Player of the year?

is that the jlaw naked pics

Does this include convicted or only the ones roaming around still?

Wow this guy is really sick good

"I misrepresented myself before when I said I didn't want to speak to media because of poker being a harmful game. I do not care about poker"

Not really sure what this is thou

On September 06 2014 22:17 VanDerMeyde wrote: Wow this guy is really sick good "I misrepresented myself before when I said I didn't want to speak to media because of poker being a harmful game. I do not care about poker" Not really sure what this is thou

it is a good indicator cosmo was right and hes just a douchey troll. dont have a quote of the exact post, but cosmo called it months ago

damn thats super impressive

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=113409

Hes got like batman broad shoulders

the guy has 5 cashes over 796k between april and now wtfffff

has to be most impressive year of tournament poker ever

poker gods playing a sick joke rewarding him lol

douche boxed another tournament for ~1M

It would be awesome to be able to see a hand history re-enactment of his tourneys. This is insane.

edit - rename award to 'greatest tourney year of all time' and it's still a shoo in

Someone told me he said he won 98 out of his last 100 all ins

It surprises me how experienced players can be fooled by the money amounts. Apart from the seminole, those were all sng-sized tourneys.
Sure it's impressive and it's a great run, but it's most odds-defying run of all time.

With the increase of $100k+ buy in tourneys the last couple of years, this was bound to happen eventually with some top player. It just so happened to be the guy who won the biggest one aswell so that made the total money earned reach a much more impressive amount. But the guy who won the $55 red spade open+sunday million or the guy who won the sunday kickoff+bigger55+sunday storm are way bigger luckboxes. They just weren't playing super high rollers.

On October 10 2014 18:52 player999 wrote: But the guy who won the $55 red spade open+sunday million or the guy who won the sunday kickoff+bigger55+sunday storm are way bigger luckboxes. They just weren't playing super high rollers.

Define luck thought, if you arent lucky enough to luckbox the most value tournaments are you really a bigger luckbox than the guy who luckboxed easier tournaments to luckbox, but still luckboxed at the right time

On October 12 2014 16:15 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2014 18:52 player999 wrote: But the guy who won the $55 red spade open+sunday million or the guy who won the sunday kickoff+bigger55+sunday storm are way bigger luckboxes. They just weren't playing super high rollers. Define luck thought, if you arent lucky enough to luckbox the most value tournaments are you really a bigger luckbox than the guy who luckboxed easier tournaments to luckbox, but still luckboxed at the right time

presumably the guy who won the red spade open/sunday million doesn't play super high-rollers, therefore has 0% chance to win them. the most logical way to compare their luck is probabilistically. Colman is a beast and was in the position to play/be staked for these tournaments in the first place based on his skill. (most people would agree a 100nl player who won 20 buyins in 2 days was luckier than a 2knl player who won 2 buyins in the same period)

On October 10 2014 18:37 thewh00sel wrote: Someone told me he said he won 98 out of his last 100 all ins

I heard he poops gold

On October 10 2014 18:52 player999 wrote: With the increase of $100k+ buy in tourneys the last couple of years, this was bound to happen eventually with some top player. It just so happened to be the guy who won the biggest one aswell so that made the total money earned reach a much more impressive amount.

so would you not say his life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the probabilities of poker?

On October 12 2014 16:15 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2014 18:52 player999 wrote: But the guy who won the $55 red spade open+sunday million or the guy who won the sunday kickoff+bigger55+sunday storm are way bigger luckboxes. They just weren't playing super high rollers. Define luck thought, if you arent lucky enough to luckbox the most value tournaments are you really a bigger luckbox than the guy who luckboxed easier tournaments to luckbox, but still luckboxed at the right time

Buy-in wise there's nothing to see here, only impressive thing is the dollar amounts, but that's just the natural consequence of play super high buy ins.

Some people are impressed about his winrate like it is unprecedentedly dominant, when it's just standard micro-field variance.

I know what you meant i decided to be funny, but i obviously failed :D