|
|
#1
05-04-2007, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Stupid Debate: What Constitutes a \"TV Pro?\"
A friend of mine just laughed at me for calling Daniel Negreanu a TV pro.
By his definition: [ QUOTE ] A t.v. pro is someone like Hachem or Jamie Gold. Someone that has won an event or two, which was televised, but they aren't necessarily pros. [/ QUOTE ] My contention is that anyone who frequents live televised tournaments and is a professional poker player (even if it's only because they won a huge tourney and could afford to quit their jobs and play full time) qualifies as a "TV pro". He responds with: [ QUOTE ] how is he a tv pro? he is a pro that plays on tv... "tv pro" is way more derogatory. no one uses "tv pro" as an endearing term for a good poker player. [/ QUOTE ] While I would agree that "TV pro" has a certain negative connotation. I believe that is due to the lack of respect online players give to most of the actual TV tournament pros. And guys like Negreanu, Ivey, and Doyle are still fall under that definition, despite having proven themselves as very talented poker players. So what do you think? Was I wrong to call Danny a "TV pro?" DISCLAIMER: This is a stupid and petty post. Flame at your own discretion. 
|
|
#2
05-04-2007, 02:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stupid Debate: What Constitutes a \"TV Pro?\"
[ QUOTE ]
DISCLAIMER: This is a stupid and petty post. Flame at your own discretion. [/ QUOTE ] Nah, its just posted in the wrong place. Probably better served in NVG or Televised Poker.
|
|
#4
05-04-2007, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stupid Debate: What Constitutes a \"TV Pro?\"
There's no official "off topic" forum, so when in doubt I post in the zoo. Mods feel free to move if as you deem appropriate.
|
|
#5
05-04-2007, 04:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stupid Debate: What Constitutes a \"TV Pro?\"
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
