BeerAndPoker

It's been a while since I did a blog but I find the subject of the new One Drop Winner Daniel Colman to be a very interesting debate.

For those who don't know what I am talking about Daniel "mrgr33n13" Colman "cashed" for over $15 million million dollars by winning the One Drop defeating Daniel Negreanu heads up. The key word is "cashed" because all of these guys are selling most of themselves in this one million dollar buy in tournament which makes their Hendon Mob cashes look very gaudy to a point where after paying out people who had pieces, backers, and taxes most are coming away with a fraction of the number they "cashed" for in today's poker economy with all these high roller events.

Runner up Daniel Negreanu did his share of interviews after losing which he said it's an individuals right to refuse to do media if they choose to do so. Daniel Negreanu is probably the most loved poker player to the media because of how he handles himself always friendly and willing to do interviews regardless of results which has played a huge part in selling himself not just in his game but in poker overall. Not everyone has the type of personality to do what Daniel Negreanu does and that is fine but refusing to do interviews after a big win won't gain you any media fans or future endorsements.

The public out cry afterward was mostly negative towards Daniel Colman because of how he handled himself after winning but he had some people come to his defense.

Daniel Colman posted a response on 2+2 which you can find here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=2553

Now after that long summary of what happened I will explain how I feel about this. Are the majority right or wrong? Is Daniel Colman right or wrong?

Well lets go off what he says paragraph by paragraph. His responses are in quotes in bold and my thoughts I start the first paragraph with ^^^.

In the beginning of Daniel Colman post he writes:


"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."

^^^ - Now based off what he says here I actually agree to some extent in regards to poker being a tough living and creating some demons for individuals who want to make a living at it. It is very stressful and can create a lot of unhealthy habits like Mr. Colman says here which I wouldn't recommend anyone do it either for a living especially if you are an American in the current state of poker today.

Now what I don't agree with or is certainly debatable is that someone don't owe poker a thing after a big score? My take is if people didn't continue to promote the game over the years we wouldn't ever see a a tournament with a One Million Dollar Entry. Many people coming up in the game idolize someone whether it's a Chris Moneymaker or whoever it might be that helped the game grow. While Daniel Colman may think he owes no one directly if it weren't for pros doing media, the hole card camera technology, ESPN coverage of the game,etc. he wouldn't have the opportunity to win a tournament so large in buy in.


"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."

^^^- Amateurs aren't always happy to lose their money is true but the losers don't always lose more then they can afford. That statement is true to some extent of the poker population are also rich/semi-rich people who play it for entertainment that lose a majority of the time who can afford to do so and these players are huge donators to the poker economy. When these guys lose amounts that don't mean much to them it's important for poker's survival but for those who can't afford it they will find other ways to chunk off the money whether it's in casino games, state lottery, sports betting,etc... These people will still gamble and even though it may not seem right they are adults who can make decisions to spend their money as they choose to do so which we shouldn't question them at all.

The rest of his response all boils down to common sense and personal choice. People deserve to have rights to play poker just like smoking or drinking. Why should anyone go off on someone for their personal choices when they aren't harming others? If they are harming themselves then it's that persons duty to find a way to want to help themselves but to say poker is ugly in that sense and continue to make money off of it is extremely hypocritical.


The rest of what Daniel Colman has to say:

"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."

^^^- The most ludicrous comment of all of his post. You are making money off people being able to live a good life because of them choosing to play a game they enjoy to play and losing money to you. How can Mr. Colman say this hypocritical response and continue to play the game if he feels it's so ugly? He has no problem making money in poker so why be such an idiot by saying something so damn asinine?


"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."

^^^- So he don't appreciate individual achievements in life? We can go at this further and say someone who gets Valedictorian in high school shouldn't be acknowledged for their hard work? They beat out everyone in their graduating class and we should just ignore them? What about our armed forces or a firefighter who puts their life in danger to save someone else? These people are heroes but we shouldn't acknowledge them?

These things might not quite be the same but to a lot of people new into poker someone who wins a ton of money in the game they are learning gets respect from individuals and some of these people even idolize the big winner. I know for me getting into poker during the Chris Moneymaker era he was practically a hero in my eyes at that time being the average Joe who took down the main event. Even though poker is in a different place now I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge personal achievements at all. Do some players get too much of that? Absolutely, but I don't see anything wrong with letting people have their moment.


"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."

^^^- Everyone has a right to their personal views so I can't fault Daniel Colman for some of what he says but he is being a hypocrite making poker sound so dark yet claiming he loves the game. Why even mention this shit about darkness in the game if you are going to continue to play? The truth is it probably don't bother him one bit from a moral stand point. Their are some darknesses in the game I do believe too but he is capitalizing on it. People have a choice to play if they want and a lot of people actually do gamble responsibly more then you would think it's just you will always hear about the people who go off the deep end in poker just like someone who can't control how much they drink. People have various ways of being compulsive in this world but you can't flag every losing player in poker as a degenerate gambler who will lose way more then they should when many actually do cut themselves off at a certain point.

So with that said I think Colman has the right to ignore the media which he isn't getting paid a dime to do interviews but it certainly don't help his portfolio if he wants future endorsements or to find other ways to make money off the felt related to the game. I take more offense of his claims of the darkness in a game he makes a living doing when if it really bothers him he shouldn't be playing in the first place.

Any thoughts or comments please feel free to reply here. Thanks for reading!

-BeerAndPoker