davislane
Straight Flush
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2020
- Messages
- 9,999
- Reaction score
- 14,694
@SpaceMonkey420 . Are you still taking action on DNEGs?Back the money truck up to Doug's place! First session went pretty much as expected, Doug handily erases the deficit from the first 200 hands and is up over $150,000 now!
Yes@SpaceMonkey420 . Are you still taking action on DNEGs?
thats why I like you man. absolute sicko.
^^ this!Negreanu would win live. Polk will dominate online. Two completely different games. Personally, I think live face to face heads up means more. No hiding behind screens and using extra resources.
I agree personally can’t stand online poker one bit.Negreanu would win live. Polk will dominate online. Two completely different games. Personally, I think live face to face heads up means more. No hiding behind screens and using extra resources.
How many hands did they play this session?
I voted Polk just because of his experience in the format, but I think it’s going to be really close.I'm curious how many people are choosing the winner based on how much they dislike the other guy.
I'm curious how many people are choosing the winner based on how much they dislike the other guy.
Careful, you're awefully close to becoming political![]()
I like Daniel more (although both of them have major issues imho - who doesn't?), but I picked Polk to win simply because it's online.I'm curious how many people are choosing the winner based on how much they dislike the other guy.
What sense?Can we just put the "More rake is better" argument to bed? He never said that.
D Negs ain't perfect, but that quote was taken out of context and it actually made sense what he said. I don't even agree with it, but it makes sense.
I believe his point was that if you increase the rake on low stakes games, you chase away the pros, making the games ore playable for recs. Not exactly "more rake is better" but kind of a "look on the bight side" perspective.What sense?
Fuck Daniel and more rake is better. He's so flipping out of touch from his modest roots. He was able to grow fat off of his Pokerstars / Amaya Gaming sponsorship and just blatantly ignored all the shit of Spin N Gos, bots farming low limit PLO, and the removal of Supernova Elites.
Doug is not the saviour of all that is holy in the poker industry, he's just a guy. A guy that has won tons of money at the very pinnacle of online poker in his prime. But he's not beholden to any one person or corporation. He gave his own take on a lot of poker developments on his now retired Youtube poker channel and he wasn't afraid to call out people on their bullshit. Torelli hiding chips, Daniel's rake statement, Mike Postle's scandal, he put in a lot of time and effort into discussing these, also being entertaining while doing so.
I'd happily have a beer with Doug and talk about a myriad of things with him, poker and non-poker topics.
Can I imagine doing the same with Daniel? Not in the least.
Reminds me when they started talking about the "skiing competition" in the live game.Careful, you're awefully close to becoming political![]()
There are players that play for fun, and there are players that play for profit.What sense?
Exactly. I don't even necessarily agree with his comment. But it's far from what people called it.I believe his point was that if you increase the rake on low stakes games, you chase away the pros, making the games ore playable for recs. Not exactly "more rake is better" but kind of a "look on the bight side" perspective.
Bottom line though, more rake is always bad for an individual player's bottom line whether they are a rec or a pro.Exactly. I don't even necessarily agree with his comment. But it's far from what people called it.
Compared to less rake? Of course. But that wasn't the point Daniel was making, though Doug would certainly have you believe that it was.Bottom line though, more rake is always bad for an individual player's bottom line whether they are a rec or a pro.