Annie Duke Anecdotes (long)
Gary Carson
at the table holding a styrofoam cup between your teeth.
Okay.
Have another drink, Danny.
On 19 Feb 2003 02:56:29 -0800, kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu)
wrote:
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Ninja1357924
behavior, it kind of makes the double standard a bit OBVIOUS!!! She can treat
people like shit and it's ok, but soon as anything is said to make her
uncomfortable she runs and gets big brother to protect her. She has a big mouth
and a shitty attitude. She's getting what she deserves.
Gary Carson
wrote:
I'm sure she is. But, Danny was singing her praises after those
events occured.
So whatever his reasons are for his little feud, it's not the reasons
he's giving. I don't know what his reasons are, don't think that
matters. But, it does matter that he's lying about it.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
tadperry
strategy" but it makes perfect sense.
Now about these "friends" that have ripped people off...
tvp
Peg Smith
kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu) writes:
>...You a cheat, I'll say so.
>You a bi-atch-- I'll say so.
>You a angle shooter, I'll let my peoples know.
>You a fraud? huh, I'll expose you and feel no way…y'understan?
Fair enough.
So...what happened in Aruba that your investor friends at UB don't want you to
tell us about? Was Russ Hamilton's explanation on RGP the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? Why won't you tell the whole gang here what
you told me in email?
Show us your integrity, Danny...y'understan? Let your peoples know.
Peg
Peg Smith
>...You a cheat, I'll say so.
>You a bi-atch-- I'll say so.
>You a angle shooter, I'll let my peoples know.
>You a fraud? huh, I'll expose you and feel no way…y'understan?
Fair enough.
So...what happened in Aruba that your investor friends at UB don't want you to
tell us about? Was Russ Hamilton's explanation on RGP the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? Why won't you tell the whole gang here what
you told me in email?
Peg
James L. Hankins
12
"Daniel Negreanu" <kidp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7220404a.03021...@posting.google.com...
> I'm often asked what makes me think that this woman is such a low
> life. Here are just a few examples of facts that make up what this
> woman truly is as far as I'm concerned. For those of you who don't
> care to read it, you can stop now and save your complainin':
>
> 1) Wanna Split it?- Playing in a stud 8 or better side game, Annie was
> heads up with one other player. After much betting it appeared as
> though Annie had the high hand and the other had a low made by sixth
> street. The player with the low board asked if she wanted to split
> it. Annie said, "Yeah, ok". The player threw his hand toward the
> muck expecting the dealer to start chopping the pot, when Annie said,
> "Wait, only if you have a low I mean."
> Once she said yes however, the pot should ethically be split.
> Despite virtually everyone in the game explaining to Annie that once
> she says yes to a chop, she has to chop. She wouldn't budge.
> Finally, after much hysteria she decided to give the player back ONLY
> the money he put into the pot. Had the tables been turned, she's
> still be blue in the face about how unfair that was.
>
>
****************************************************************************
**
>
> 2) I swear on my kids!- Annie habitually leans over to look at the
> cards of the person sitting beside her in a game, whether they like it
> or not. Well one day one of the players was fed up with her sweating
> her neighbor's hole cards and he spoke up about it. She obliged
> saying, "Ok, I won't look anymore."
> Not an hour later, a triple draw hand comes up, and she is caught
> red handed looking at her neighbor's hole cards again. This time the
> player objected furiously, "I told you to stop looking at your
> neighbor's cards!" To which she replies, "I SWEAR ON MY CHILDREN I
> WASN'T". This was an absolute lie. She saw EXACTLY what card her
> neighbor got and ANNOUNCED the hand before it was turned over, also
> saying something to the effect of, "Oh you would have made it anyway."
> **A 4 had been flashed that would have been her neighbor's card.
> Instead she received a 6 to complete a 2-3-5-6-7, which is the third
> best hand in 2-7 triple draw (the 4 would have been the mortal
> nuts).** Later, Annie falsely claimed that the player who was upset
> with her threw a chair AT HER. Again, impossible.
>
>
****************************************************************************
**
>
>
> 3) Just checkin'- Playing in a one table satellite for the main event
> at the WSOP, Annie was up against Tony Ma and Dan Alspach. Tony moved
> all in on the button, Annie folded in the small blind and Dan began
> studying. After some time, Dan folded his hand, and Tony threw his
> cards towards the muck telling Dan "Aces. I had two Aces." Well
> after the hand hits the muck, Annie GRABS THE HOLECARDS, LOOKS AT
> THEM, and says "Just checkin'" as if she had done nothing wrong.
>
>
****************************************************************************
**
>
> 4) Sitting in a short handed 300-600 mixed game in 1999 I was
> unfortunate enough to have to sit beside Annie. Again, she has a
> simple rule that she lives by, "It's ok for me to look at your hole
> cards when I am out of a hand but I can't show you mine because I
> can't give away any information". Niiiice. Anyway, after about 30
> minutes of her sweating my hole cards, I KINDLY say, "I'd actually
> prefer it if you didn't look at my hole cards since we are short
> handed and all." (5 handed at the time). About 15 minutes later,
> another player sits down in the game making it six handed.
> So know after I've raised before the flop and she'd folded, she
> looks over at my hole cards again. This time saying, "It's six
> handed, I can look now". Niiiice.
>
>
****************************************************************************
**
>
> 5) Oh my God, it's so my seat- On a Monday night Annie walked into the
> poker room to put her name on a list. When the seat opened up, the
> floor man called out a name that wasn't yet present. Annie said, "If
> he's not here it's my seat." To which the floor man replied, "He's
> just outside, he's on his way."
> "Oh my God no way! You can't do that! You can't lock up a seat if
> you aren't even here!" After much bickering the poor floor man
> succumbed and gave her the seat.
> Wednesday night, EXACT same scenario, only this time Annie was the
> one who was first up on the list but not present at the time the seat
> was called. Now this time, she is arguing for the OPPOSITE ruling.
> "Oh my God, I was right here. I was here to put my name on the list.
> I didn't even leave the building" (how the floor man is supposed to
> know that is anyone's guess). Anyway, after throwing yet another
> hissy fit she got that seat too. This is one of Annie's common
> practices: "Argue NOT for what's fair and just, argue only for what
> benefits you." Niiice.
>
>
****************************************************************************
**
>
> 6)This is the worst thing that has ever happened to me in a
> tournament- At the WSOP main event in 1999, Annie was involved in a
> pot with another player who had limped under the gun. Annie raised
> the limper from the button with A-7 offsuit. When it got back to the
> limper, he went to make a raise, but DIDN"T SAY RAISE, and then went
> back to his stack to raise even more. Well, in any no limit
> tournament that is considered a string raise. Not always called, but
> it's a string raise nonetheless. Well, another player, Steve Kaufman,
> called the string raise to the dealer's attention. To which Annie
> shouted, "Oh my God, you're not even in the pot! What are you doing!
> Oh my God, this is the worst thing that even happened to me in a
> tournament!" etc.
> She was upset with the fact that she had now been raised the minimum
> by the limper and was "forced" to call the extra 60,000 raise. After
> lambasting Mr.Kaufman for something he had EVERY RIGHT to do, she
> ended up flopping an ace and WINNING the pot because of the called
> string raise. "Well maybe that was the BEST thing that ever happened
> to me in a tournament." Snort, snort, giggle, giggle.
>
>
****************************************************************************
**
>
> 7) Cup Boy- Finally, my first ever meeting of this woman was at the
> Four Queens in 1996 when I was just barely 22. Up to that point I'd
> had virtually no success in tournaments in the US, but was eager to
> learn from the so called "superstars" of the game.
>
> ** Before I go any further, It's important to give you a little
> background info. At the club I played in in Toronto, we had no
> bottled water, just purified water you could get from the gallon. So
> I'd fill up a Styrofoam cup with water, and when it was empty, would
> leave it hanging from my lips so the porter wouldn't take it away and
> I'd have to waste another cup. This became somewhat of a habit you
> could say.**
>
> So here I am in this tournament, where across from me was this woman
> and another well known tournament player. This woman doesn't know me
> from Adam, but goes out of her way to ridicule and make me feel like
> an outsider. As though I didn't belong in her "clique". After
> witnessing her behavior I was pretty sure I didn't want any part of
> that "clique" anyway.
> KNOWING I could hear every word she was saying, she says to her
> "clique" member, "Oh my God, what's up with cup boy over there. I
> wonder what that cup's all about. You think it's for medical
> reasons." She then went on to giggle arrogantly. At this point I
> actually spoke up and said, "If you'd really like to know there is
> actually a pretty normal reason for it?" Apparently acknowledging my
> existence may have looked less "too cool to talk to the low limit
> players" if you know what I mean.
> In conclusion., with two odd tables to go I play a hand against her
> in which SHE WINS. I had a good amount of chips at this point and she
> was all in for less than a bet on the river. I had actually bet the
> turn with a draw, and checked the river when I made a pair. The board
> was (10-8-2) A- J. I held Q-J in the blind and called her raise from
> middle position. I checked and called the flop, and bet the ace on
> the turn hoping to steal it. On the river I made jacks, but didn't
> think she would call me with a worse hand but may check a better hand
> or even bluff. That's not important though.
> What is important, is that she berated me for playing the hand that
> way! "Oh my God, if you were going to call on the river anyway why
> didn't you just bet?? I mean, oh you know what forget about it. I
> shouldn't be educating."
> I was beyond puzzled, but to be completely honest slightly
> embarrassed. I was there alone and knew no one in the tournament
> whatsoever. At the time I wasn't certain if I actually made a
> horrendous error or not. I may have spoken 20 words the entire
> tournament, and couldn't fathom why someone would want to be so mean
> to a complete stranger?
> Anyway, I later thought about the hand and realized that she was
> absolutely WRONG about the correct strategy in that situation.
> Considering the information I had, I played the river just fine.
>
> Couple years go by, I get lucky and win a few tournaments. and all
> of a sudden she is all nice to me. Phony nice of course, but nice
> nonetheless. The more I got to know this woman however, the more I
> was witness to her true colors and the more I disliked her. Despite
> making my BEST efforts to tolerate her obnoxious personality I no
> longer wanted to put up with it.
> The only thing I'm sorry about in all this, is what it has done to
> many of my friends who happen to have thicker skin than I and can
> tolerate Annie. It puts them in a peculiar position. That I regret.
> Other than that, NOTHING I've ever said to her, or about her is
> something I'd ever consider apologizing for. Those are my true
> feelings. and I sleep well..
>
> You see, I don't NEED to be Mr. Phony Nice Guy, all I gots to be is
> who I is. I ain't gonna say what y'all want me to say, I'm onna
> say wazz on my minds when I feels like it. Na' I mean? Damn
> straight.
>
>
****************************************************************************
**
>
> Don't get me wrong I've done some pretty stupid things in my time.
> I'm not afraid or worried about what anyone has to say about me, it's
> all out there. I have few secrets if anyway. I been broke, blew some
> stake money, loaned railbirds, staked deadbeats, been on the borrow,
> all kinds of bad decisions. That's real. In all honestly though, I
> ain't NEVER disrespected no man or no woman unless they had it comin'.
> I was never one to see bullies get their way, and I was never one to
> close my eyes and shut my mouth when I see somethin' I don't like. I
> keep hearing, "But Danny, this isn't in your best interest. "Danny
> just go with the flow and don't rock the boat." Hell no!
>
> You a cheat, I'll say so.
> You a bi-atch-- I'll say so.
> You a angle shooter, I'll let my peoples know.
> You a fraud? huh, I'll expose you and feel no way.y'understan?
>
>
> I'm out.
>
>
> Daniel Negreanu
> kidp...@hotmail.com
> www.fullcontactpoker.com.
>
Darryl Parsons
Darryl Parsons
Irish Mike
stereotypical black vernacular undermines your statement..
Irish Mike
desire
I am a mid limit recreational player (75-150) and below that hops on
planes to play in vegas and ac. I have seen you numerous times at the
Bellagio and you are one of the nicest unpretentious guys in the game.
I have to agree with you about Annie Duke. Not only is she full of
herself and downright obnoxious, she has the dirtiest feet in the
room. This everyone knows, as she shucks her shoes off at every
opportunity and sits on her legs, exposing those filthy feet in DIRE
need of anti-fungal medication and an industrial strength pedicure. I
was amazed that anyone would have the nerve to show feet as desperate
in need of hiding as hers.
About her obnoxiousness, people will remember character and integrity
in a person long after the chips are stacked.
Keep being the gentleman that you are, Dan.
desire
James L. Hankins
"desire" <shylilv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e35fc4dc.03021...@posting.google.com...
James L. Hankins
What is the point of any of it? To embarrass Annie Duke? Why? It's
childishness.
"Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:igQ4a.227$se1.1...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
JTAutry
news:igQ4a.227$se1.1...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
the
> stereotypical black vernacular undermines your statement..
>
Word.
JT
Nat Silver
education and a family, making it in a
man's world.
Daniel, on the other hand, is everything
Annie is not.
By Daniel's own admission, Annie
offered him an olive branch.
"Couple years go by, I get lucky
and win a few tournaments. and all
of a sudden she is all nice to me.
Phony nice of course, but nice
nonetheless."
Seven long years ago, with a cup
dangling from his lips (maybe signaling
that he lacked some social graces) no
one had an inkling of the player he
would become. Now Daniel struts his
from-the-streets persona like it was
a badge of honor. Finally, however,
when the opportunity presented itself,
he failed to be civil, underscoring his
lack of formal education.
As we all know, Playing Poker is a tough
business to be in. Anyone who doesn't take
some advantage or never, never shoots an
angle, may find themselves on the rail. If a
man did some of the things the things Daniel
describes, it would be dismissed as business
as usual; really. IMHO, Annie is being held
to a higher standard, because she is a
successful woman in a man's world.
Gary Carson
> As we all know, Playing Poker is a tough
> business to be in. Anyone who doesn't take
> some advantage or never, never shoots an
> angle, may find themselves on the rail. If a
> man did some of the things the things Daniel
> describes, it would be dismissed as business
> as usual; really.
It's not clear to me from Danny's stories that Annie was the one
shooting the angle. Take the story about her saying she'd split the
pot and then not splitting it. Let's look at another version of that
story -- one from someone who has never tried to borrow money from
Annie and doesn't have a grudge against her.
The board looked like the guy (was it Danny?) had a low and Annie had
a high. The guy said, "we're just gonna chop it, want to chop now?".
Annie, relying on his word that he had a low, said "Sure". The guy
quickly mucked his hand rather than normal procedure of flashing his
low. Annie, being trusting but quick witted, realized the guy didn't
have a low, he had a busted draw, and said, "I'm not giving you half
the pot if you didn't have a low".
Who was shooting the angle?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Jdoo123
>From: garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson)
>Take the story about her saying she'd split the
>pot and then not splitting it. Let's look at another version of that
>story -- one from someone who has never tried to borrow money from
>Annie and doesn't have a grudge against her.
>
>The board looked like the guy (was it Danny?) had a low and Annie had
>a high. The guy said, "we're just gonna chop it, want to chop now?".
>Annie, relying on his word that he had a low, said "Sure". The guy
>quickly mucked his hand rather than normal procedure of flashing his
>low. Annie, being trusting but quick witted, realized the guy didn't
>have a low, he had a busted draw, and said, "I'm not giving you half
>the pot if you didn't have a low".
>
>Who was shooting the angle?
>
>
>
>Gary Carson
Who cares?She agreed to a split,no conditions,if the guy indeed did have a
busted draw instead of low,more power to him,she shouldnt have agreed to the
split.
James L. Hankins
situation, I muck, too. No need to see the cards since there was an
agreement to chop. This is the practice in my home game, both players just
muck and chop.
I've criticized Daniel in this thread too, but I think he's correct in the
way he portrayed the hand. Of course, it is far from clear whether the
events actually happened as he claims.
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:3e53f466...@news.mindspring.com...
Gary Carson
>>
>>
>>Gary Carson
>
>Who cares?She agreed to a split,no conditions,if the guy indeed did
have a
>busted draw instead of low,more power to him,she shouldnt have agreed
to the
>split.
And, you know she agreed to a split how? Because Danny said to?
Danny has lied about a lot of things -- he's proven time and time
again that he'll say whatever he thinks he needs to in order to get
the effect he want's. His word just isn't reliable.
Maybe she said, "take your money back and we'll chop it" and Danny,
being drunk, didn't here the take your money back part, just heard the
chop it part, and misunderstood what she said.
I don't know Annie Duke. But, as far as I know she's never lied to
me. Danny has.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
eleaticus
"Nat Silver" <mat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:PEQ4a.60916$zF6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> ... Now Daniel struts his
> from-the-streets persona like it was
> a badge of honor. Finally, however,
> when the opportunity presented itself,
> he failed to be civil, underscoring his
> lack of formal education.
Your formal education seems not to have included basic logic.
And just how 'civil' is it to impune the civility of those lacking formal
education?
Absurd!
Eleaticus
eleaticus
Eleaticus
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:3e53f466...@news.mindspring.com...
Gary Carson
SPAM]sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Oy, that's pretty thin, Gary. In my experience, if I agree to chop
in that
>situation, I muck, too.
I don't.
No need to see the cards since there was an
>agreement to chop. This is the practice in my home game,
Okay. But, we don't know what the practice was in that game.
>
>I've criticized Daniel in this thread too, but I think he's correct
in the
>way he portrayed the hand. Of course, it is far from clear whether
the
>events actually happened as he claims.
If he's correct in the way he portrayed the hand then it have actually
happed as he claims, wouldn't it?
Was Danny even there? Was he sober? We don't know, he didn't say.
We do know that's not the reason he's got a hard on for Annie.
Because after that event, he was still praising her on rgp.
So, it's pretty clear to me that Danny isn't being truthful about the
reason he's got a thing with Annie. If he's lying about that, and I
thnk it's clear he is, then how do you know he's not lying about all
of it?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Gary Carson
<elea...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Good golly, Mizz Gary, she imposed no condition of the chop.
>
You were there?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Scott N
> ...and I was never one to
> close my eyes and shut my mouth when I see somethin' I don't like.
>
>
> kidp...@hotmail.com
> www.fullcontactpoker.com.
>
I suffer from same personality trait!
And after reading through, now I understand why you have beef with her
and are so vocal about it. I hate letting others get away with crap
myself and continually am the vocal one in my group of friends and
everyone speaks of it. But I will always sacrafice some PR type BS to
making sure I keep it real within myself.
Not always the most liked but always the most genuine. And much respect
for sticking to your guns against much scrutiny.
Scott N
Irish Mike
when the opportunity presented itself,
he failed to be civil, underscoring his
lack of formal education."
Minor point bucko, but I have found no significant correlation between
formal education and civility in the poker world. In fact, some well
educated players tend to be disrespectful toward players with less formal
education. I play in a game with an attorney who is one of the least civil
people I have ever met. I attribute this less to his advanced degrees than
to the fact that he is a thorough-going asshole.
Irish Mike
"Nat Silver" <mat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:PEQ4a.60916$zF6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Lee Munzer
"Gary Carson" ...
> On Feb 19 2003 1:10PM, Nat Silver wrote:
>
> > As we all know, Playing Poker is a tough business to be in. Anyone who
doesn't take some advantage or never, never shoots an angle, may find
themselves on the rail. If a man did some of the things the things Daniel
describes, it would be dismissed as business as usual; really.
Yes, there is certainly a gender perception difference. While I have some
strong (and possibly different) views on angle shooting, they are not
pertinent to this situation imo. In chop situations, the verbal contract is
*always* binding. Nothing beyond the "Yes, I'll chop" carries any weight as
far as who gets the pot.
> It's not clear to me from Danny's stories that Annie was the one shooting
the angle. Take the story about her saying she'd split the pot and then not
splitting it. Let's look at another version of that story -- one from
someone who has never tried to borrow money from Annie and doesn't have a
grudge against her.
Gary, is this "...from someone who has never tried to borrow money from
Annie and doesn't have a grudge against her" you?
Sure, you're neutral as far as Annie goes. But, Judge Carson should recuse
himself, based on continued leanings against Daniel in RGP threads (I am in
the same boat being biased towards Daniel based on my time spent with him
during the last five years). Neither of us is dispassionate, totally
objective, unbiased, or unprejudiced when it comes to opinions concerning
stuff Daniel is involved in.
While you're correct to infer little changes in words, intonations, and even
gestures might alter one's perception of the actual event and one-sided
stories can be judged as biased, never in my life have I seen someone even
try to renege after agreeing to split a pot. Sure, I have seen someone come
to the realization that he shouldn't have said yes and be wary of splitting
with the angle shooter in the future.
> The board looked like the guy (was it Danny?) had a low and Annie had a
high.
Probably not Daniel as he would have no reason to use "another player".
> The guy said, "we're just gonna chop it, want to chop now?". Annie,
relying on his word that he had a low, said "Sure".
Case closed, no matter how he mucked the cards... even if he said, "Ha, I
screwed 'Smelly Feet' out of half the pot, I'm the king" as he mucked. Yes,
he would have shot an angle and proved he is a scummy player, but the
verbal, *unconditional* (key word) contract is what takes precedence.
> quickly mucked his hand rather than normal procedure of flashing his low.
Annie, being trusting but quick witted, realized the guy didn't have a low,
he had a busted draw, and said, "I'm not giving you half the pot if you
didn't have a low".
Again, even if that's the way it came down, it's not germane -- there was no
clause in the contract to support that afterthought.
Curiosity and credibility question for Gary... I once said I avoid many of
the "Daniel" threads as I believe people will discount my support based on
my "poker friendship" with Daniel. Don't you think RGP "downgrades" your
heavy-handed and predictable anti-Daniel views? Whether you *care* or not
is not what I'm after.
Lee
Stacy, Rodney and Josie Black
entire pot. She did not want to risk him making a str8or flush, so a split
was no risk for her. Why would a made low split with a high hand? What she
did IMHO is a scumbag move, unless she had a full house or better.
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:3e53f466...@news.mindspring.com...
Gary Carson
wrote:
>
>"Gary Carson" ...
>
>
>> It's not clear to me from Danny's stories that Annie was the one
shooting
>the angle. Take the story about her saying she'd split the pot and
then not
>splitting it. Let's look at another version of that story -- one
from
>someone who has never tried to borrow money from Annie and doesn't
have a
>grudge against her.
>
>Gary, is this "...from someone who has never tried to borrow money
from
>Annie and doesn't have a grudge against her" you?
No, I just typed that for my neighbor, who doesn't know anything about
Annie and Danny.
>
>Sure, you're neutral as far as Annie goes. But, Judge Carson should
recuse
>himself, based on continued leanings against Daniel in RGP threads (I
I thoiught about that. That's why I used my neighbor's version. My
version would have had Danny drunk and sending abusive emails to his
mother while this hand was being played.
a
>While you're correct to infer little changes in words, intonations,
and even
>gestures might alter one's perception of the actual event and
one-sided
>stories can be judged as biased, never in my life have I seen someone
even
>try to renege after agreeing to split a pot.
I have. Maybe that's why I don't muck my hand.
>> The board looked like the guy (was it Danny?) had a low and Annie
had a
>high.
>
>Probably not Daniel as he would have no reason to use "another
player".
Now you're assuming Danny is actually truthfull. How you can do that
when his history shows him to be a liar is beyond me.
\.
>
>Case closed, no matter how he mucked the cards... even if he said,
"Ha, I
>screwed 'Smelly Feet' out of half the pot, I'm the king" as he
mucked. Yes,
>he would have shot an angle and proved he is a scummy player, but the
>verbal, *unconditional* (key word) contract is what takes precedence.
Is that really the way it happened? Was Danny even there?
>Curiosity and credibility question for Gary... I once said I avoid
many of
>the "Daniel" threads as I believe people will discount my support
based on
>my "poker friendship" with Daniel. Don't you think RGP "downgrades"
your
>heavy-handed and predictable anti-Daniel views?
Of course people downgrade my predicable opinion about lying,
welching, drunks.
But, I think it's funny. I'm not trying to accomplish anything.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Gary Carson
<rodb...@optonline.net> wrote:
>She was shooting an angle. If he had a low made, he was freerolling
the
>entire pot.
No he wasn't.
> She did not want to risk him making a str8or flush, so a split
>was no risk for her. Why would a made low split with a high hand?
Because a made low doesn't always have high outs.
> What she
>did IMHO is a scumbag move, unless she had a full house or better.
Maybe. I just don't think Danny's story is reliably accurate. Just
as people discount my statements about Danny because of my attitude
about him, I discount his statements about Annie because of his
attitude towards her.
And, even if the event occured as Danny says, it's not the reason he
doesn't like her. He was singing her praises after that event
happened.
So, even if he's telling the truth about the story, he's not telling
the truth about the story being the cause of his feelings about Annie.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Lee Munzer
"Gary Carson"
> >Probably not Daniel as he would have no reason to use "another player".
> Now you're assuming Danny is actually truthfull. How you can do that when
his history shows him to be a liar is beyond me.
That's my bias. I also believe 90% of what Russ writes even though he's not
told the truth in every post. Actually, I believe Daniel is truthful almost
all of the time, so I have the percentages with me.
But, I'm sure even if you believe he lies half the time, you should conclude
he is being truthful here based on logic... the meaningless "loss" between
using "himself" versus "another player" and the probability of being
controverted would overrule veiling with "another person". Allegedly, a
whole table of people saw what happened and Annie reads RGP, thus he would
realize the tactical error prior to making it. You do give him credit for
being shifty enough to avoid that error:-), eh?
> >Case closed, no matter how he mucked the cards... even if he said, "Ha, I
screwed 'Smelly Feet' out of half the pot, I'm the king" as he mucked. Yes,
he would have shot an angle and proved he is a scummy player, but the
verbal, *unconditional* (key word) contract is what takes precedence.
> Is that really the way it happened? Was Danny even there?
I've seen you take that position in the other responses within this thread
and can only say it is an extremely prejudiced position based on your view
of Daniel, but there is no way I can answer those questions although I would
like to bet that he was there and lay big odds.
> >Curiosity and credibility question for Gary... I once said I avoid many
of the "Daniel" threads as I believe people will discount my support based
on my "poker friendship" with Daniel. Don't you think RGP "downgrades" your
heavy-handed and predictable anti-Daniel views?
> Of course people downgrade my predicable opinion about lying, welching,
drunks.
Geez, I didn't think we needed to bring all the U.S. politicians into this
thread... I was talking about your prejudice against Daniel.
> But, I think it's funny. I'm not trying to accomplish anything.
Sometimes, it's funny, but I perceive you are trying to accomplish something
(tearing Daniel down at every opportunity) that you wouldn't be trying to
accomplish if you and Daniel had never discussed "The Match". As I imply,
had I never met Daniel, I probably wouldn't have been involved in this
thread, so I understand my bias works the same way.
Lee
Lee Munzer
"Irish Mike"
> Minor point bucko, but I have found no significant correlation between
> formal education and civility in the poker world. In fact, some well
> educated players tend to be disrespectful toward players with less formal
> education. I play in a game with an attorney who is one of the least
civil
> people I have ever met. I attribute this less to his advanced degrees
than
> to the fact that he is a thorough-going asshole.
> Irish Mike
99% of all lawyers give the other ones a bad name.
Lee
Gary Carson
wrote:
>
>> Is that really the way it happened? Was Danny even there?
>
>I've seen you take that position in the other responses within this
thread
>and can only say it is an extremely prejudiced position based on your
view
>of Daniel, but there is no way I can answer those questions although
I would
>like to bet that he was there and lay big odds.
I don't know if he was or not. If he was, I'd lay big odds he wasn't
sober.
>
>Geez, I didn't think we needed to bring all the U.S. politicians into
this
>thread... I was talking about your prejudice against Daniel.
>
>> But, I think it's funny. I'm not trying to accomplish anything.
>
>Sometimes, it's funny, but I perceive you are trying to accomplish
something
>(tearing Daniel down at every opportunity) that you wouldn't be
trying to
>accomplish if you and Daniel had never discussed "The Match".
You could be right. I didn't have any opinion about Danny one way or
another until then. That's what pissed him off so much to start with,
that I had no idea who he was and had never heard of him or seen his
picture in CP.
I'm sure Danny is a nice guy. But, I know for sure that he's a drunk
and that he's not reliable.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Jdoo123
>From: garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson)
>And, you know she agreed to a split how? Because Danny said to?
>
Ok,maybe he made the whole thing up,I'm sure the incident will be denied
anyway.
>His word just isn't reliable.
Did you ever make good on the customers who bought the e version of your book
but complained months later you still hadnt provided the print version that was
promised them by you?I remember you tried to lay it off on the publisher.
We all are aware of the hard on you have for Danny, Gary.
Jdoo123
>From: garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson)
>I'm sure Danny is a nice guy. But, I know for sure that he's a drunk
>and that he's not reliable.
>
And how do you know this?Have you ever even layed eyes on him?By your
definition 99% of guys in their 20s are drunks.
Gary Carson
I've gotten more than one email from him that simply could not have
been written by anyone who's sober.
He's left drunken, rambling messages on my answering machine.
I've read his articles where he talks about being so drunk he lots
10's of thousands of dollars and having no memory of it, of being so
drunk he missed arirline flights.
He's said many times in his articles that his idea of having fun is
getting shitfaced drunk.
Every mutual acquiantance that I'm aware of agrees that Danny has a
drinking problem
The above fits a very small percentage of guys in their 20's.
He's a drunk.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Gary Carson
>>Subject: Re: Annie Duke Anecdotes (long)
>>From: garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson)
>
>>And, you know she agreed to a split how? Because Danny said to?
>>
>
>Ok,maybe he made the whole thing up,I'm sure the incident will be
denied
>anyway.
>
>>His word just isn't reliable.
>
>Did you ever make good on the customers who bought the e version of
your book
>but complained months later you still hadnt provided the print
version that was
>promised them by you?I remember you tried to lay it off on the
publisher.
If you know anybody that didn't get it, please have them contact me.
My email is garyc...@mindspring.com
My Yahoo id is lavoncarson
My phone number is 228-868-6392
I can often be reached at 1-800-WIN-7777, ask for the poker room, then
ask for Gary Carson
My address is 500 Broad
Box 11
Gulfport, MS 39501
I don't think I ever claimed to be reliable.
It took me about two months to get the books from the publisher. The
r3eason for that was related to the bankruptcy of the original
publisher. I shipped some of the books then. I there was delay for
many people after that which was completely my fault (I left my
girlfriend and my list was at her house and I spent a few months in a
VA hospital for treatment for depression)..
I've never reneged on a bet. But, then I've never been drunk enough
to make the bet Danny did.
+
>
>We all are aware of the hard on you have for Danny, Gary.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
William Coleman
"Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:yuU4a.184$Ua.6...@news2.west.cox.net...
> I also believe 90% of what Russ writes even though he's not
> told the truth in every post.
LOL. After all the grief you have given Russ about his cheating
allegations, you are now saying that you believe 90% of what he writes is
true? Big tactical error on your part, Lee. I predict Russ will be beating
you over the head with this quote until Judgement Day.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Lee Munzer
"Gary Carson"
>>> Is that really the way it happened? Was Danny even there? I've seen
you take that position in the other responses within this thread and can
only say it is an extremely prejudiced position based on your view of
Daniel, but there is no way I can answer those questions although I would
like to bet that he was there and lay big odds.
> I don't know if he was or not. If he was, I'd lay big odds he wasn't
sober.
Lee Munzer:
A drinking poker player... very common. Even I drink while I play 'cause
the drinks are free and I must get ROI in everything I do, it's a
sickness:-).
I have seen him drink and can't recall him ever being out of control (he may
have been, but not when I was in attendance). The Matusow/Negreanu 2002
WSoP O/8 final table headsup play was a classic for rowdy table talk and
they were both drinking, but they were playing to the crowd and are good
friends (if that situation comes up). I spoke with him during a late break
in the event and he was articulate and in total control, imo.
Lee
Gary Carson
wrote:
>friends (if that situation comes up). I spoke with him during a
late break
>in the event and he was articulate and in total control, imo.
When he left a drunken, rambling message on my answering machine he
was not articulate, and not in control.
After hearing it, my g/f's response was, "You're not going to play
poker with that guy, he's crazy".
Danny himself wrote about him losing 10's of thousands of dollars
while so drunk he has no memory of it.
Do you really think he was sober when he sent that email to Annie?
He's got a drinking problem. If you can't see that then you just have
your head in the sand.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Lee Munzer
"William Coleman" ...
>
> "Lee Munzer" ...
>
> > I also believe 90% of what Russ writes even though he's not told the
truth in every post.
>
> LOL. After all the grief you have given Russ about his cheating
allegations, you are now saying that you believe 90% of what he writes is
true? Big tactical error on your part, Lee. I predict Russ will be beating
you over the head with this quote until Judgement Day.
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Since I received a similar LOL e-mail from a poster who I greatly respect, I
suppose I should clarify a possible misperception. By grief, you must mean
my attempts to keep him focused on what he knows and to question what I
believe needs to be questioned. I think most would say I have been
selective and objective. He also has posted some things that have turned
out to be false. My opposition to these posts will continue. His ego often
seems to embellish his self-perceived poker abilities, but other than
questioning how he determined he was a WCP, I can't recall challenging
anything else in that vain. In fact, I jumped on the WCP thing declaring
myself to be world's best low limit player, but that's only spoofing.
I have always said Russ can be a very valuable contributor based on his
unique scamming experiences, his diversified background, and his willingness
to participate. I find him an interesting read most of the time and agree
with those who voted RGP is better with him. His downsides are he is too
repetitious and prone to too many misinterpretations and misrepresentations
(for example, I dislike when he tells me what I know and do not know:-). He
also takes threads off on tangents, but I attribute that to a need for
improved reading comprehension skills and a zest to push his agenda wherever
he can (whatever the hell that agenda is:-).
Long ago I encouraged him to post strategy and was impressed with his
output. I have been playing S/8 (and winning) for many years, but found his
short-handed info very enlightening. Where I believe he has been too "high
level" (some of his tournament strategy) I understand how difficult it would
be to get into more precise strategy on how to play early (first few levels)
and his premise of "play only premium hands" is very good general guidance.
I play many more hands than he suggests, but my play is very "opponent
tendency" based and I'm sure he does the same thing, but it would take a
chapter of a book to elaborate.
Tactical error? Let's see. Let's change the 90% to 96% (that's heavily in
Russ' favor). Now, let's do the math using Google search to determine how
many posts he has made (4,460 under Russ Georgiev alone). Then divide by
25. That's a lot of lies.
I have made more than 10,000 posts and never lied (including my post count
assuming Google is accurate). I have never detected a lie in one of your
posts.
Lee
Jdoo123
>From: garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson
>He's left drunken, rambling messages on my answering machine.
>
been there done that.
<I've gotten more than one email from him that simply could not have
been written by anyone who's sober.<
I didnt do that in my 20s,email didnt exist(at least I dont think so)
>I've read his articles where he talks about being so drunk he lots
>10's of thousands of dollars and having no memory of it, of being so
>drunk he missed arirline flights.
Ok,I never did this.But maybe I would have,no most likely,had I access to the
money.
>He's said many times in his articles that his idea of having fun is
>getting shitfaced drunk.
>
Used to be one of my favs too,and most all my buds in our early 20s
>Every mutual acquiantance that I'm aware of agrees that Danny has a
>drinking problem
Like?
>The above fits a very small percentage of guys in their 20's.
>
Dont think so,it sounds pretty much the avg 20 something to me,its a wonder any
of them survive,myself included.
>He's a drunk.
>
You got something against drunks?
Peg Smith
and Josie Black" <rodb...@optonline.net> writes:
>She was shooting an angle. If he had a low made, he was freerolling the
>entire pot. She did not want to risk him making a str8or flush, so a split
>was no risk for her. Why would a made low split with a high hand? What she
>did IMHO is a scumbag move, unless she had a full house or better.
Huh? Annie didn't offer to split, the low hand did. She accepted, then tried to
change her mind (according to DN). What are you talking about?
Peg
Gary Carson
wrote:
>
>Huh? Annie didn't offer to split, the low hand did. She accepted,
then tried to
>change her mind (according to DN). What are you talking about?
Whether she reneged on a deal or not, I don't know. But, what find so
funny is that Danny seems to think she did and he says that makes her
a bad person.
>
>Peg
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Peg Smith
<luck...@lvcm.com> writes:
>...But, I'm sure even if you believe he lies half the time, you should
conclude
>he is being truthful here based on logic... the meaningless "loss" between
>using "himself" versus "another player" and the probability of being
>controverted would overrule veiling with "another person". Allegedly, a
>whole table of people saw what happened and Annie reads RGP, thus he would
>realize the tactical error prior to making it. You do give him credit for
>being shifty enough to avoid that error:-), eh?...
I don't. At the beginning of the UB/Aruba furor, when Badger was making life
miserable for Robert Ladd, I emailed Danny and asked why he was hiding while
Ladd was being vilified as a liar about his (Danny's) "anonymous" email. Does
anyone want to guess what Daniel's response was? He said, "I honestly don't
know what is going on, and I really don't care to either. What ever potential
problems he has at this point, actually have nothing to do with me. I am not,
and couldn't possibly be the cause of them." He told me that while knowing that
Ladd had Danny's original email; Danny was evidently hoping I didn't know that
for sure. He didn't come out looking very clever to me.
It's not the first time he's been caught in a lie, either. Why would any of us
give him credit for being shifty?
Peg
William Coleman
"Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:tWW4a.447$Ua.1...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> "William Coleman" ...
> >
> > "Lee Munzer" ...
> >
> > > I also believe 90% of what Russ writes even though he's not told the
> truth in every post.
> >
> > LOL. After all the grief you have given Russ about his cheating
> allegations, you are now saying that you believe 90% of what he writes is
> true? Big tactical error on your part, Lee. I predict Russ will be
beating
> you over the head with this quote until Judgement Day.
>
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> Since I received a similar LOL e-mail from a poster who I greatly respect,
I
> suppose I should clarify a possible misperception. By grief, you must
mean
> my attempts to keep him focused on what he knows and to question what I
> believe needs to be questioned.
Yes.
> I think most would say I have been
> selective and objective.
I agree.
> He also has posted some things that have turned
> out to be false. My opposition to these posts will continue. His ego
often
> seems to embellish his self-perceived poker abilities, but other than
> questioning how he determined he was a WCP, I can't recall challenging
> anything else in that vain. In fact, I jumped on the WCP thing declaring
> myself to be world's best low limit player, but that's only spoofing.
>
> I have always said Russ can be a very valuable contributor based on his
> unique scamming experiences, his diversified background, and his
willingness
> to participate. I find him an interesting read most of the time and agree
> with those who voted RGP is better with him. His downsides are he is too
> repetitious and prone to too many misinterpretations and
misrepresentations
> (for example, I dislike when he tells me what I know and do not know:-).
He
> also takes threads off on tangents, but I attribute that to a need for
> improved reading comprehension skills and a zest to push his agenda
wherever
> he can (whatever the hell that agenda is:-).
After sparring with Russ for God knows how long, you still do not know what
his agenda is?
>
> Long ago I encouraged him to post strategy and was impressed with his
> output. I have been playing S/8 (and winning) for many years, but found
his
> short-handed info very enlightening. Where I believe he has been too
"high
> level" (some of his tournament strategy) I understand how difficult it
would
> be to get into more precise strategy on how to play early (first few
levels)
> and his premise of "play only premium hands" is very good general
guidance.
> I play many more hands than he suggests, but my play is very "opponent
> tendency" based and I'm sure he does the same thing, but it would take a
> chapter of a book to elaborate.
>
> Tactical error? Let's see. Let's change the 90% to 96% (that's heavily
in
> Russ' favor). Now, let's do the math using Google search to determine how
> many posts he has made (4,460 under Russ Georgiev alone). Then divide by
> 25. That's a lot of lies.
Now that would be approximately 178 posts that you do not believe, either in
whole or in part. Since you like to make fine semantic distinctions, Lee,
can we draw a distinction between a false statement and a lie? Can we also
draw a distinction between a statement which you know to be false and one
which you do not believe? I would define a lie as a false statement which
the speaker knows to be false when he makes it. In other words, if a person
makes a false statement which he believes to the best of his knowledge to be
the truth, I would not call that a lie, just a false statement. For
example, if Russ recounts events from twenty years ago, and gets some of the
details wrong, but tells the story the way he remembers it, I would not call
that a lie. Or if Russ makes statements based on information which he
believes to be reliable, and that information later turns out to be false, I
would not say he is lying in that case either.
So Lee, of these 178 hypothetical posts which you do not believe, how many
of them would you say actually contain statements which you know to be
false, as opposed to just believing them to be false? Of the statements
which you know to be false, how many can you show to be lies? I would be
very interested in any specific false statements which Russ has made which
you can show Russ knew to be false when he made them. I am not looking for
conclusive proof here, just plausible arguments.
I am just as interested in Russ's credibility as you are, Lee. Many people
claim that I just blindly accept whatever Russ says as the truth. That is
hardly the case. I have specifically expressed my doubts about his cheating
allegations concerning Doyle Brunson. Some of his other statements also
make me wonder about his veracity. I also recognize that I, like everyone
else, have a tendency to believe what I want to believe. I am sure you know
that I consider Doug Dalton to be public enemy number one. Naturally, when
Russ says that Doug was a member of the Spilatro gang, and has been involved
in a long-term conspiracy with the cheaters and scammers, I want very much
to believe what Russ is saying is true.
So for the benefit of RGP newbies like myself, could you please summarize
some of the statements Russ has made which you think can clearly be shown to
be lies, as I have defined a lie?
>
> I have made more than 10,000 posts and never lied (including my post count
> assuming Google is accurate). I have never detected a lie in one of your
> posts.
Thank you very much for your vote of confidence, Lee. I am sure there are
some false statements in my posts. But I found out long ago that honesty
truly is the best policy. I always tell the truth to the best of my belief
and knowledge, even when that truth is embarrassing or damaging to me. The
obvious exception being that when I have committed a crime or engaged in a
criminal conspiracy, I am certainly not going to tell the truth when
questioned about my criminality, especially when questioned by a law
enforcement officer. Example --
Police Officer: Mr. Coleman, do you have any illegal drugs or other
contraband in your car?
Ramashiva: No, officer. Of course not.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Al
plays at that site?
"Peg Smith" <pegsm...@aol.comnocrap> wrote in message
news:20030219073713...@mb-fm.aol.com...
> In article <7220404a.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu) writes:
>
> >...You a cheat, I'll say so.
> >You a bi-atch-- I'll say so.
> >You a angle shooter, I'll let my peoples know.
> >You a fraud? huh, I'll expose you and feel no way.y'understan?
>
> Fair enough.
>
> So...what happened in Aruba that your investor friends at UB don't want
you to
> tell us about? Was Russ Hamilton's explanation on RGP the truth, the whole
> truth, and nothing but the truth? Why won't you tell the whole gang here
what
> you told me in email?
>
> Peg
Gary Carson
<alis...@NOSPAMfrugivorous.com.au> wrote:
>why dont you tell us if you know and it is in the interest of
everyone who
>plays at that site?
She doesn't know.
She just knows what Danny told her. But, since Danny won't say it
publically, and he claims to not be afriad to say things publically,
she has no reason to think what Danny told her is true.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Peg Smith
<alis...@NOSPAMfrugivorous.com.au> writes:
>...why dont you tell us if you know and it is in the interest of everyone who
>plays at that site?
I don't know, that's why I'm asking the questions. I'd like to find out which
one (Daniel or Russ H.) lied. Daniel has made some serious allegations -- some
on RGP, even more in emails -- and Russ has denied them.
Peg
Mike McClain
>
> 6)This is the worst thing that has ever happened to me in a
> tournament- At the WSOP main event in 1999, Annie was involved in a
> pot with another player who had limped under the gun. Annie raised
> the limper from the button with A-7 offsuit. When it got back to the
> limper, he went to make a raise, but DIDN"T SAY RAISE, and then went
> back to his stack to raise even more. Well, in any no limit
> tournament that is considered a string raise. Not always called, but
> it's a string raise nonetheless. Well, another player, Steve Kaufman,
> called the string raise to the dealer's attention. To which Annie
> shouted, "Oh my God, you're not even in the pot! What are you doing!
> Oh my God, this is the worst thing that even happened to me in a
> tournament!" etc.
> She was upset with the fact that she had now been raised the minimum
> by the limper and was "forced" to call the extra 60,000 raise. After
> lambasting Mr.Kaufman for something he had EVERY RIGHT to do, she
> ended up flopping an ace and WINNING the pot because of the called
> string raise. "Well maybe that was the BEST thing that ever happened
> to me in a tournament." Snort, snort, giggle, giggle.
>
> ******************************************************************************
I love anecdotes as much as the next guy, but what is this one all
about?! It has some extremely flawed poker logic in it. If the story
is accurate, then Annie doesn't understand some basic concepts.
And even if it is accurate, if I were the storyteller, I'd be uncomfortable
telling the story without adding the proper disclaimer that although
the logic is flawed, the story is accurate. Danny did put 'forced' in
quotes, which might mean that he understands, but I would have
made it far more obvious had I been the narrator.
Not that I would ever lambast a person in the manner that he has.
Mike.
yuc
I have to agree with you. Mrs Puke is the prototype of the loud,
obnoxious, underhanded American bitch. And I admire that you don't
play the expected role of the American male that looks away, keeps
smiling while beeing completely intimidated by his woman.
kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu) wrote in message news:<7220404a.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> I'm often asked what makes me think that this woman is such a low
> life. Here are just a few examples of facts that make up what this
> woman truly is as far as I‘m concerned. For those of you who don't
> care to read it, you can stop now and save your complainin':
>
> 1) Wanna Split it?- Playing in a stud 8 or better side game, Annie was
> heads up with one other player. After much betting it appeared as
> though Annie had the high hand and the other had a low made by sixth
> street. The player with the low board asked if she wanted to split
> it. Annie said, "Yeah, ok". The player threw his hand toward the
> muck expecting the dealer to start chopping the pot, when Annie said,
> "Wait, only if you have a low I mean."
> Once she said yes however, the pot should ethically be split.
> Despite virtually everyone in the game explaining to Annie that once
> she says yes to a chop, she has to chop. She wouldn't budge.
> Finally, after much hysteria she decided to give the player back ONLY
> the money he put into the pot. Had the tables been turned, she's
> still be blue in the face about how unfair that was.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
> 2) I swear on my kids!- Annie habitually leans over to look at the
> cards of the person sitting beside her in a game, whether they like it
> or not. Well one day one of the players was fed up with her sweating
> her neighbor's hole cards and he spoke up about it. She obliged
> saying, "Ok, I won't look anymore."
> Not an hour later, a triple draw hand comes up, and she is caught
> red handed looking at her neighbor's hole cards again. This time the
> player objected furiously, "I told you to stop looking at your
> neighbor's cards!" To which she replies, "I SWEAR ON MY CHILDREN I
> WASN'T". This was an absolute lie. She saw EXACTLY what card her
> neighbor got and ANNOUNCED the hand before it was turned over, also
> saying something to the effect of, "Oh you would have made it anyway."
> **A 4 had been flashed that would have been her neighbor's card.
> Instead she received a 6 to complete a 2-3-5-6-7, which is the third
> best hand in 2-7 triple draw (the 4 would have been the mortal
> nuts).** Later, Annie falsely claimed that the player who was upset
> with her threw a chair AT HER. Again, impossible.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
>
> 3) Just checkin'- Playing in a one table satellite for the main event
> at the WSOP, Annie was up against Tony Ma and Dan Alspach. Tony moved
> all in on the button, Annie folded in the small blind and Dan began
> studying. After some time, Dan folded his hand, and Tony threw his
> cards towards the muck telling Dan "Aces. I had two Aces." Well
> after the hand hits the muck, Annie GRABS THE HOLECARDS, LOOKS AT
> THEM, and says "Just checkin‘" as if she had done nothing wrong.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
> 4) Sitting in a short handed 300-600 mixed game in 1999 I was
> unfortunate enough to have to sit beside Annie. Again, she has a
> simple rule that she lives by, "It's ok for me to look at your hole
> cards when I am out of a hand but I can't show you mine because I
> can't give away any information". Niiiice. Anyway, after about 30
> minutes of her sweating my hole cards, I KINDLY say, "I'd actually
> prefer it if you didn't look at my hole cards since we are short
> handed and all." (5 handed at the time). About 15 minutes later,
> another player sits down in the game making it six handed.
> So know after I've raised before the flop and she'd folded, she
> looks over at my hole cards again. This time saying, "It's six
> handed, I can look now". Niiiice.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
> 5) Oh my God, it's so my seat- On a Monday night Annie walked into the
> poker room to put her name on a list. When the seat opened up, the
> floor man called out a name that wasn't yet present. Annie said, "If
> he's not here it's my seat." To which the floor man replied, "He's
> just outside, he's on his way."
> "Oh my God no way! You can't do that! You can't lock up a seat if
> you aren't even here!" After much bickering the poor floor man
> succumbed and gave her the seat.
> Wednesday night, EXACT same scenario, only this time Annie was the
> one who was first up on the list but not present at the time the seat
> was called. Now this time, she is arguing for the OPPOSITE ruling.
> "Oh my God, I was right here. I was here to put my name on the list.
> I didn't even leave the building" (how the floor man is supposed to
> know that is anyone's guess). Anyway, after throwing yet another
> hissy fit she got that seat too. This is one of Annie's common
> practices: "Argue NOT for what's fair and just, argue only for what
> benefits you." Niiice.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
> 6)This is the worst thing that has ever happened to me in a
> tournament- At the WSOP main event in 1999, Annie was involved in a
> pot with another player who had limped under the gun. Annie raised
> the limper from the button with A-7 offsuit. When it got back to the
> limper, he went to make a raise, but DIDN"T SAY RAISE, and then went
> back to his stack to raise even more. Well, in any no limit
> tournament that is considered a string raise. Not always called, but
> it's a string raise nonetheless. Well, another player, Steve Kaufman,
> called the string raise to the dealer's attention. To which Annie
> shouted, "Oh my God, you're not even in the pot! What are you doing!
> Oh my God, this is the worst thing that even happened to me in a
> tournament!" etc.
> She was upset with the fact that she had now been raised the minimum
> by the limper and was "forced" to call the extra 60,000 raise. After
> lambasting Mr.Kaufman for something he had EVERY RIGHT to do, she
> ended up flopping an ace and WINNING the pot because of the called
> string raise. "Well maybe that was the BEST thing that ever happened
> to me in a tournament." Snort, snort, giggle, giggle.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
> 7) Cup Boy- Finally, my first ever meeting of this woman was at the
> Four Queens in 1996 when I was just barely 22. Up to that point I'd
> had virtually no success in tournaments in the US, but was eager to
> learn from the so called "superstars" of the game.
>
> ** Before I go any further, It's important to give you a little
> background info. At the club I played in in Toronto, we had no
> bottled water, just purified water you could get from the gallon. So
> I'd fill up a Styrofoam cup with water, and when it was empty, would
> leave it hanging from my lips so the porter wouldn't take it away and
> I'd have to waste another cup. This became somewhat of a habit you
> could say.**
>
> So here I am in this tournament, where across from me was this woman
> and another well known tournament player. This woman doesn't know me
> from Adam, but goes out of her way to ridicule and make me feel like
> an outsider. As though I didn't belong in her "clique". After
> witnessing her behavior I was pretty sure I didn't want any part of
> that "clique" anyway.
> KNOWING I could hear every word she was saying, she says to her
> "clique" member, "Oh my God, what's up with cup boy over there. I
> wonder what that cup's all about. You think it's for medical
> reasons." She then went on to giggle arrogantly. At this point I
> actually spoke up and said, "If you'd really like to know there is
> actually a pretty normal reason for it?" Apparently acknowledging my
> existence may have looked less "too cool to talk to the low limit
> players" if you know what I mean.
> In conclusion., with two odd tables to go I play a hand against her
> in which SHE WINS. I had a good amount of chips at this point and she
> was all in for less than a bet on the river. I had actually bet the
> turn with a draw, and checked the river when I made a pair. The board
> was (10-8-2) A- J. I held Q-J in the blind and called her raise from
> middle position. I checked and called the flop, and bet the ace on
> the turn hoping to steal it. On the river I made jacks, but didn't
> think she would call me with a worse hand but may check a better hand
> or even bluff. That's not important though.
> What is important, is that she berated me for playing the hand that
> way! "Oh my God, if you were going to call on the river anyway why
> didn't you just bet?? I mean, oh you know what forget about it. I
> shouldn‘t be educating."
> I was beyond puzzled, but to be completely honest slightly
> embarrassed. I was there alone and knew no one in the tournament
> whatsoever. At the time I wasn't certain if I actually made a
> horrendous error or not. I may have spoken 20 words the entire
> tournament, and couldn't fathom why someone would want to be so mean
> to a complete stranger?
> Anyway, I later thought about the hand and realized that she was
> absolutely WRONG about the correct strategy in that situation.
> Considering the information I had, I played the river just fine.
>
> Couple years go by, I get lucky and win a few tournaments… and all
> of a sudden she is all nice to me. Phony nice of course, but nice
> nonetheless. The more I got to know this woman however, the more I
> was witness to her true colors and the more I disliked her. Despite
> making my BEST efforts to tolerate her obnoxious personality I no
> longer wanted to put up with it.
> The only thing I'm sorry about in all this, is what it has done to
> many of my friends who happen to have thicker skin than I and can
> tolerate Annie. It puts them in a peculiar position. That I regret.
> Other than that, NOTHING I've ever said to her, or about her is
> something I'd ever consider apologizing for. Those are my true
> feelings… and I sleep well..
>
> You see, I don't NEED to be Mr. Phony Nice Guy, all I gots to be is
> who I is. I ain't gonna say what y'all want me to say, I'm onna
> say wazz on my minds when I feels like it. Na' I mean? Damn
> straight.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
> Don't get me wrong I've done some pretty stupid things in my time.
> I'm not afraid or worried about what anyone has to say about me, it's
> all out there. I have few secrets if anyway. I been broke, blew some
> stake money, loaned railbirds, staked deadbeats, been on the borrow,
> all kinds of bad decisions. That's real. In all honestly though, I
> ain't NEVER disrespected no man or no woman unless they had it comin'.
> I was never one to see bullies get their way, and I was never one to
> close my eyes and shut my mouth when I see somethin' I don't like. I
> keep hearing, "But Danny, this isn't in your best interest. "Danny
> just go with the flow and don't rock the boat." Hell no!
>
> You a cheat, I'll say so.
> You a bi-atch-- I'll say so.
> You a angle shooter, I'll let my peoples know.
> You a fraud? huh, I'll expose you and feel no way…y'understan?
>
>
> I'm out.
>
>
> Daniel Negreanu
> kidp...@hotmail.com
> www.fullcontactpoker.com.
RMITCHCOLL
>I don't know, that's why I'm asking the questions. I'd like to find out which
>one (Daniel or Russ H.) lied. Daniel has made some serious allegations --
>some
>on RGP, even more in emails -- and Russ has denied them.
My source on UB/Aruba stated that the $250,000K tourney for the pro's was never
actually intended to include a payout of the first place money. It was
eventually paid but only after the word started leaking out that Phil Gordon
was not paid. Daniel's e-mails to Peg/Robert etc and his posts here "seemed" to
indicate that he knew this in advance and did not want to participate in the
charade. Kudos to him for sacking up and taking this stand if thats what he
did. Anti-Kudos to him for not just stating the facts as he knows them.
Randy Collack
Storm
wrote:
>I'm often asked what makes me think that this woman is such a low
>life. Here are just a few examples of facts that make up what this
>woman truly is as far as I僧 concerned. For those of you who don't
I don't understand this one. You present it like you have no control
over your hole cards.
Someone sitting next to me tries to look at my hole cards, I'll
announce (politely, but make sure the whole table hears)
"Please...don't try to look at my hole cards. I promise I won't do it
to you or anyone else."
The next time I knock the asshole off his/her chair.
desire
> Anonymous troll. Pathetic.
>
>
>
> Anonymous troll? Are you ever right?
Plenty of people know who I am, bozo. Why don't you wait for an
original thought to arrive in your head before you form words?
Lee Munzer
"Gary Carson" ...
> >friends (if that situation comes up). I spoke with him during a
> late break
> >in the event and he was articulate and in total control, imo.
>
> When he left a drunken, rambling message on my answering machine he
> was not articulate, and not in control.
>
> After hearing it, my g/f's response was, "You're not going to play
> poker with that guy, he's crazy".
>
> Danny himself wrote about him losing 10's of thousands of dollars
> while so drunk he has no memory of it.
>
> Do you really think he was sober when he sent that email to Annie?
>
> He's got a drinking problem. If you can't see that then you just have
> your head in the sand.
I have spent some time with him and am just stating what I observed.
I'm not qualified to judge what would constitute a drinking problem anyway.
Lee
Lee Munzer
"William Coleman"
> After sparring with Russ for God knows how long, you still do not know
what his agenda is?
I do not. I would speculate it is to become a "big player" in the poker
world and make money through selling his expertise in some way.
I believe his agenda may have changed since teaming up with Nirdlinger and
Martino around 19 months ago. I really don't know what his original agenda
was.
Many believe him when he states his agenda is revenge.
> > Tactical error? Let's see. Let's change the 90% to 96% (that's heavily
in Russ' favor). Now, let's do the math using Google search to determine
how many posts he has made (4,460 under Russ Georgiev alone). Then divide
by 25. That's a lot of lies.
> Now that would be approximately 178 posts that you do not believe, either
in whole or in part. Since you like to make fine semantic distinctions,
Lee, can we draw a distinction between a false statement and a lie?
I'll tell you what I consider a fabrication, but I'd like to put this
exchange in perspective. You wrote, "Big tactical error on your part, Lee.
I predict Russ will be beating you over the head with this quote until
Judgement Day."
I decided to show you, even if I gave him another "six percentage points of
believability" and even if we assume 4,460 accounts for all his posts, he
would not be beating me over the head with the fact that I have not believed
him approximately 178 times. That's it... no need to go any deeper for me.
There is also no need to define anything other than the opposite of
"believe" since I wrote, "I believe 90%..." My antonym for "believe" is
"not believe".
But, since you seem interested, to me, a lie is an untrue or inaccurate
statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker. Thus, I have
a wider definition than you (but, it is not germane unless you believe
everything that I do not *believe* I classify as a lie... which would be a
wrong assumption on your part).
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but our interest areas don't
always run parallel and after reading the rest of the post, I have no
interest in taking the time to search Google and answer you in the detail I
believe it requires.
Lee
lvdlrs
Gary (I liked Bozo) Philips
William Coleman
to mean that you are saying Russ has told a lot of lies on RGP. Personally,
I do not see how you can call a statement a lie if the speaker is telling
the truth to the best of his knowledge and belief. But define the word
"lie" in any reasonable way you choose. If I understand you correctly, you
are stating that Russ has told a lot of lies on RGP. Are you going to
provide some specific instances of Russ's lies, or are you just going to let
your unsubstantiated allegation stand on its own merits?
If you are too busy to provide any specific examples to corroborate your
sweeping allegation against Russ, o dedicated truthseeker and detector of
bullshit, please do not request that Russ or anyone else provide specifics
to back up their sweeping allegations. And please do not make any future
claims of intellectual integrity or honesty if you are going to accuse
someone of being a liar and then not provide any specifics.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
"Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:Zl95a.6391$Ua.4...@news2.west.cox.net...
James L. Hankins
"yuc" <irrev...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ef319aa.0302...@posting.google.com...
> Danny,
>
> I have to agree with you. Mrs Puke is the prototype of the loud,
> obnoxious, underhanded American bitch. And I admire that you don't
> play the expected role of the American male that looks away, keeps
> smiling while beeing completely intimidated by his woman.
ROFLMAO!!! This is funny. Finally, an anonymous troll with a sense of
humor.
James L. Hankins
"desire" <shylilv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e35fc4dc.03022...@posting.google.com...
Rigggghhhhtttttt...are you the "desire" from Jersey, or are you the "desire"
from Brooklyn? Sweet desire, perhaps? Have we met in the Hamptons? Here's
a not-so-original thought for you: Buh-bye.
Gary Carson
in the
>charade. Kudos to him for sacking up and taking this stand if thats
What stand did he take? Saying, "I don't want to get involved,
there's not enough money" is taking a stand?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
dtbrous
Hey Mike. This story is accurate in a sense. It actually happened in the
2000 WSOP. Her opponent was Jim McManus and he covered the situation
quite thoroughly in his article,"Fortune's Smile." Here is his take.
This former cliff diver, though, is gonna sit good and tight with his chip
lead. After thirteen hours at the table and staring down T.J.'s three
barrels, he's got cobwebby spermatozoa floating through his vitreous
humor. So he's not even tempted to play a 3 [diamond] 8 [heart], J [heart]
5 [flower], or even A [heart] 7 [heart]. No, sir. He also decides not to
raise but to limp. And Duke, one off the button, cooperates beautifully,
raising to $60,000. Hasan and Chris fold. Hasan stands up, yawning and
stretching, to watch. And then I'm yawning, too, just as I happen to start
moving $150,000 toward the pot; judging by the size of Duke's stack, it's
enough to have set her all-in. The next thing I know, both Kaufman and the
dealer are citing me for a string raise, claiming I went back into my
stack for more chips without saying, "Raise." I realize they're right and
apologize. The dealer determines that the amount in my hand as it started
forward was $60,000, which happens to be the minimum allowable raise of
Annie's original bet. And boy, she's not happy. My raise doesn't set her
all-in, but since she only has $140,000 left, she's been priced in. She
turns to her entourage. "This is the worst thing that's ever happened to
me in a tournament!" she shrieks--and shrieks, I'm afraid, is the word.
"Let me call that myself," she chides Kaufman, and for a moment I'm
cheering her on, till she adds, "I would've been glad to let him go to his
stack for more!" She runs a hand up through brown bangs, jangling her
wrist load of beads, braided leather, plastic bangles. That she would have
been "glad" to let me put her all-in suggests she has a premium hand, and
that she was so overwrought when she said it makes it impossible to
believe she was acting. I have to put her on something better than a lousy
pair of jacks, do I not? But so why, after my raise was scaled down to
sixty, didn't she simply reraise me?
The flop comes A [flower] Q [flower] 8 [flower], about as bad it can be
for my jacks, so I check to the shrieker. "All-in," she says, sliding her
stacks in. She has a live human being inside her--her third--but that's
not the reason I fold. No way can I call even a hundred grand more, though
the pot odds declare that I should. Not with them overcards squatting
pregnantly on the baize. It isn't the toughest laydown I've made, but it
still smarts to have to muck johnnies again. This is, after all, two-card
chicken we're playing, and things can change fast on fourth street and
fifth street ...
"I changed my mind," Duke announces, then graciously shows me an ace
before mucking. "That's the best thing that ever happened to me in a
tournament." Big applause from the rail. Hang in there, Annie! ... Chicks
ruuule! Yet who can I blame but myself and Steve Kaufman? If I'd been
competent to set her all-in before the flop, when all she probably had was
a medium ace, she almost certainly would have folded; but for only
$60,000, she was still sufficiently tied to the hand to make a crying call
correct. Then she caught that huge piece of the flop. So my little snafu
while trying to put her all-in cost me $120,000 and handed Jeff Shulman
the lead. If I'd simply said, "Raise," I'd be sitting on over a million.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
like she was putting on an act, intending to bluff at the flop if she
missed it.
On 20 Feb 2003 20:52:24 GMT, "dtbrous" <dtb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>My apologies if this has been covered already.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Shifty
one.
On Feb 19 2003 2:56AM, Daniel Negreanu wrote:
> I'm often asked what makes me think that this woman is such a low
> life. Here are just a few examples of facts that make up what this
> woman truly is as far as I‘m concerned. For those of you who don't
_________________________________________________________________
Lee Munzer
"William Coleman" ...
Excerpted:
> Personally, I do not see how you can call a statement a lie if the speaker
is telling the truth to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Even accepting your leap of faith concerning Russ' "knowledge and belief",
Merriam-Webster and I disagree (1b and 2):
Main Entry: 4lie
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High
German lugI, Old English lEogan to lie
Date: before 12th century
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be
untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may
or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
> Are you going to provide some specific instances of Russ's lies, or are
you just going to let
your unsubstantiated allegation stand on its own merits?
Asked and answered (available to you on Google - WaynO posted a list of the
major ones). To believe Russ has not lied to RGP is foolhardy and you are
not a fool.
> If you are too busy to provide any specific examples to corroborate your
sweeping allegation against Russ...
I never said I was too busy. I said, "I have no interest in taking the time
to search Google and answer you in the detail I
believe it requires." Read "not inclined" not "too busy".
> o dedicated truthseeker and detector of bullshit...
Unnecessary and foolish
> please do not request that Russ or anyone else provide specifics
to back up their sweeping allegations.
Please provide proof that I have *requested* (key word) that Russ or anyone
else provide specifics.
> And please do not make any future
claims of intellectual integrity or honesty if you are going to accuse
someone of being a liar and then not provide any specifics.
My claims are accurate and that, in my opinion, will satisfy RGP.
Do you believe Russ has told the truth 100% of the time according to your
definition of "lie"?
Lee
DaveM
>I'm not qualified to judge what would constitute a drinking problem anyway.
The medical definition is someone who drinks more than his doctor.
DaveM
Mike McClain
"dtbrous" <dtb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3e554008$0$65600$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> My apologies if this has been covered already.
>
> Hey Mike. This story is accurate in a sense. It actually happened in the
> 2000 WSOP. Her opponent was Jim McManus and he covered the situation
> quite thoroughly in his article,"Fortune's Smile." Here is his take.
>
okay. That doesn't change my argument at all. I still don't understand
Annie's complaint.
Let's I gave you a choice of two things, and you were going to choose
Choice A. Then I said, no, no, wait... Here is your new subset of
options instead: { Choice A, Choice X }. Since you were going to
choose Choice A in the first scenario, and since you can still do so,
how can you be upset that the list of options has been changed? You
now have a choice of A or X... if you choose X, you have presumeably
gained over A, since you made that choice. You've been given a
complete freeroll in the choice, since you can always stick with your
original choice.
Annie's complaints make no sense. So if the story is accurate, then
she is showing poor poker logic. Her possible outs to this are that the
story is not accurate, or that she was hollywood'ing in some manner to
confuse the situation.
When Danny tells the story in an effort to denigrate Annie, what is his
excuse for not pointing out the poor poker logic used by her? If he
felt she was acting, then the story has no relevance, since her screeching
would then be 'justified'. He finds her arguing the most intriguing part
of the story, not that she shows extremely poor poker logic in the
story, which makes me think that Danny does not understand why the
logic is poor. And he does not have the outs available to him that
Annie has.
Mike.
William Coleman
said "That's a lot of lies." Any way you define words, it is a big leap
from saying you do not believe something to saying it is a lie. Further
comments interspersed.
"Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:J0d5a.7893$Ua.5...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> "William Coleman" ...
>
> Excerpted:
> > Personally, I do not see how you can call a statement a lie if the
speaker
> is telling the truth to the best of his knowledge and belief.
>
> Even accepting your leap of faith concerning Russ' "knowledge and belief",
> Merriam-Webster and I disagree (1b and 2):
> Main Entry: 4lie
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old
High
> German lugI, Old English lEogan to lie
> Date: before 12th century
> 1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be
> untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that
may
> or may not be believed true by the speaker
> 2 : something that misleads or deceives
So the first definition given is precisely my suggested definition. The
last definition "something that misleads or deceives" is ridiculous.
According to that definition, a reverse tell is a lie, and wearing false
teeth would be a lie. So we are left with the question of whether a false
statement which the speaker believes to be true is a lie. Apparently you
are relying on this definition to even make a claim that Russ has ever lied
on RGP. It is also the case that if there is even a single false statement
in any of your 10,000 posts, then you are a liar at least twice, because you
previously stated that you had never lied in any of your RGP posts. I am
pretty sure that if I scrutinized all your posts I could find at least one
statement which you believed to be true, but which was, in fact, false.
Before you get your panties twisted in a knot and challenge me, bear in mind
that even a typographical error regarding any numerical quantity or a date
would qualify as a false statement, thus a lie, under the broad definition
you want to use.
>
>
> > Are you going to provide some specific instances of Russ's lies, or are
> you just going to let
> your unsubstantiated allegation stand on its own merits?
>
> Asked and answered (available to you on Google - WaynO posted a list of
the
> major ones). To believe Russ has not lied to RGP is foolhardy and you are
> not a fool.
I never said that I believe Russ has never lied on RGP.
>
>
> > If you are too busy to provide any specific examples to corroborate your
> sweeping allegation against Russ...
>
> I never said I was too busy.
And I never said you were. I said "If you are too busy . . .".
I said, "I have no interest in taking the time
> to search Google and answer you in the detail I
> believe it requires." Read "not inclined" not "too busy".
>
> > o dedicated truthseeker and detector of bullshit...
> Unnecessary and foolish
No Lee, it is very necessary and not at all foolish. You frequently subject
Russ to grillings worthy of an oral examination for a doctorate in
epistemology at a Jesuit university. You spend endless time on posts which
amount to nothing but mental masturbation. But when you call the most
important poster on RGP a liar, you are not inclined to provide specifics.
All you can tell me is that it is in the archives.
>
>
> > please do not request that Russ or anyone else provide specifics
> to back up their sweeping allegations.
>
> Please provide proof that I have *requested* (key word) that Russ or
anyone
> else provide specifics.
What am I supposed to provide proof for? Did I say you have requested that
Russ or anyone else provide specifics?
>
>
> > And please do not make any future
> claims of intellectual integrity or honesty if you are going to accuse
> someone of being a liar and then not provide any specifics.
>
> My claims are accurate and that, in my opinion, will satisfy RGP.
They do not satisfy me at all, Lee. You are being deliberately evasive.
>
> Do you believe Russ has told the truth 100% of the time according to your
> definition of "lie"?
I neither believe nor disbelieve. I would just like someone to point me to
something that is pretty clearly a lie, or where Russ was pretty clearly
trying to deceive or misrepresent the facts. And I am not talking about
minor details of some incident which he recounted from the distant past. To
expect someone to get every detail right when telling a story twenty years
or more in the past is absurd. So go back to figuring out horse racing odds
with Barbara and figuring out how to plug your audio-visual components
together. The fact remains that you have called a man a liar. When I ask
you to provide specific examples, you dismiss my question with hand waving.
>
> Lee
>
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Lee Munzer
"William Coleman"
Excerpted:
> > 1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be
> > untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that
> may
> > or may not be believed true by the speaker
> > 2 : something that misleads or deceives
>
> So the first definition given is precisely my suggested definition. The
> last definition "something that misleads or deceives" is ridiculous.
I didn't assign the words. I agree, the second definition might be a bit
loose, but it is a definition from a big player in the dictionary world and
that's what we were discussing.
> I am pretty sure that if I scrutinized all your posts I could find at
least one statement which you believed to be true, but which was, in fact,
false.
Go for it.
> > > Are you going to provide some specific instances of Russ's lies, or
are
> > you just going to let
> > your unsubstantiated allegation stand on its own merits?
Asked and answered twice previously.
> > > o dedicated truthseeker and detector of bullshit...
> > Unnecessary and foolish
>
> No Lee, it is very necessary and not at all foolish. You frequently
subject
> Russ to grillings worthy of an oral examination for a doctorate in
> epistemology at a Jesuit university.
Frequently? Please cite 100 threads as examples of intense grilling
> > > please do not request that Russ or anyone else provide specifics
> > to back up their sweeping allegations.
> >
> > Please provide proof that I have *requested* (key word) that Russ or
> anyone
> > else provide specifics.
>
> What am I supposed to provide proof for? Did I say you have requested
that
> Russ or anyone else provide specifics?
You asked me not to "request that Russ or anyone else provide specifics to
back up their sweeping allegations". If I had never requested that Russ or
anyone else provide specifics then why would you have asked me not to
request that Russ or anyone else provide specifics to back up their sweeping
allegations? That would make no sense.
> > Do you believe Russ has told the truth 100% of the time according to
your
> > definition of "lie"?
> I neither believe nor disbelieve.
I accept that and do not characterize it as an evasive answer.
Lee
William Coleman
"Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:tsh5a.9061$Ua.6...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> "William Coleman"
>
> Excerpted:
>
> > > 1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be
> > > untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement
that
> > may
> > > or may not be believed true by the speaker
> > > 2 : something that misleads or deceives
> >
> > So the first definition given is precisely my suggested definition. The
> > last definition "something that misleads or deceives" is ridiculous.
>
> I didn't assign the words. I agree, the second definition might be a bit
> loose, but it is a definition from a big player in the dictionary world
and
> that's what we were discussing.
Well, my understanding is that the first definition given in a dictionary is
the preferred, or most common definition. Why do we have to use your
definition? Especially since you concede that it might be a bit loose.
>
> > I am pretty sure that if I scrutinized all your posts I could find at
> least one statement which you believed to be true, but which was, in fact,
> false.
>
> Go for it.
In your first post in the thread "OT... Too Many Holes -- Too Few Women" you
state that your JVC 3901 S-VHS VCR has a digital audio out connection. That
is an untrue statement, Lee. You acknowledge the error later in the thread
when Paul Schwartz expresses doubt that your VCR has a digital audio out
connection. So, by the somewhat loose definition you choose to employ, your
original statement about your VCR having a digital audio out connection is a
lie. Therefore, your subsequent statement that you have never lied in any
of your posts is also a lie. Therefore, you have lied at least twice in
your RGP posts. Care to speculate on what the over/under is on how many
lies you have told on RGP?
>
>
> > > > Are you going to provide some specific instances of Russ's lies, or
> are
> > > you just going to let
> > > your unsubstantiated allegation stand on its own merits?
>
> Asked and answered twice previously.
No, asked and evaded twice previously.
>
>
>
> > > > o dedicated truthseeker and detector of bullshit...
> > > Unnecessary and foolish
> >
> > No Lee, it is very necessary and not at all foolish. You frequently
> subject
> > Russ to grillings worthy of an oral examination for a doctorate in
> > epistemology at a Jesuit university.
>
> Frequently? Please cite 100 threads as examples of intense grilling
I am not inclined to spend any time doing that, Lee. Besides, it is all in
the archives. Look it up yourself. I am inferring that by requesting 100
citations of intense grilling, you are conceding that you have, on occasion,
subjected Russ to intense grilling. Now we are just talking about the
meaning of the word "frequently".
>
>
> > > > please do not request that Russ or anyone else provide specifics
> > > to back up their sweeping allegations.
> > >
> > > Please provide proof that I have *requested* (key word) that Russ or
> > anyone
> > > else provide specifics.
> >
> > What am I supposed to provide proof for? Did I say you have requested
> that
> > Russ or anyone else provide specifics?
>
> You asked me not to "request that Russ or anyone else provide specifics to
> back up their sweeping allegations". If I had never requested that Russ
or
> anyone else provide specifics then why would you have asked me not to
> request that Russ or anyone else provide specifics to back up their
sweeping
> allegations?
Do you always answer a question with a question, Lee?
> That would make no sense.
Why wouldn't it make sense? All my statement says is that if you are not
going to provide me with specifics then do not ask Russ or others to provide
specifics either. You are inferring that I was implying that you had
previously asked Russ for specifics. Have you ever made an incorrect
inference, Lee? Have you ever thought someone was implying something when
they weren't?
>
> > > Do you believe Russ has told the truth 100% of the time according to
> your
> > > definition of "lie"?
>
> > I neither believe nor disbelieve.
>
> I accept that and do not characterize it as an evasive answer.
>
> Lee
>
>
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Jdoo123
>From: "William Coleman"
>Well, my understanding is that the first definition given in a dictionary is
>the preferred, or most common definition. Why do we have to use your
>definition?
Oh,so now youre dragging out a dictionary??LOL,What a joke.
You said earlier:"You can trot out all the dictionary definitions and make all
the
semantic distinctions you want to."
And:"Forget your dictionary. Words
mean what a consensus of well-educated people agrees they mean."
Daniel Negreanu
> When Danny tells the story in an effort to denigrate Annie, what is his
> excuse for not pointing out the poor poker logic used by her? If he
> felt she was acting, then the story has no relevance, since her screeching
> would then be 'justified'. He finds her arguing the most intriguing part
> of the story, not that she shows extremely poor poker logic in the
> story, which makes me think that Danny does not understand why the
> logic is poor. And he does not have the outs available to him that
> Annie has.
>
>
I'll tell you why I didn't go into detail. The whole point of that one
character flaw was focused on the fact that she yelled and screamed at an
innocent man. A man that did something WELL WITH IN HIS PERSONAL RIGHTS
TO DO, and the whiny woman chewed him out for it. As for the logic? She
wasn't pullin' no hollywood, that donkey just don't think that deep. She
knows call, call, call just fine but that whole thinkin' concept just
hurts her little head too much.
The woman made a bad play in every sense of the word on the hand for
about a million reasons she can't comprehend. A couple examples:
A) the raise was too small to get him off almost ANY hand he'd limp with
under the gun.
B) She obviously misread Jim's limp as weakness and was dead wrong.
C) Her chip position wasn't big enough to take on such risky plays.
She'll blow hands like this on a regular basis, that's why you NEVER see
her name at the top of any tournament list. Only way she could win is if
the deck hit her smack dab in the middle of that big old teethy grin of
hers for the duration of the tournament.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Linda Sherman
news:3e53f466...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Feb 19 2003 1:10PM, Nat Silver wrote:
>
> > As we all know, Playing Poker is a tough
> > business to be in. Anyone who doesn't take
> > some advantage or never, never shoots an
> > angle, may find themselves on the rail. If a
> > man did some of the things the things Daniel
> > describes, it would be dismissed as business
> > as usual; really.
>
> It's not clear to me from Danny's stories that Annie was the one
> shooting the angle. Take the story about her saying she'd split the
> pot and then not splitting it. Let's look at another version of that
> story -- one from someone who has never tried to borrow money from
> Annie and doesn't have a grudge against her.
>
> The board looked like the guy (was it Danny?) had a low and Annie had
> a high. The guy said, "we're just gonna chop it, want to chop now?".
> Annie, relying on his word that he had a low, said "Sure". The guy
> quickly mucked his hand rather than normal procedure of flashing his
> low. Annie, being trusting but quick witted, realized the guy didn't
> have a low, he had a busted draw, and said, "I'm not giving you half
> the pot if you didn't have a low".
>
> Who was shooting the angle?
Anyone who thinks Annie was shooting an angle here apparently doesn't
play much poker. Those of us who do play a lot know that it is common
practice, especially in split-pot games, to speed things up by halting
the betting when it looks like it's a chop. But etiquette dictates that
if you say you have 'X', you have to show 'X'. And the rules clearly
state that you don't get pushed a pot unless you have a live hand.
Whether you deliberately muck a losing hand to avoid getting caught, or
accidentally muck a winning hand because you're careless or stupid, you
don't deserve half the pot.
If Annie had ripped the cards out of the guy's hand and thrown them in
the muck, then there'd be something to whine about. But nobody made
this guy muck his hand. He was either trying to get away with something,
or he was being careless or stupid. No matter how you tell the story,
it comes down to the fact that he voluntarily mucked his hand. If it
were some little old lady playing 1-5, I'd probably let her have half
the pot, but my understanding was this was a very high-stakes game,
where people really ought to know better.
Lin
Shawn Nelsen
hand, I'm entitled to half the pot, period. Verbal action in turn is
binding.
Shawn Nelsen
"Linda Sherman" <linsh...@dimsbam.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Vtz6a.49467$rq4.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
carl
Now the situation is not quite as clear cut as Daniel makes it, the
guy may have been shooting an angle, but if he was it worked and he
has to get paid off.
"Shawn Nelsen" <shawn....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<JDjaa.2945$9p2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
FutsNucker
whiney little bitch, isn't he!
--
I've got the Futs Nucker!!!
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Maverick
> On Feb 19 2003 7:56 AM, Daniel Negreanu wrote:
what about the stench from her feet? I wonder if Annie Duke's ex-
would come back to RGP to threaten people again for saying her
shoeless feet at the table stink to high heaven. If her feet are that
stinky, imagine what her ya ya smells like...been to the docks lately?