You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Daniel Colman
Thought this was shareworthy for those havent heard
After winning the One Drop yesterday for over $15 million, Daniel "mrGR33N13" Colman didn't want to give interviews to the poker media and left the tournament area 5 minutes after winning the event.
Many wondered what was his reason for not giving an interview, but Colman gave his explanation later on the TwoPlusTwo poker forum, which you can read from below:
" I really don't owe anyone an explanation but Ill give one...
First off, I don't owe poker a single thing. I've been fortunate enough to benefit financially from this game, but I have played it long enough to see the ugly side of this world. It is not a game where the pros are always happy and living a fulfilling life. To have a job where you are at the mercy of variance can be insanely stressful and can lead to a lot of unhealthy habits. I would never in a million years recommend for someone to try and make it as a poker pro.
It is also not a game where the amateurs are always happy to be losing their money for the sake of entertainment. The losers lose way more money at this game then winners are winning. A lot of this is money they cant afford to lose. This is fine of course because if someone is dumb enough to gamble with money they cant afford to lose, that's their problem. Im not really buying that though. In a perfect world, markets are based on informed consumers making rational transactions. In reality sadly that's not the case, markets are based on advertising trying to play on peoples impulses and targeting their weaknesses in order for them to make irrational decisions. I get it if someone wants to go and play poker on their own free will, but I don't agree with gambling being advertised just like I don't agree with cigarettes and alcohol being advertised.
It bothers me that people care so much about poker's well being. As poker is a game that has such a net negative effect on the people playing it. Both financially and emotionally.
As for promoting myself, I feel that individual achievements should rarely be celebrated. I am not going to take part in it for others and I wouldn't want it for myself. If you wonder why our society is so infatuated by individuals and their success, and being a baller, it is not that way for no reason. It is their because it serves a clear purpose. If you get people to look up to someone and adhere to the "gain wealth, forget all but self" motto, then you can get them to ignore the social contract which is very good for power systems. Also it serves as a means of distraction to get people to not pay attention to the things that do matter.
These are just my personal views. And yes, I realize I am conflicted. I capitalize off this game that targets peoples weaknesses. I do enjoy it, I love the strategy part of it, but I do see it as a very dark game.
Happy to read any ones opinions that could convince me otherwise of my views. "
lots of animated responses on 2+2, but guess the highlights are these
"Sure, I'll tackle this part.
Poker is one of the LEAST "dark games" in the entire world economy.
Let's compare and contrast.
Poker has:
a) Well defined and easily learned rules that no one can change mid-stream.
b) Democratization of tools and teachings to learn and master the game (with the appropriate effort, dedication, determination, and diligence).
c) Democratized access to the game. Got cash? You can play.
d) Ethical norms (obviously, there are major exceptions/thieves, but where else can you generally leave $2,000 on a table and walk away for a bit?)
e) Agency. That is, if you choose to play poker, whether it be as a hobby, a profession, or, yes, as an addiction, you still NEED to get on that plane, walk to that table, sit down, take out cash, and buy in via your own volition.
Compare that to other major engines of the world economy... let's call those "Wall Street" for short. It's trite and cute and a scapegoat, but please allow for that generalization, which, while a generalization, isn't actually a terrible one.
Wall Street has:
a) Obscure rules that are incredibly difficult if not impossible to learn if you're not on the "inside." Further, those in power constantly change the rules mid-stream to benefit themselves and to shut out potential newcomers.
b) Nearly no access to tools and teachings to master the "game."
c) Incredible barriers - forget the movie you saw where that one guy hustled and worked and made it big; it's really hard to get a good job on Wall Street.
d) Horrible ethical norms and very little expectation or assumption of integrity. "Wall Street" is, in various ways, just one of the ugliest things in the world.
e) A total lack of agency. That is to say nearly EVERYONE is affected by Wall Street... whether you choose to "play the game" or not! Take one small example: high frequency trading. Reportedly, HFT allows trading firms to continually ping the market to determine an average Joe's limit order, forcing poor Joe to pay extra for equity purchases while the HFT takes its "rent." Now take one large example: The global financial/debt/mortgage crisis. "Wall Street's" greed destroyed the economy. Again, poker requires agency - you decide to sit down at the table or not and you accept the consequences. "Wall Street" doesn't require any agency - "Wall Street" creates the world's biggest losers without even allowing them to sit at the table or to weigh in (or, moreso, benefit from) the consequences.
So again, excuse the generalization, but you can think this contrast through and apply it to other types of macro economic entities and trends.
Poker is different than all of them, and in almost all the right ways.
Compared to the world's economic engines, poker is transparent, reliable, honest, well-defined, democratic, egalitarian, and well regulated.
I'm not suggesting poker is perfect, or that everyone who plays or offers the game is a saint. They're not. And this is not a "black or white" argument - there are many gradations.
But if you worry about exploitation in poker... well, don't.
In a world of "games," you're playing one of the most honest and fair."
Olivier Busquets response on his twitter - https://twitter.com/olivierbusquet
and of course Daniel Negreanu's - http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-journal.php?subaction=showfull&id=1404430849&archive&start_from&ucat
Such a boss Negreanu!
Comments
So far I have three job in my life.
1) Private sector sales role whilst at uni
2) Accountant in public sector
3) Poker Pro
By far the most immoral of the three is the public sector and its not even close.
Very interesting stuff.
D-Negs wins.
He get's a lot of stick in some parts but Negreanu frequently comes up with some good alternative angles to look at things in his blogs/interviews.
I agree with what colman says about "poker" but I'm not sure he's talking about the game itself or the things that come with it. Poker is glorified A LOT in the media and movies. Most people who know about poker but don't understand the game just see it as gambling, plain and simple. I have tried to make various people understand its a game of maths, strategy, tells, playing styles etc etc and it falls on deaf ears. Its played in a casino, its turning cards over, its gambling lol.
Negreanu's post is spot on. Although when specifically talking about the one drop obviously this event is amazing and is basically for the super rich and philanthropic who like poker.
Like Negreanu says, anybody with an addictive personality, or somebody who makes bad choices may find poker a minefield of negative things, but they'll find that in whatever they do. I think much more worrying for society is the true gambling culture. Where gambling/bingo/online casinos/mobile gambling seems rife. I was sat waiting in the barbers the other day and a young lad (early 20's) came in and sat next to me. He got his phone out and due to the size of the screen I could see he was playing a fruit machine app at 20p a spin. He just sat and fluttered away £20 in 5 minutes!
Further to what posters above me have said, the whole world is corrupt. Capitalism is immoral anyway and poker is operating within that system. "Dark sides" can be found in anything.
Maybe he should have done the interviews and used them to put his points across??
I think most of it will be going to his backers.
i only found out today that coleman shunned/shied away from post-comp interviews & my initial reaction is what's all the fuss about?
as a sponsored pro i'd of course be obligated to give those interviews, but why someone who ponied up the dough themselves, or amongst friends, should be pressured into endless interviews, be all smiling, gush about how great the game is, pose with endless dolly birds & obscene amounts of cash & no doubt how wsop, harrahs & espn run the greatest show in the world, blah, blah, etc, etc is beyond me.
sure, he could have gotten a different agenda across but i doubt most players prep a winners speech in advance & perhaps after 3 days play he's just exhausted & it's far easier to just say 'no thanks'.
i admire his stance; not everyone is the outgoing/flamboyant negreanu & esfandiari types & not everyone desires to be the centre of attention, even for just 30 minutes - believe me there are enough players out there more than willing to try & fill those boots in future events given half the opportunity, so it's not like the whole media circus & is going to grind to a halt because one unsponsored player declines a winners interview.
Like Negreanu said in his blog, we dont have to say thanks or tip waiters/taxi drivers etc..., but as well-mannered human beings who appreiciate the job they are doing we do.
Wouldn't have took 5 minutes for him to just say he was thrilled to win the event, and a thanks to the staff, dealers, tourne director etc..
It seems that by not wanting to do the interviews, and then announcing his explanation on the 2+2 forum he did afterall want to be the centre of attention, and he has suceeded.
I don't necessarily agree with his stance in rejecting the interviews etc but in his comments I think he makes a lot of really good points and I think it actually benefits the community a lot that some of these things are openly discussed for the first time. He shouldn't be criticised for raising his concerns although his timing doesn't do him any favours.
My personal opinion is if you buy into a tournament at the wsop you should be aware of the expectations (consequences?) that come along with winning the tournament and to some extent you should suck it up and consider it part of your job.
I find myself agreeing with a lot of his comments about poker in general. There are lots of unpleasant aspects to poker:
- I try to play more hands against the bad players so that I can take their money from them.
- I will use the find a player function to try and share a table with someone I think is really bad
- I will choose my bet sizing to win the maximum I can from someone else
- I play more on weekend evenings in the hope that my opponents are drunk
- Sometimes I win money from people who can't afford to lose their money and have far more at stake than they should
Ultimately, I had my eyes open and I knew all of this when I signed up and it really doesn't bother me. I'm not sure it bothers Daniel Colman. The issue though is the number of players coming into the game without their eyes open, who don't realise that 99% of players lose, who risk money that is vital to them, who think they can go pro after one win. Although it's his job to win money from these players I can understand why he wouldn't want to become the poster boy for these people who perhaps should know better
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)