So a columnist on Pokernews, Marty Derbyshire, writes an article (that Pokernews would later delete) criticizing playing poker for a living as a profession, which got quite a few "pros" upset and angry on twitter.
Screenshots of the article:
Pokernews editor (and Howard Lederer fluffer) Matthew Parvis responded after the article was published (he claims "in error" lol) and the twitter tilt became too much to bear:
Marty Derbyshire would then later resign from his position (he has been playing the "Stephen A. Smith" contrarian role on the site for sometime now, and has gotten flack in the past summer from pros for writing stuff on tweets from Cate Hall, and Joe McKeehen, in the past).
The thing is: I agree with a portion of what he said. Was he crass and harsh and dismissive of playing poker, and those who do it, for a living? Yes. But it's not the easiest living either, and his frankness on what he saw from the outside looking in on the "profession" of gambling as a whole certainly had it merits and was a sobering take. Older pros like Todd Brunson even defended his opinion, and others like Doug Lee (actually WillieMcFML... LOL!) blasted Parvis and Pokernews for using Darbyshire's "contrarian" angle for clicks and then bailing once he wrote something too controversial.
https://twitter.com/twt/status/803492928987561984
All this proves really? That Pokernews is more irrelevant than ever.
Reply With Quote