In general, I like Daniel Negreanu. I feel that there are several reasons to like the guy:
- He is great for the game of poker. He is personable, good at coming off as a "regular guy", and is very accessible to his fans.
- He is (usually) willing to speak out about what he feels is right and wrong, even if it causes controversy or gets other powers-that-be in poker angry.
- He has made some great suggestions to improve the WSOP, and some of them have been implemented.
- From all accounts, he seems to be a decent human being and has not been involved in any scandals.
However, one problem with Negreanu is that he doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut when it comes to defending his friends. Sometimes he speaks up for friends and bends over backwards to defend their not-so-honest actions, and while that makes him a great friend to have, it detracts somewhat from his credibility.
I'm not saying that Daniel should join the lynch mob against close friends like Erick Lindgren (even if everything said about Lindgren is true), but at the very least, he should keep quiet if it looks like his pals really are guilty as charged.
An interview was postedo n Pokerlistings with Negreanu, where he finally speaks out about how much blame Phil Ivey deserves for the Full Tilt debacle. Pocketfives did an article about the interview, highlighting the most interesting points:
http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/...l-tilt-587488/
Read the article (it's pretty short), and then you can read Negreanu's quotes below and I will analyze which I agree and disagree with...
My take: Pin it on the black guy? Please. I've spoken to hundreds of angry people about the Full Tilt mess, and not one has mentioned the color of Ivey's skin. Negreanu has always been rather awkward when it comes to black people. From his inappropriate blackface video to his weird phase of trying to talk like a black guy, he seems to have some sort of odd obsession with black culture. In this case, he is seeing racism where it absolutely doesn't exist. Nobody cares if Ivey is black or white. They just want their stolen money back.Originally Posted by Daniel Negreanu
Why is Ivey getting more hate than people like Juanda, Gordon, Bloch, and Seidel? Because he owned more of Full Tilt than the rest of those guys, and from the accounts I've heard, he had visibility into and decision-making power within the company. He may not have exercised that power (or even cared to look into what they were doing), but he had the power. The others apparently didn't have nearly the power, ownership percentage, or visibility that Ivey did, so he definitely deserves more blame.
Negreanu is correct that Lederer, Ferguson, and Bitar "are the scumbags that did it." It seems that Ivey may have been ignorant to what was going on, and Rafe Furst's role is unclear. Remember, Furst owned a large percentage, as well, and also had the visibility/decision-making power that Ivey did.
So how much is Ivey to blame? If he didn't actively steal from anyone, but simply received $1 million/month that he thought were legitimate profits, is he innocent? Definitely not, because ignorance is not an excuse. He had the power to find out where that money was coming from. Even if he chose to let Bitar, Ferguson, and Lederer handle the business side of things, it was his responsibility to check up on what was actually happening. This is the same concept where CEOs of a corporation can be held criminally liable if their underlings are committing financial crimes with company funds, and they stay willfully ignorant.
My take: This is true, but I have a hard time believing that this was for unselfish reasons.
It was to Ivey's benefit to jump off that sinking ship and distance himself from it. The plan worked, too. Ivey's reputation has recovered greatly, and many even consider him a hero. When Ivey attempted to get out of his contract with Full Tilt, the rumor was that he was looking to become a free agent to sign a lucrative deal with another company (Pokerstars?). It wasn't because he felt so guilty about the players' Full Tilt money being lost.
And what happened to this claim by Ivey:
"I am not playing in the World Series of Poker, as I do not believe it is fair that I compete when others cannot. I am doing everything I can to seek a solution to the problem as quickly as possible."
Well, we still don't have our Full Tilt money back, and yet Ivey is right here playing the 2012 WSOP, as if nothing ever happened.
What is different about this year than last? The people who can't afford to play the WSOP due to Full Tilt's thefts STILL can't play, as they STILL have not been paid. So why is Ivey playing this year? How has it suddenly become fair that he can "compete while others cannot"?
In reality, that statement was all PR fluff, and he returned to the game because his return to other tournaments (starting in late 2011) was generally met with excitement rather than scorn.
When asked why Annie Duke is frequently attacked regarding UB, but Hellmuth generally gets a free pass, Negreanu said this:
My take: I actually agree with Negreanu here. I believe that Phil Hellmuth just wore the UB cap and did what they said when it came to promoting the site, but ignored the business side of things. I'm not sure how much Annie knew, but it was definitely more than Phil. Again, Hellmuth does not deserve a pass because of this willful ignorance, but I do believe that Hellmuth didn't know about the cheating, and might have even been fooled into believing that everything had been made right after the scandal hit.
BOTTOM LINE: Negreanu likes Ivey and Hellmuth. This has been known for years. It seems that he always wants to defend these guys, regardless of their culpability. I believe that neither was involved in any of the cheating at UB or Full Tilt, but at the same time, they still got rich off of other people's money, and they both displayed a level of willful ignorance that can't be ignored. Negreanu glosses over this and gives them both a pass on this way too easily.
Reply With Quote