cash games and table selection
is a big part of it. Sure, at high enough stakes, you only need ONE bad player
to pay you off but the principle applies. You don't make much money off your
peers. Even as first-among near-equals, I don't see why any of these players
wouldn't seek greener pastures.
Oddly enough, I play tournaments because I LIKE to play interesting poker
against good players. With a known and limited investment, I can take more
of a recreational approach and don't have to relentlessly seek easy tables.
For the past two years, I have made a great deal more money, in many fewer
hours, in tournaments ($100 to $500 buy-ins) but I think that is just an
extreme but normal fluctuation.
Barry Greenstein
> 1. Johnny Chan
> 2. Phil Hellmuth
> 3. Daniel Negreanu
> 4. Howard L.
> 5 Doyle B.
> 6. TJ. Cloutier
> 7. Erik Siedel
> 8. Layne Flack
> 9. Surrendar Sunar
> 10. ( a sober ) Mike Laing
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Tony,
1. High-limit winning players are not necessarily top tournament
players, but if they played tournaments regularly, most of them would
have good results.
2. I'm not sure what odds I would give you. You may become a
superstar in the next 8 months. (You may already be a great player who
has escaped scrutiny because you don't play in tournaments.) Also, I
always check creditworthiness before I make these bets.
3. My list is different than yours. I recently had to make a list of
my top 100 players for a big TV event that will be happening in late
2005. A few of your players didn't make my top 100. Phil Ivey and
John Juanda are not on your list and should be in anyone's top 10.
(Phil has focused on side games this year, so his top finishes are
down.)
Barry
NutN...@aol.com
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:34:06 GMT, "Tony Popejoy"
<anon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>....Also you stated that you would lay
>>Daniel 6-5 in lowball in a crossbook of results. What odds would you give
>>someone you've never heard of?...
On 2 Oct 2004 15:11:31 -0700, barrygr...@cox.net (Barry
Greenstein) wrote:
>
>Tony,
>
....
>2. I'm not sure what odds I would give you. You may become a
>superstar in the next 8 months. (You may already be a great player who
>has escaped scrutiny because you don't play in tournaments.) Also, I
>always check creditworthiness before I make these bets...
>
>Barry
hi Barry,
the way people make markets has always greatly interested me,
especially watching how different knowledgable involved people rate
the same situations.
i am really curious what price and at what certainty levels you assess
a situation,
crossbooking a tournament with an unknown (someone you either dont
know or hardly know at all).
i agree that creditworthiness is a part of the equation, one doesnt
need to learn that lesson too many times to never forget
it...smile....but in this case, assume the contra-party has as much
creditworthiness as anyone you know, meaning (i guess) completely
trustworthy as to payment. if that means the other side pays in
advance, whatever it takes to be certain in this way, creditworthiness
is just not a part of the question.
and i'm not asking this because i am willing/interested in taking the
bet against you, or that i can imagine too many people so willing (but
the more the merrier, right?...smile)..., i am really just curious
about pricing uncertainty, in any/every form.
since you are a player who plays in the biggest public games around,
and have a unique extensive knowledge of great players, i assume you
would be willing to take on any unknown player's crossbook with
yourself (especially in your perceived "strongest" games) even up?
would you lay odds in that case? or maybe not....not to be insulting
at all in any way, just pointing out, this crossbook is against anyone
in the world, theoretically, potentially? (not really against anyone
in the world, cause clearly, a multi-selection mass wagering against
you would be very positive for your expectation...put another way, i
assume you would be more willing to lay a little bit more odds to
every taker, the more people you would get to take their own, other
side?)...but given you dont know how many (if any) unknown player(s)
will take the wager, this bet could be against just one person in the
world....and that one might be one of the (presumably) tiny group of
people able to correctly bet against you....okay, then assuming you
are willing to take even-odds (or worse) on yourself against any
unknown player, with what level of certainty would you do that?
(certainty in this way often correlates positively with volume
wagered, as i am sure you know...)....just curious, for amusement
purposes only....
...and maybe (if you want) lets make the question a little less
subjective/personal...what odds would you be willing to lay if you
backed (whoever you perceived to be) the absolute best player in the
world playing their best game? is that person more or less than a 2-1
favorite against an unknown player (however you wish to define
"unknown"), still, that unknown player willing to back himself against
the (theoretical) best? if more than 2-1, how high can it really go,
there are limits somewhere (arent there?)?
i am sure you have more insight into this topic than most.
and as an additional question (and i might as well use the writing
above to more purpose, it sure took long enough to get to this
point...grin), i am curious what do you think that "best player
playing their best game" is worth against just the average unknown
individual, the average player in the "field" in a big tournament?
(obviously the sizing of "field" is relevant, so assume the field is
the 90% of players you wouldnt pick in a top 10% choosing.)
...assume whichever game(s) interest you in this, if any.
and tia.
NutN...@aol.com
rembo-chari bari ruchi-pip peri pembo
<calliope+use...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>y0 y0 y0! NutN...@aol.com got this party started:
>>On 1 Oct 2004 07:51:03 -0700, atti...@hotmail.com (atticus) wrote:
>>>
>>>i read in all in magazine that jack binion's wife (forget her
>>>name) "barred" paul phillips from playing in the WSOP. does
>>>anyone know what this is all about?
>>
>>go to google.com
>>
>>type in
>>"paul phillips becky behnen"
>>there's the start of the story.
>>rgp archives have plenty of followup to that.
>
>So will he be allowed to play next year, if he so chooses?
>
>-joanna
yes.
i bet he'll be there.
Daniel Negreanu
>
> I didn't intend to make disparaging remarks against you. I was only
> counteroffering a challenge you made to me.
Actually Barry I was only kidding around. I respect your play and
didn't challenge you to anything. Of course if you were to lay me 6-5
in a tournament I would be happy to take it. If you were to lay me
6-5 in the 2000-4000 game, again I would be happy to take it.
As for the 4000-8000 game, while I've played it very sporadically
it's a little out of my comfort zone. I'm not looking to go broke any
time soon and think the earn in the 1000-2000 to 2000-4000 game is
more than enough with much less risk.
For kicks though, I would be willing to start a game with you
2000-4000 limit hold'em, omaha h/l, and 2-7 triple draw. Once I got
ahead a hundred thousand or so I'd be willing to kick it up so that
you could get even :-)
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
www.pokermountain.com
P.S. I hope you take this for what it is, good natured competition
between two extremely confident players. I like you a lot and mean no
ill will. Beating bad players is easy, beating you would be a lot
more challenging which makes it more fun for me.
Tony Popejoy
> ">
> > 1. Johnny Chan
> > 2. Phil Hellmuth
> > 3. Daniel Negreanu
> > 4. Howard L.
> > 5 Doyle B.
> > 6. TJ. Cloutier
> > 7. Erik Siedel
> > 8. Layne Flack
> > 9. Surrendar Sunar
> > 10. ( a sober ) Mike Laing
> >
> Tony,
>
> 1. High-limit winning players are not necessarily top tournament
> players, but if they played tournaments regularly, most of them would
> have good results.
>
> 2. I'm not sure what odds I would give you. You may become a
> superstar in the next 8 months. (You may already be a great player who
> has escaped scrutiny because you don't play in tournaments.) Also, I
> always check creditworthiness before I make these bets.
>
Not a problem I would gladly post. I like any gambler have had my share
of tough times, but a man is measured by how he handles adversity. I don't
lose any sleep at night. You on the other hand obviously would be good for
any loses.
> 3. My list is different than yours. I recently had to make a list of
> my top 100 players for a big TV event that will be happening in late
> 2005. A few of your players didn't make my top 100. Phil Ivey and
> John Juanda are not on your list and should be in anyone's top 10.
> (Phil has focused on side games this year, so his top finishes are
> down.)
>
> Barry
Well obviously we are all entitled to our opinion. How any of my
players escaped your top 100 is mind boogling, especially in a tounament
format. Then again you don't know me, and If im not in the top 100 im
quitting poker, and becoming a monk. It was very hard to leave out Phil as
I consider him a friend. He is in a world by himself, an oversite on my
part. John is a class act and also someone I admire. He is in my top 20,
but I have no problem with any names I mentioned before him. The problem I
would have making a top 100 is that poker is so elitest that once you get
past 50 it becomes a popularity contest. Anyway, thanks for your response
as I appreciate your time and insight. As far as the bet goes, maybe
someday I'll get the chance to try my luck. As far as paying my gambling
debts, I say if you know of any that I've not payed please direct the
person to my email. Such a person does not exist. I can hold my head high.
Best of luck.
Tony Popejoy
Gaash
I am wondering, in the 4000-8000 game, if everyone is a pro who supposedly
makes their living from this game, where does the money come from, or are
some of the pros no longer profitable players at this level?
DennyLynch
Yeah, and Mr. P. never tires of agreeing with his own opinions.
Raider Fan
I came in second and cashed for $44,000,
> which meant I collected $41,000 from him.
>
> Barry Greenstein
It's these moments that make all the crap out here worthwhile. What a
great story and thanks for sharing it with us Barry! Of course, Paul
won't respond to you or Erik here. He'll probably go off on a rant over
at his blog though.
______________________________________________________________________
* recgroups : now with kill-files! : http://www.recgroups.com
Gary Carson
>>Yep. You will, too, if you read the google archives. Gary Carson and
>>Paul had a spirited debate on the issue, to put it mildly. It's
>>interesting reading.
>>
>>-Howard Treesong
>
>Gary Carson had WORDS with someone. OUR Gary. Well, he must have been
>mightily
>provoked.
>
>
I think that must have been some other Gary Carson. There are at least 3 or 4
of us.
--
Gary Carson
http://garycarson.com
Gary Carson
>So will he be allowed to play next year, if he so chooses?
He's always been allowed to play in the WSOP. He got 86'd before the WSOP and
got allowed back in when he apologized to Becky.
Then he got embarressed about having begged Becky to let him play and went into
self-exile.
Paul's a real drama queen.
j
> Wow that was awesome, Seidel just called someone out.
Yeah, that was awesome LOL