Je bent hier: Home » Pokernieuws » Phil Gordon Vs Negreanu/Lindgren

Phil Gordon Vs Negreanu/Lindgren

Phil Gordon, commentator/auteur en ook zeker een begenadigd pokerspeler krijgt het regelmatig voor elkaar om in de clinch te liggen met spelers. Waar hij eerst al Hellmuth bijna deed ontploffen tijdens een Wsop event vorig jaar zo was het dit seizoen na een aflevering van poker after dark dat hij Eric Lindgren en Daniel negreanu tegen zich in het harnas hief.
Aanleiding hiervoor was een aanvaring die de 2 hadden tijdens een aflevering van de hierboven genoemde show waarbij Lindgren het commentaar van Gordon ongepast en overbodig vond. Dit leidde vervolgens weer tot een ongenuanceerd stuk over Lindgren wat Gordon op zijn blog plaatste.Dat dit nog niet het einde zou zijn van de affaire was al duidelijk en het kon ook verassend genoemd worden dat Eric’s buddy Negreanu vervolgens Gordon weer terecht wees op zijn ‘onzin’. Het is alweer een paar maanden geleden gebeurd maar we willen het jullie natuurlijk niet onthouden.

Hier de betreffende blogs:

Eerst van Gordon

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.

Respons van Negreanu

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?