Daniel N. lacks pure poker skills?

[ginko]

tame dueces is right, also its laughable that someone could think DN isnt good at poker.

I definatly dont think he is the best, but he is very very good.

[leatherass]

LOL. Do enjoy looking forward to dying and what, going into the ground? You people who are so anti-christian really make no sense. And I can also guarantee have never spent years searching for scientific answers to prove it right or wrong.

[Hotel Detect]

[ QUOTE ]
If anything, it seems Daniel's biggest fault is his ego, that is in allowing himself to be put in gambling situations that are -EV for him. It seems that except for (maybe) Benyamine, Ivey, Antonius every other gambler/poker player has games he is better at and games he is worse at, and smartly chooses to not risk large portions of their bankroll at the latter.

Unlike other big name pros, Daniel is very open with his willingness to put himself in obviously -EV situations (i.e. getting hustled at golf, playing online shorthanded LHE against specialists).

Based on the way he writes and thinks about poker, it seems he has a very good understanding of the game and very good pure poker skills, but because of his ego, possible tilt, and his gambool he puts himself in -EV situations, as is evidenced in HSP.

If anything, you could probably argue Daniel's pure poker skills are his saving grace, as he seems to have other tendencies that make most excellent poker players perpetually broke and unsuccessful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good post, I agree completely... Although I would point out that it seems to me that DN admits he does not have an edge over top online players, so I do not see what the controversy is here.

[UNiT o1]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I offended a Christian. Yay! No seriously, I've studied it AND it's history (Church every sunday till 15, christian elementry school, Boston College - jesuit) Nothing wrong with improving your life. You can proclaim to be christian and be good. But I'm saying if you do so, you don't understand the context in which the faith developed or the inherent contraditions of its philosophy. For example most faith based systems are exclusionary, and also suggest we reject certain human natures which god supposedly gave.
Being a "good" person who understands and practices the christian faith is like calling a someone a good chemist when they practice dark age alchemy. By doing alchemy, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of chemistry.

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain this & your previous comment. not to hijack this thread on an off topic tangent, but you haven't really explained christian contradiction(s) in philosophy or otherwise. although i do recognize this could be due to the fact that your original intent for this post was something else altogether. all you did was make a blanket, generalized statement again, regarding in your own words "most faith based systems" but not christianity specifically.


i would like to hear your explanation because it sounds like you only have grossly generalized/memorized arguments & sound bytes in your pocket rather than
ideas that are the fruition of careful thought & serious study on an academic level.

& before you accuse me of not knowing anything, i am fairly sure i know alot more than you in regards to religion & especially christianity unless you happen to have gone to seminary + hold some sort of mdiv degree and/or can read hebrew/aramaic/greek.

PM me if you want to discuss this, as i am in the bad habit of hitting & running threads & never going back to them after i have looked @ them once. if you don't want to, that's ok too. just curious as to your thought process when you spout off generalized accusations when it seems to me you have no real depth of knowledge/understanding on the subject matter