Details to follow... he recently wrote a column that is so ridiculous it's laughable. So strange, so bizarre, I still don't know what to think.

He is one weird dude.

he seemed a bit more hyper than normal on poker after dark

Link me to the article?

Looks to be an update from DN coming.....
He's got me intrigued too....

I think you're pulling our legs.

From a recent column he wrote:

I really like Erick. I have a healthy amount of respect for his game and his accomplishments. I'm not sure he'd say the same about me. In fact, I've heard him say many times that "Phil has no gamble" He just might be right - see, I view poker not as gambling, but as "strategic investing" I don't play poker for the money: I play for the thrill of competition.

Erick has two big weaknesses at the table: fancy play syndrome - he's always trying to outplay his opponents after the flop, and Gamble-Gamble - he's more than willing to take a 50/50 or even worse, early in a tournament. He'll be even more wiling to do so with a payout structure like we have today. My strategy: If I'm in a pot with Erick and I have a good hand, I'm gonna let him take control of the betting and let him try to "outplay" me- I'll let him bluff off his chips. with big hands 10s or better I'll be willing to put in a big initial raise or reraise against him and hope he finds a smaller pocket pair he wants to gamble with.

**********************************************************************
************************************

What the??????? Did PHIL GORDON just matter of factly say that Erick Lindgren has two big weaknesses in his game? Then go on to give two examples that couldn't be more untrue? It's almost slanderous. E-DOG gambles on 50/50's before the flop? Huh?? What??? Huh??? What??? Is this guy serious???

How in the world did Phil Gordon become enough of an authority to say that Erick has two weaknesses in his game? If someone like Johnny Chan, or Doyle Brunson, or Chip Reese said something like that it would be somewhat understandable. But we are talking about PHIL GORDON here!!!

I'm still in shock after reading this. This dude done lost his mind. Now, I've done similarly stupid things in the past. Clearly I've crossed that line before and know that speaking negatively about others play isn't something that is usually a good idea. But for a non-professional poker player to critique an actual professional's game, and in doing so, be about as off base as humanly possible, just makes no sense to me.

The article comes off as though Gordon knows more about poker than Erick does. Phil, are you serious? Erick would absolutely trounce you at the poker table. He'd slap you up silly, seriously. You are talking about one of the best tournament players in the world today. A guy who's actually made his living playing the game of poker, whether it be online, in tournaments, or in cash games. What in the world makes you think you could spot a weakness in a player that plays better than you could even comprehend?

Phil, did you proof read that column before you sent it? It makes you come off like a complete bafoon. You started out the column complimenting Erick, but you are like the king of the backhanded compliment or something, lol.

Erick is a good buddy of mine, obviously, so you might say that I'm being biased. I'd challenge you to find 20 top players that think your comments where either accurate (in assessing his play), or appropriate coming from a TV Commentator/Author.

For the record, I don't dislike you. I think you are completely wrong in this case, but I don't think you are a jerk or anything like that. I just don't understand what motivated you to write something like that in the way that you wrote it?

Blog fodder? Edit: just read the blog. nice



I think he meant to say Eric Sidel..........er.......Erica Schoenberg........er........Eminem, ya that's it, Eminem.

Eric Molina?

No offense,DN but I have noticed on some of these broadcasts and in some of these articles that poker players- like anybody with a camera in ther face- just love to hear themselves talk. Some even do video blogs,in which the cutting of there hair is chronicled........ which I seriously think out of all the pro players out there you are the only one that could make that entertaining,but I am sure you get the point. The whole reason the players who are commentators,writers and personalities is because they talk alot,and some of it is just fluff or inaccurate- it's bound to be. We don't expect our news reporters to be right all of the time, why should I expect anybody to nail each players ability 100% of the time?

Okay, i've been wrong before.


Twice, in fact.

Check that- I would pay to see Annie Duke shave her head. It's not 1vs.100,but it would still be good fun.

Can we give Phil credit for trying to set up something psychological for when they meet? Probably not, but it's a thought.

I don't know how anyone could watch that WPT final table in Paris and not come away with huge respect for Lindgren's game.

Phil Gordon can be cool but he does come off like a bit of a donkey there.

It's nice to see you defending your friend like that. But Erick doesn't require it. Everyone knows how good he can be.

DN, whats weak about Phil's game lol? Better yet, what are the strengths of Phil's game?

...and he even has us waiting on his new video blog too!

Hey DN, I like the way you stand up for your close friends - it's admirable.
But would you have done the same for say, Phil Hellmuth?

That said, it does sound like he went a bit overboard.
But hey, controversy keeps things hummin' doesn't it? - especially in the entertainment field.
Like you said - you've done it yourself in the past.

I know he doesn't require it, but I was so shocked when I read it I couldn't figure it out?

He was just looking for something to say. Just running at the mouth.

I think he could've made the same points about how he thought Lindgren should be played without showing hubris.

There are two main flaws in Daniel Negreanu's game:

1. He calls out what someone has every hand and the directors nefariously edit it negating any obvious reading skills DN has.

This is unacceptable.

2. He tends to push all in pre-flop with middle pairs. If I see this I'll let him do this and just try to see a lot of flops and play what I like to call "small ball."

Edit: Because poker is a game of skill you see.

I seriously doubt Lindgren gives a flying flip what Phil says about his game. He's just tall, that's all. And at those altitudes the brain becomes oxygen deprived and your speech gets slurred and you say stupid $hit.

LoL, did you get to see Phil's comments on PAD Daniel?

He's actually one of the nicest players I've ever met. I met him at an airport in S.F., and he couldn't have been more ablidging about taking a picture with me and chatting about poker. He's also one of the few players over at FTP to actually engage players in chat. Overall I don't see him as weird at all.

Ah, don't bash on Gordon too hard... Phil's a great player in his own rights and has done a great job as a commentator in most of his situations (and I'm not talking about Celebrity Poker). I loved the work he did on the PPV 12 hour long 2006 Main Event Final Table...

He also does a great job of giving a skilled player's personal opinion on other players, their games, their actions... and has many outlets that have interest in publishing those views... also with many interested readers.

You have your views that seem quite extreme to many people on these forums (the recent Al Gore blog for example) and he has his views that you tend to find extreme yourself. Yes, you added a disclaimer at the end that you didn't mean to come off in a personal manner, but you did so after completely bashing his game and his ability as a poker player (which was a bit uncalled for). Standing up for your buddy is great, but don't you think those comments go a bit too far?

I sat next to him for 4 hours last july on a table at the WSOP. In my opinion, he's weird.

I agree! I love the work he does at the World Series to support charity and he just comes off as an all around genuinely nice guy... his Tiltboys are hilarious, too!

Sure. Wonder what he thought of you, or if you even registered?

Gonna go with the latter.

LOL Well done.

dammit, just when i thought my rage was gone...you have to go and mention his name

It just sounded to me like he is pretty frustrated with his own gameand heard Lindgren make a comment that hit too close to home. And he hit back. It happens. Daniel, seriously, don't fight your friends battles for them. It discounts them and their own ability to deal and it just fans the flames. Everyone can see both players these days with so much televised poker, so we don't need anyone to tell us about anyone's game, we can figure it out for ourselves.

Try meditation. Eric's a big boy, he can take care of himelf.

Okay wise@$$. Spent a month in Vegas at WSOP last two years. Will be there again this year. Hope to see you there.

I didn't bash his game at all. I said that Erick would crush him. That's just true, Erick would crush a lot of people. There wasn't one sentence in my blog that actually bashed Gordon's game. In comparing it to the likes of Erick, Chan, Doyle, etc. and saying he isn't in that class, that's not bashing his game, that's just stated an opinion.

You're right, he isn't in that class. You shoud include your name in the list above. He's a long way out.

P.S. Oops had to edit, if your punctuation isn't correct and spelling is off, you'll get Punktuated. Back to the MTTs

I sure as heck am no expert on Erick's play other than TV, but I've never seen him do the things Phils said. Hey, he's just a guy with an opinion. No clue what he was smoking here though?

On a side note, back in Nov. of '05 Phil came thru Phoenix on his Green book tour (I actually liked the book a lot btw). We were hanging out in the book store afterwards and he BS'd with 3 of us for quite a while. I thought he was a very nice guy.

(And since the blog mentioned also pool and Gavin, I have a Gavin Smith story too btw....it's in the 9-ball blog).

You're very right and I concede that you didn't bash on Phil's game necessarily. Very heated comments, though

Something new that shocked me... Erick's game is considered in the league of Chan and Doyle? That was something I've never thought to consider, but who knows? Maybe my "poker head" has been face down in the sand lately. I'm assuming a lot of this has less to do with big-time recognizable results (comparable to Chan or Doyle), but more of your knowledge of your buddy's game. On a personal note, I like him quite a bit from a fan's perspective... calm, intelligent, firm, but also fired up and aggressive attitude... that's how he seems to be portrayed, at least.

Edit: and to actually agree with Muck on an issue, regarding tournament poker, I wouldn't hesitate to put your name in that league... faster then I would Erick's. Your results are not only financially large, but are extremely recognizable in the modern era of poker.

Then why couldn't Erick crush that little Asian ****** heads up for the bracelet in 05'?

or that 21 year old Jeff Madsen in 2006?

Erick's a great player but anyone who has listened to him while he's played has heard him say that he likes to gamble.

As far as Im concerned Gordon needs to look in the mirror before he rips into somene elses game. Last time I saw E-DOG had about $4,785,510 in Poker tourney winnings...Gordon has about $992,893. He needs to stick to writing his "Little Books" cuz E-DOG is a much better poker player.

Amen. Gordon makes a few dumb comments about Lindgren's game, and you go off on a tirade about Gordon, his game, how bad of a player he is, etc. etc. Daniel, sometimes you should just STFU and think about what you're writing before you hit the "POST" button.

LOL - yea, you really had a lot of nice things to say about Phil Gordon. Re-read your post again. You didn't specifically say he sucks, but you sure as hell implied it.

You might actually want to re-read what I wrote and retract what you said. I didn't, at ANY point say he was a bad player or even make a comment based on how good or bad he is at poker. I said he is not a professional (true by definition) and doesn't play as well as Erick Lindgren, Doyle Brunson, and Johnny Chan. What part of that trashes his "game?"

What exactly do you think he implied in his published article for a poker magazine? "I have respect for his game, but he sucks at post flop play and flips coins all the time."

I don't think Gordon is a terrible poker player, I've never said that or implied that. I did say that it's ridiculous for a guy of his skill level to critique a player that is more accomplished, more respected, and just plain better than he is.

What the??????? Did PHIL GORDON just matter of factly say that Erick Lindgren has two big weaknesses in his game? Then go on to give two examples that couldn't be more untrue? It's almost slanderous. E-DOG gambles on 50/50's before the flop? Huh?? What??? Huh??? What??? Is this guy serious???


Yes, I’m serious. But maybe they are just weaknesses against a donkey like me.


How in the world did Phil Gordon become enough of an authority to say that Erick has two weaknesses in his game? If someone like Johnny Chan, or Doyle Brunson, or Chip Reese said something like that it would be somewhat understandable. But we are talking about PHIL GORDON here!!!


Everyone is entitled to their opinion, Daniel. Even PHIL “DONKEY” GORDON is entitled to an opinion.


I'm still in shock after reading this. This dude done lost his mind. Now, I've done similarly stupid things in the past. Clearly I've crossed that line before and know that speaking negatively about others play isn't something that is usually a good idea. But for a non-professional poker player to critique an actual professional's game, and in doing so, be about as off base as humanly possible, just makes no sense to me.


I wasn’t speaking negatively at all about EL. He knows how much I respect his game. He’s clearly one of the best, top 10, tournament players in the world. If you read the context of this article, you will probably notice that I’m talking solely about his play WITH RESPECT TO MY PLAY. Not with respect to your play. Or Chips. Or Doyle’s. Or Chan’s. See, Erick genuinely believes I’m a chump. And, maybe I am. But I know that he thinks I’m a chump, so I can take that into account when we’re playing together. I can make subtle chumpy adjustments to my play that might give me a slim, albeit mostly lucky, chance to win.


The article comes off as though Gordon knows more about poker than Erick does. Phil, are you serious? Erick would absolutely trounce you at the poker table. He'd slap you up silly, seriously. You are talking about one of the best tournament players in the world today. A guy who's actually made his living playing the game of poker, whether it be online, in tournaments, or in cash games. What in the world makes you think you could spot a weakness in a player that plays better than you could even comprehend?


Please, Daniel. The article doesn’t come off that way at all. That’s the way your warped brain wants to read it because you guys are so close. And maybe he would slap me silly at the table. You know what? He probably would. But, to say that he’s so much better than me that I can hardly comprehend it? Surely that is an overstatement and exaggeration. While I may not be the best poker player in the world, I’ve never represented myself as such. I know my limitations and weaknesses. I’m working on them all the time. But to say that I can’t comprehend how much better someone is than I am at NL? That just isn’t accurate. One of my biggest strengths is that I am acutely aware of the skills that my opponent has over me when they are better than I am — I’m ready and willing to acknowledge that skill differential and then try my damnedest to find a counterstrategy that will minimize it.


Phil, did you proof read that column before you sent it? It makes you come off like a complete bafoon. You started out the column complimenting Erick, but you are like the king of the backhanded compliment or something, lol.

Yes, I proof every column. And I spell check as well despite being a complete buffoon.


Erick is a good buddy of mine, obviously, so you might say that I'm being biased. I'd challenge you to find 20 top players that think your comments where either accurate (in assessing his play), or appropriate coming from a TV Commentator/Author.


No, I think you are being “Daniel.” You are unable to acknowledge that anyone who has an opinion different that your own could possibly be right — or even partially right. As far as me being a “TV Commentator and Author” goes, I’m guilty as charged. While you may be the best player in the world, I’m more than happy to be one of the best writers and teachers. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. By the way, I think you are an excellent writer yourself.


For the record, I don't dislike you. I think you are completely wrong in this case, but I don't think you are a jerk or anything like that. I just don't understand what motivated you to write something like that in the way that you wrote it?

I don’t dislike you either. In fact, I consider both you and Erick friends. We’ve had healthy debates in the past over other topics, and I would expect this to continue for some time. Re-read the article again, Danny. I wrote it only with the utmost respect for Erick, but I do point out the fact THAT HE THINKS I’M A DONKEY. Because of that fact, he plays sub-optimally against me when I might not be as big an *** as he thinks I am.



It must be a really slow news week for you to be reading and commenting on my column.

Best of luck. Hope to see you soon... Maybe we’ll draw one another in the Heads Up tournament for NBC. You’ll be salivating, I’ll be crapping my pants, and then I’ll be figuring out how you’ll play against me since I’m such easy money. I’ll probably write something about it too. Who knows, maybe I’ll even get lucky and win.... No, that wouldn’t really happen.


Phil Gordon

Wondering now if the Governor-General of Jamaica is going to show up here too.

Welcome to the forums, Phil. I think that both you and Daniel have a tendency to speak your minds in somewhat exaggerated manners...and that's mostly the crux of this miscommunication. That said, I think your response here was level-headed and reasonable...albeit understandably/defensively sarcastic in parts. You've clarified your position, and I hope that'll resolve a lot of this.

For future reference, making use of the quote feature makes replies a bit more readable.

(For the record, this is very plausibly the real Phil.)

You did it again. You can "think" that he plays sub-optimally against you, and if you write it like that, then it's acceptable. When you write it as fact, that's where you cross the line. You assume too much. You assume that he thinks you are a donkey (maybe he does), but you also assume that his play against you is sub-optimal. In order to state that, you are basically saying that you know the optimal way that Erick should play against you, and that Erick, because of your "donkey" disguise doesn't know how to play you. Did I get that right?

I will add this, I "think" you are overly sensitive about your play and the way people view you as a player. I "think" that clouds your judgement and causes you to react with phony self deprecating humor about your own game. You think people mock or make fun of you as a "tv commentator", but I don't think they do. I think you worry about that too much. That's just a guess, I could be totally wrong, but that's the feeling I get.

You constantly say things like, "A good player would raise here, but I'm not a very good player." I don't think you believe that. I don't know exactly why you do that so often, but I have a few guesses.

Wow, wonder what Dexter thinks about this? The 3 of you really should get together, drink a few beers and burn a few.

Fair or not...I would like to give my thoughts on both the Daniel/Phil discussion and Phil Gordon himself.


1) In last night's episode of LNP, Phil Gordon gives the needle to Daniel about his hand-reading abilities and how they are really not that great due to camera editing. Daniel may have used the E-Dog article as an opportunity to dig back.

2) Phil Gordon then does exactly what he claims is over-the-top on Daniel's part and tries to call out every hand. In particular, his call of Gabe Kaplan's A7 (A6) is a particularly mundane display of hand-reading. Casual watchers may have been duped but good players know the hand was bet very routinely. In past broadcasts, Phil has spouted win percentages (incorrectly) and hand guesses as well. He truly seems to have a desparate need to "prove" that he is a knowledgable poker player.

3) Phil is the only televised poker player that consistently speaks directly to the camera in pre-planned speeches. I may be in the minority,but I find this very annoying and ....

4) a full-fledged campaign to come across as a nice-guy everyman. Superficially, I am sure Phil Gordon is a very nice guy. However, to me he comes across as exceptionally arrogant. To an extent this is warranted. Like Paul Phillips, Phil Gordon has been highly successful in private enterprise and deserves to have a certain sense of accomplishment. However, both Paul and Phil have torn a guy like Phil Hellmuth to shreds for his behavior. Although Phil's behavior is exasperating, i much prefer it to what comes across on Gordon as a smug sense of entitlement. ..which seems to shine through in relation to

5) The 2007 Heads-Up Championship. By many accounts, Gordon felt snubbed for the 2006 Heads-Up Championship. Why? he is not one of the 64 best players in the world. And I would bet a decent sum that if a poll could be conducted, he would not be in the 64 most watchable category either. So what did he do in the intervening year? On the poker end, he had one significant cash, which may have been a freeroll and was certainly an invitation-only event. As far as popularity, he did not even host Celebrity Poker anymore. Way to prove you belong Phil! How did Mr. Everyman who essentially did nothing in the past year suddenly become a viable optionfor the 2007 Heads-Uo Championship. Your guess is as good as mine, but I would guess that he whined and cajoled his way to a limited spot that clearly could have gone to someone more deserving.

6) Schane Schleger - Shaniac to on-line poker fans writes a wonderful blog. http://shaniaconline.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

His December 28, 2006 year-in-review blog is truly outstanding in its entirety. More notably, the post contains an insider's story on Phil Gordon which is well worth reading.

I hate to say it but I am on Phil's side - someone paid him to write an article and he did his best to give an opinion of an opponent

It's almost as if John Starks wrote - I want to make michael jordan hit his jump shots go to his left and play defense - he isn't saying that he could do any of those as well he is saying what he would do to give him the best shot at surviving

It would be a really boring article if he said I'm at Erick Lindgrens table - I p iss myself because I have no shot of beating him - the best I can hope is that I go all in with aces and he has kings and somehow my hand holds up - but even if that happens I'm guessing that I will lose because he is a much better player than me - in fact
I'm guessing that if I raises to 2 times the big blind with my aces that Eric with position on me would immediately fold his kings

its a problem inherant to being a commentator and a participant and phil seems to usually do his best to slobber all over every pro

Imagine this scenario

Muhammad Ali: Jerry Quarry is a bum he doesn't belong in the same ring as me
Quarry: He's right I am a bum I really don't belong in the same ring as him

I'll easily second that.