35 replies to this topic

[teneight]

he is going to be on Jimmy kimmel on dec. 19h. ABC just incase someone didnt know. it is on at midnightgood luckteneightJimmy kimmel Rules!!! ...not as much as conan though

[STYLINHAWYN]

teneight said:

Jimmy kimmel Rules!!! ...not as much as conan though

thx for the heads up, TIVO is set to record, would be cool to know what he is doing with all that money he won.meh, not much a Jimmy Kimmel fan, he doesn't have the Texas Walker Ranger Video Clip lever

[dereeekho]

i'd rather see kimmel interview hachem than conan. conan has no clue about poker, and i think kimmel frequents vegas often.

[TCB_Elvis]

So which date is it..............17th or 19th?

[Royal_Tour]

meh,They might as well just start interviewing all lottery winners too.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I won a free sausage mcmuffin in the last monopoly contest at McDonalds... Ill be on January 3rd.

[Ron_Mexico]

I saw him at an outdoor coffee house in Palm Beach the other day. I was sitting at the table next to him enjoying a bloody mary with a young lady.He leaned over and asked me to PASS THE SUGA. I politely declined and hit my boat.Royal, you are a bitter man. I mean your taste, not your disposition. Would you please start eating more fruit and lay of the asparagus?

[Royal_Tour]

Ron_Mexico said:

Royal, you are a bitter man. I mean your taste, not your disposition. Would you please start eating more fruit and lay of the asparagus?

hmmmm...... No.

[Ron_Mexico]

Royal_Tour said:

Ron_Mexico said:

Royal, you are a bitter man. I mean your taste, not your disposition. Would you please start eating more fruit and lay of the asparagus?

hmmmm...... No.

fine, finish yourself next time.

[Royal_Tour]

Ron_Mexico said:

Royal_Tour said:

Ron_Mexico said:

Royal, you are a bitter man. I mean your taste, not your disposition. Would you please start eating more fruit and lay of the asparagus?

hmmmm...... No.

fine, finish yourself next time.

Bradburn tells me otherwise, you're just too picky. Althought, granted, he would suck back anything in a semi liquid state, I mean the guy can make fear factor food stunts look like a delicacy

[kook04]

Royal_Tour said:

meh,They might as well just start interviewing all lottery winners too.

Are you a better poker player than Joe Hachem?

[Royal_Tour]

kook04 said:

Royal_Tour said:

meh,They might as well just start interviewing all lottery winners too.

Are you a better poker player than Joe Hachem?

I dunno, I mean Moneymaker has the same title Hachem has. Not implying anything, but i'm sure i could hold my own agianst either of them.

[Ron_Mexico]

Royal_Tour said:

kook04 said:

Royal_Tour said:

meh,They might as well just start interviewing all lottery winners too.

Are you a better poker player than Joe Hachem?

I dunno, I mean Moneymaker has the same title Hachem has. Not implying anything, but i'm sure i could hold my own agianst either of them.

He'd probably hold theirs as well. Just Saying. He has supple, soft hands, but tough fingertips from typing all had. Like little mini pee pee's with bulbus tips.

[kook04]

Royal_Tour said:

I dunno, I mean Moneymaker has the same title Hachem has. Not implying anything, but i'm sure i could hold my own agianst either of them.

I agree that winning a WSOP bracelet makes you a poker phenom. However, The both won a braclet against (at the time) the largest field ever assembled. In Hachem's case, he finished 1st in a tourney that took over a week of 12 - 15 hour days to complete, and featured 5,600 players.I don't know about you, but I feel I am the best player in my home games, and I have nights where I can't even make it through a field of 15. You used the "lottery" analogy, and I don't think it holds water in this case. The mathmatical probablity of someone winning this years main even because they not only "got lucky", but didn't get unlucky is astronomical. Essentially, I think Joe Hachem is a good poker player who managed to avoid disaster for a week. That's what it takes to win a tournament of this size. A terrible (or even bad) poker player is not going to win a week long tourney against 5,600 people no matter how lucky he is. Someone could suck out as and 80/20 dog ten times in that week, and it still wouldn't be enough to win. You need to play well also.

[ShakeZuma]

kook04 said:

Royal_Tour said:

I dunno, I mean Moneymaker has the same title Hachem has. Not implying anything, but i'm sure i could hold my own agianst either of them.

I agree that winning a WSOP bracelet makes you a poker phenom. However, The both won a braclet against (at the time) the largest field ever assembled. In Hachem's case, he finished 1st in a tourney that took over a week of 12 - 15 hour days to complete, and featured 5,600 players.I don't know about you, but I feel I am the best player in my home games, and I have nights where I can't even make it through a field of 15. You used the "lottery" analogy, and I don't think it holds water in this case. The mathmatical probablity of someone winning this years main even because they not only "got lucky", but didn't get unlucky is astronomical. Essentially, I think Joe Hachem is a good poker player who managed to avoid disaster for a week. That's what it takes to win a tournament of this size. A terrible (or even bad) poker player is not going to win a week long tourney against 5,600 people no matter how lucky he is. Someone could suck out as and 80/20 dog ten times in that week, and it still wouldn't be enough to win. You need to play well also.

who finished second again?

[Royal_Tour]

kook04 said:

Royal_Tour said:

I dunno, I mean Moneymaker has the same title Hachem has. Not implying anything, but i'm sure i could hold my own agianst either of them.

I agree that winning a WSOP bracelet makes you a poker phenom. However, The both won a braclet against (at the time) the largest field ever assembled. In Hachem's case, he finished 1st in a tourney that took over a week of 12 - 15 hour days to complete, and featured 5,600 players.I don't know about you, but I feel I am the best player in my home games, and I have nights where I can't even make it through a field of 15. You used the "lottery" analogy, and I don't think it holds water in this case. The mathmatical probablity of someone winning this years main even because they not only "got lucky", but didn't get unlucky is astronomical. Essentially, I think Joe Hachem is a good poker player who managed to avoid disaster for a week. That's what it takes to win a tournament of this size. A terrible (or even bad) poker player is not going to win a week long tourney against 5,600 people no matter how lucky he is. Someone could suck out as and 80/20 dog ten times in that week, and it still wouldn't be enough to win. You need to play well also.

I never said he was bad, or terrible. But i do think there was a huge amount of luck involved in his win.You asked me, if i thought i was a better player, well i cant say Yes to that, but i can say i'm sure I could hold my own. without any real worry.Trouble with 15 eh?, well sucks to be you. Considering i finish in the money in MTT's very often, have a few large 300 + players wins, and have worked my way down to top 100 in fields of 3 -4k players in the PP 20+ buy-ins, I think its fair of me to say a player like him did get very lucky to win with such a large field.I know i would expect to shit horseshoes right after a win with a field that large.

[Royal_Tour]

ShakeZuma said:

kook04 said:

Royal_Tour said:

I dunno, I mean Moneymaker has the same title Hachem has. Not implying anything, but i'm sure i could hold my own agianst either of them.

I agree that winning a WSOP bracelet makes you a poker phenom. However, The both won a braclet against (at the time) the largest field ever assembled. In Hachem's case, he finished 1st in a tourney that took over a week of 12 - 15 hour days to complete, and featured 5,600 players.I don't know about you, but I feel I am the best player in my home games, and I have nights where I can't even make it through a field of 15. You used the "lottery" analogy, and I don't think it holds water in this case. The mathmatical probablity of someone winning this years main even because they not only "got lucky", but didn't get unlucky is astronomical. Essentially, I think Joe Hachem is a good poker player who managed to avoid disaster for a week. That's what it takes to win a tournament of this size. A terrible (or even bad) poker player is not going to win a week long tourney against 5,600 people no matter how lucky he is. Someone could suck out as and 80/20 dog ten times in that week, and it still wouldn't be enough to win. You need to play well also.

who finished second again?

Baaaahahh!,, NH

[kook04]

kook04 said:

I have nights where I can't even make it through a field of 15.

Nevermind. Based on your response to this quote, it's obvious that you've never busted out of a tournment early in your life. With that knowledge, I will conceed to you that you are better than me at not only poker, but at having a civil, logical, discussion. Good work.

[Royal_Tour]

kook04 said:

kook04 said:

I have nights where I can't even make it through a field of 15.

Nevermind. Based on your response to this quote, it's obvious that you've never busted out of a tournment early in your life. With that knowledge, I will conceed to you that you are better than me at not only poker, but at having a civil, logical, discussion. Good work.

You havent had sex in a while have you?Look at what you're doing, you look foolish. You're trying to get me to say something along the lines of "yes, i think i'm better than Hachem"You called me out with a purpose, you weeded out my 1 line in my post, and quoted it, expecting me to come back with a response, You then touched on your own experiences, and when i decide to rebuttle with my experiences you reply with a sarcastic jackass response.I told you exactly what i thought, Guy is good, and got real lucky. I've never won anything big but I think i could hold my own.why didnt this end here?

[kook04]

Royal_Tour said:

you weeded out my 1 line in my post, and quoted it

No, I quoted your entire post. Therefore, your implication that I took what you said out of context in an attempt to make you look foolish is false. It just so happened that what you said, even in context, was foolish. Good game.