PPA should fire Annie Duke

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel the need to clarify and defend Annie from this unwarranted attack. First, let’s be clear, Annie Duke is not a paid employee of the PPA, nor did she receive any compensation for testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. She did it because she loves the game, she is well versed on the issues facing poker today (UIGEA, WTO, personal freedom, etc.) and most importantly she so impressed Chairman Conyers during her visit with him during the October PPA Fly-In that he personally requested her testimony at the hearing! The PPA was proud to have her represent our organization and the poker playing community at-large.

Needless to say she did an outstanding job. Several members of Congress (who currently serve on the Committee), former members of Congress (who are part of the PPA lobbying team), Congressional staff and representatives from the banking industry to the gaming industry personally sought me out to say how excellent Annie performed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key point: "Chairman Conyers... ...personally requested her testimony at the hearing"

Her testimony stands on its own merits.

To call her "breach of etiquette" cheating is way too harsh.

Given all of the other problems and other recent scandals, her advice on tourney strategy was correct and pretty basic, she wasn't playing any hands for anyone. This doesn't come any where near cheating IMO.


D$D

[4_2_it]

Emperor,

Since Annie does not work for the PPA and her testimony was at the request of Chairman Conyers, what exactly is the PPA supposed to do? Attack an ally? I'd rather see them spend their time strategizing against our real foes as opposed to attacking someone over a breach of etiquette.

[oldbookguy]

Agreed 4_2_it and I agree, bots are cheating.

As I understand this, she allied with 2 other players to beat another out.

So, how many players, us included, when at the money in a tourney will call a SS all in, then, if called by another as well simply ‘check down’ to the river (unless one hits the flop, turn or river really big with what is the nuts), hoping one of the 2 beat the all in SS player, increasing the odds.

Is this any different?

Lets go one more. How many players here use the calculators to (not me, I can do math) while playing? Is this not cheating?
It would be if you were taking a pencil and paper only math test and snuck a calculator in, correct?

Get over it, it is, in many ways, no different (though some) than what all players do when deep in the money or bubbling, working with other stacks to push out the SS players.

obg

[Skallagrim]

I work with people I dont personally like every day; if its good or necessary for my business, I put up with it and feel no need to mention it.

Whatever Annie's faults, to put her in the same league as the 1919 White Sox is way over the top.

She did a great job testifying, no question.

Leave the personal animosity outside of the cause, no one is asking you to socialize with her.

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

My point Skall, I am not against here in any way.

Those who are need to get over it.

I do hope the reply was not intended at my post, rather simply was the last post in line?

obg

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
I work with people I dont personally like every day; if its good or necessary for my business, I put up with it and feel no need to mention it.

Whatever Annie's faults, to put her in the same league as the 1919 White Sox is way over the top.

She did a great job testifying, no question.

Leave the personal animosity outside of the cause, no one is asking you to socialize with her.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone seems to be focusing on the one incident last year.
Daniel Negreanu has given many personal anecdotes of her BLATANTLY cheating.
HUNDREDS of posters here and on rgp have given personal anecdotes of her angle shooting, and THOUSANDS of posters posted condemning those actions. (feel free to use search engine)

The 1919 White Sox don't compare to Annie's compulsive problem imo.

I thought that by posting that I could drum up support to pressure the PPA into not being involved with Annie Duke. Obviously the posters of this subforum, or at least the ones trolling this post, are too starstruck to care about her credibility or how that might hurt our cause.

My mistake.

DN an AD

In case you missed it

Terrence's Nightmare

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

I thought that by posting that I could drum up support to pressure the PPA into not being involved with Annie Duke. Obviously the posters of this subforum, or at least the ones trolling this post, are too starstruck to care about her credibility or how that might hurt our cause.

My mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not trolling nor starstruck.

The Chairman requested her personally. I personally didn't see her as the most persuasive speaker from the fly-in, I don't pimp the PPA.

All said I still totally disagree with your position on this issue. She was by all measures an effective witness. I can't stand Helmutt, but if he was effective I suport his use as well.

There are very few perfect allies in this world, none in politics.



D$D

[Skallagrim]

No, Emporer, you are the one who misses it.

Even if I agree (I dont know honestly) that AD is a despicable person and poker player, that does not mean that we should shun her when she is doing good work for all of us.

The idea that our opponents or members of congress would care even a small bit about AD's reputation in the poker community is laughable - most of them have no idea a poker community exists. The idea that they COULD try and use it against us is the only arguably legitimate point you have, but it too is minor compared to the other factors previously mentioned.

Consider: Larry Flynt is one of the most notorious pornographers out there, and his person life contains more than a small amount of human failings. Yet his defense of his parody of Jerry Falwell was one of the high points of free speech rights in the last 50 years.

By your logic the ACLU and other lovers of free speech should have distanced itself from Flynt and his case because of distaste for him personally and the fact that there are "better" representatives for the cause. If they (we) had done that, what fools we would like now.

You are asking us to make the obvious mistake of turning on an effective ally simply because (if you are correct) she is far from perfect in her personal/professional life.

Since when did being perfect become needed to represent a cause?

Ever heard the quote "let he who is without sin cast the first stone?"

And OBG, I guess I have to be more careful about using the "quick reply" option.

Skallagrim

[Emperor]

Thank you for educating me on the requirements to be an effective spokesperson. I guess this also translates to the current election.

Hillary's lack of credibility isn't deterring the liberal base.

Ron Paul's exceptional credibility isn't inspiring the conservative base.

Hijacking my own thread due to the fact that nobody cares about credibility.

[metsandfinsfan]

[ QUOTE ]
My mistake.

DN an AD

In case you missed it

Terrence's Nightmare

[/ QUOTE ]

all i see is stupid forum bs gossip ... there is not one shred of evidence that any of this is true