Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuma
Do you feel you put a target on your horses backs? It seems like you did and it would either hurt their bottom line or challenge them to be great -- most likely the former.
No. Even if it did, what are people going to do? Try harder to win? Most of my horses aren't known to the people the play with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong
There's a famous old 2p2 thread posing the question of how many hostile five-year olds could an adult male fight to the death. I can't remember the exact paramenters, but you're trapped in a room with no exits and no things you can climb to keep away from them. They can coordinate in groups only to the extent five-year olds can, and they're solely dedicated to killing you. they have no weapons.
Or something like that. But that's clearly the reference for the question.
I think I would go to the corner so I couldn't be surrounded and then take on 20-30.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGAF
1. Do you regret doing the article?
2. Do you regret name-dropping Phelps and Hart given the context in which they were dropped- whales who like privacy?
3. While you brought up a few examples of whales enjoying the "whale" tag and being happy with the whale vs grinders relationship, do you think there might be more longevity in being more coy/rubbing their noses in it less?
4. Do any of your horses play at the same table (or with you at the same table)?
5. Are other pros in your player pool chill with your unparalelled (afaik) capitalist approach to live poker?
***While I disagree with what your approach to poker appears to be and I thought the article was very bad for poker (and likely for you), these questions are serious/without venom. I'm just curious about all this at this point.
1. No, I've got mostly good feedback except for from grinders.
2. I can't remember the context of how their names were written in the article, but I wasn't calling them whales. I just mentioned in a conversation with the poker room manager that they don't like having their picture taken and being bother when they're trying to play, so a frosted glass around the high stakes area would be a good idea. Neither one of them cares if people know they play poker. Like most celebrities, they don't want harassed while they play.
3. In my experience, rec players enjoy the challenge of getting better. They're smart people - like I mentioned earlier - and if you pretend they're something they aren't, they know. It's actually something I've been told by some players is very annoying away from the table. That said, everyone is different and should be treated differently. I don't rub anything in anyone's face, and I don't know any rec player who hasn't thought this article was cool. Like I mentioned before, I had one guy throw his number at me, tell me he was a whale, and asked to play in a private game.
4. They play at the same table a decent bit I'd assume. It isn't something I keep track of. Not with me.
5. Don't know/don't care. At MDLive there was a big fuss when I would organize $25/$50 games with all non pros.
Thanks for disagreeing in a respectful manner. To me, the days of being young and playing big while pretending not to be a professional have been dead for a while. High stakes poker is on a serious decline, and that's why I've put a lot of focus on private games - so rec players can book winnings sessions and enjoy the game more without having to deal with the speechless grinding robot - and also on staking - because LLSNL will never die imo.
It's ironic, a handful of regs have chastised me for the article and how bad it is for them game. Meanwhile, many rec players are telling me the reason they don't play more is because they don't enjoy playing with X player - the same guy trying to tell me an article is bad for the game.