[PPM - you mean that there are a lot of flukey winners in important tournaments.]

i can't help it but i've just got to bring up negreanu's interview in the January edition of PokerPlayerMagazine.

PPM - you mean that there are a lot of flukey winners in important tournaments.
NEG - until recently, there were maybe 2 flukes in 20 years but aside from those, every w.s.o.p. champion became an established player. you never had a guy playing his first tournament and winning the thing.

PPM - how do you fix that
NEG - for starters, the main event needs to be changed completely. the biggest problem is that its too easy for amateurs to play against a table full of amateurs all day and then do the same thing the day after that.......

PPM - I CAN'T SEE MORE THAN 50 PEOPLE BUYING INTO A $100,000 TOURNAMENT.
NEG - That would be perfect. But i see 90 to 105 people buying into a $100,000 tournament. For the $50,000, there'd be 250 people. Those are great numbers and representative of what poker tournaments used to be. You would not see cinderellas representing 98% of the tournament field.


NEG - What is the significance of all these w.s.o.p. bracelets?   Who was the $1500 no-limit hold em winner last year?   i don't know because there were 6 of them.

isn't this is the guy who used 28 re buys a few years ago to win a bracelet



i'm sick of the guy.  if all these donkeys stop playing poker so that he can win another tournament then pretty soon it wouldn't be worth playing poker.   why does he want to change a winning formula for poker?

you do know the nickname for Limerick City don't you??

lol    just seen this cool game.   follow the link below to play it.   Its Funny


http://www.joecartoon.com/games/11

mmmm

overdosing and then dying was a bit of a craze in late 60's and early 70s. and it seemed to make them more famous.

i do hope Amy kicks the habit though. it would be a real waste.


Pete Doherty on the other hand .................