Annie Duke Anecdotes (long)

1278 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Gary Carson

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 6:09:13 AM2/19/03
to
Let's see. She's a bad person because she made fun of you for sitting
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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 6:16:27 AM2/19/03
to
When the image she is trying to portray is that of a victim of rude, obnoxious
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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 6:24:30 AM2/19/03
to
On 19 Feb 2003 11:16:27 GMT, ninja1...@aol.com (Ninja1357924)
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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 6:58:50 AM2/19/03
to
Your stance makes perfect sense to me. It may not be your best "life
strategy" but it makes perfect sense.

Now about these "friends" that have ripped people off...

tvp

Peg Smith

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 7:03:09 AM2/19/03
to
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?

Show us your integrity, Danny...y'understan? Let your peoples know.

Peg

Peg Smith

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 7:37:13 AM2/19/03
to
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

James L. Hankins

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 9:36:36 AM2/19/03
to
<shakes head sadly from side to side> Just pitiful.


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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 12:41:45 PM2/19/03
to
It's good to see you active again at RGP. I hope you stick around.

Darryl Parsons

Irish Mike

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 1:44:30 PM2/19/03
to
Don't know either of you bucko but you make some good points - however, the
stereotypical black vernacular undermines your statement..

Irish Mike

desire

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 1:06:07 PM2/19/03
to
Dear Dan,

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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 1:21:58 PM2/19/03
to
Anonymous troll. Pathetic.


"desire" <shylilv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e35fc4dc.03021...@posting.google.com...

James L. Hankins

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 1:26:20 PM2/19/03
to
He "made some good points?" Seems like unprovoked, drunken rambling to me.
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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 1:50:29 PM2/19/03
to
"Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:igQ4a.227$se1.1...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> Don't know either of you bucko but you make some good points - however,
the
> stereotypical black vernacular undermines your statement..
>


Word.

JT


Nat Silver

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 2:10:39 PM2/19/03
to
Annie is special, a woman with formal
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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 4:17:41 PM2/19/03
to
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?

Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com

Jdoo123

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 4:34:02 PM2/19/03
to
>Subject: Re: Annie Duke Anecdotes (long)
>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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 4:37:00 PM2/19/03
to
Oy, that's pretty thin, Gary. In my experience, if I agree to chop in that
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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 5:10:37 PM2/19/03
to
On 19 Feb 2003 21:34:02 GMT, jdo...@aol.com (Jdoo123) wrote:


>>
>>
>>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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 5:11:16 PM2/19/03
to

"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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 5:12:39 PM2/19/03
to
Good golly, Mizz Gary, she imposed no condition of the chop.

Eleaticus

"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:3e53f466...@news.mindspring.com...

Gary Carson

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 5:20:19 PM2/19/03
to
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:37:00 GMT, "James L. Hankins" <jhankins5@[NO
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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 5:22:09 PM2/19/03
to
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:12:39 -0600, "eleaticus"
<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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 5:43:05 PM2/19/03
to
> <snip>
> ...and I was never one to

> close my eyes and shut my mouth when I see somethin' I don't like.
>
>
> Daniel Negreanu
> 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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 6:44:55 PM2/19/03
to
"Finally, however,
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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 5:56:43 PM2/19/03
to

"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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 5:57:53 PM2/19/03
to
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.


"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:3e53f466...@news.mindspring.com...

Gary Carson

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 6:04:12 PM2/19/03
to
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:56:43 GMT, "Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvcm.com>
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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 6:19:58 PM2/19/03
to
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:57:53 GMT, "Stacy, Rodney and Josie Black"
<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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 6:32:46 PM2/19/03
to

"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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 6:34:13 PM2/19/03
to

"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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 6:41:43 PM2/19/03
to
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:32:46 GMT, "Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvcm.com>
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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 6:44:28 PM2/19/03
to
>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.

We all are aware of the hard on you have for Danny, Gary.

Jdoo123

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 6:46:45 PM2/19/03
to
>Subject: Re: Annie Duke Anecdotes (long)
>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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 7:38:06 PM2/19/03
to

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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 7:47:12 PM2/19/03
to
On 19 Feb 2003 23:44:28 GMT, jdo...@aol.com (Jdoo123) wrote:

>>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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 7:51:29 PM2/19/03
to

"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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 8:23:45 PM2/19/03
to

"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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 8:42:51 PM2/19/03
to
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 01:23:45 GMT, "Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvcm.com>
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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 9:19:05 PM2/19/03
to

"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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 10:20:24 PM2/19/03
to
>Subject: Re: Annie Duke Anecdotes (long)
>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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 10:24:24 PM2/19/03
to
In article <RZT4a.449106$HG.78...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, "Stacy, Rodney

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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 10:30:46 PM2/19/03
to
On 20 Feb 2003 03:24:24 GMT, pegsm...@aol.comnocrap (Peg Smith)
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

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 10:50:33 PM2/19/03
to
In article <yuU4a.184$Ua.6...@news2.west.cox.net>, "Lee Munzer"
<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

unread,
Feb 20, 2003, 1:40:04 AM2/20/03
to
Comments interspersed.

"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

unread,
Feb 20, 2003, 3:35:42 AM2/20/03
to
why dont you tell us if you know and it is in the interest of everyone who
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

unread,
Feb 20, 2003, 3:46:15 AM2/20/03
to
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:35:42 +0800, "Al"
<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.