Ive railed colman in husngs and seen him goad fish into playing higher limits, watched him take buyin after buyin of one poor unfortunate at 1k hypers whilst saying things like 'whats it like being stupid and broke'? And thats his more pleasant table chat. Poker may be a dark game, but he's willingly and consciously exploited that. He's no white knight, He does admit his stance is conflicted but for those who arent familiar with his reputation, its worth pointing out just how bad his table demeanour/behaviour is. Posted by TeddyBloat
Pretty poor! Maybe he's had a pang of guilt and now regrets it all...:)
Re the interview, totally understand why he didn't want to do the interview, and was totally his decision so fair play to him.
Bit bizarre he then felt the need to respond on 2 plus 2.
He raised some good, and interesting points, but that might not have been the place for it (or time)
In Response to Re: Daniel Colman : This. In a nutshell, Capitalism is immoral. Sadly we live in a world whoms cycle makes the rich get richer whilst the poor get poorer. I could go deep into this but it's not really worth it. Posted by DoubleAAA
Not sure I agree with you there Ali. Poker is about using information to exploit your opponents into giving you their money (or the other way round!). That in its own right makes Poker the purest form of capitalism. It's all about survival of the fittest.
It's very similar to trading on Wall Street or in the City, anyone who has the intellectual capacity to take on board pretty basic concepts can make money, and yes like poker it's usually at the expense of others. Wall street has been shown to be corrupt since the financial crisis, but do you honestly think poker is any different?
Comments
As long as he doesn't use his whole timebank on the river before typing ":P ty" and calling with the nuts he's not as bad as the $15 hu guys
Re the interview, totally understand why he didn't want to do the interview, and was totally his decision so fair play to him.
Bit bizarre he then felt the need to respond on 2 plus 2.
He raised some good, and interesting points, but that might not have been the place for it (or time)