Quote:
Originally Posted by BRm34eva
RIP
I would have loved to sit and play with him. He seemed like such a standup gentleman that just wanted to have some run good.
whodat
Oh so much this. So many people in a poker tournament are just complete POSes. And then you had Darvin Moon, who seemed like just a nice, straight-forward gentleman there to have a good time. And he never changed his demeanor or attitude once while going on one of the greatest rungoods a person can have. RIP Mr. Moon.
Just think of the timeline where he wins that QJ v 99 flip against Cada and then wins one more flip against a fairly short-stacked Cada to win the entire thing. So close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogFace
Is this true? Can't find the news anywhere except one random Twitter post.
I just re-watched the 2009 WSOP earlier this summer was struck by what a polite, gracious player Darvin was. I also think he had a little more poker acumen than he probably got credit for having. Definitely one of the most indelible characters from the 00s WSOP telecasts.
He was aggressive. In an interview he gave sometime on the last day of non-main-event play, they asked him what his strategy was - "I like to make them pay to see cards". He may not have known much past "I have two of the same card and oh look there's a third one of them on the board in front of me", but he knew that aggression = good.
Allow me to quote two of my favorite posts on here - from 2010:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actionjunkie
+1
A fish that plays like a nit but goes on a super heater in WSOP min cashes. A hyper aggressive fish on the same heater can final table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tw33Ty
Dont worry, that impossible. Nits cant win massive MTTs.
The only reason bad players like Gold and Yang or even Darvin finishing second won was because they were aggressive, even though they are bad players overall.
Needless to say, if you suck at poker and somehow win a seat or can afford a seat, just play hyper aggressive. If you nit it up, I guarantee you will never win.