The Pros and Cons of Dan Colman’s “One Drop” Decision
The 2014 World Series of Poker, which has entered its endgame with the $10,000 Championship Event, crowned a new champion of the “Big One for One Drop” over the weekend.
Rather than hearing about the champion Dan Colman, however, much has been discussed on message boards and media (both poker and mainstream) about his decision not to engage with the media for the usual kind words in an interview or even a decent picture (the original shot on WSOP.com depicted an unsmiling Colman reluctantly standing with his $15 million score; it has since been changed once they cajoled him out to take one).
There are pros and cons as to the reasons that Colman might have made his decision.
The Pros
Colman, who has continued a very lucrative career online, had to leave the United States to continue to pursue his online poker objectives. He chose Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, as the location to do that. Living in a nice condo, he seems to be doing well down there.
There is one problem with that, however. Yes, Rio looks like a lovely city; anyone watching the World Cup has seen the breathtaking sights of Brazil (and we’ll probably see the same things come the Summer Olympics of 2016) and longs to be in Colman’s shoes. What we see on television, however, doesn’t present the whole picture.
Rio is rampant with corruption, kidnappings, drug trafficking and murder (as this most recent article from 2013 in USA Today shows).
More often than not, criminals that choose their targets look for rich Brazilians or foreigners who seemingly have quite a bit of money (kidnapping for ransom is a huge business in many South American countries). Perhaps Colman posing behind a stack of $15 million wouldn’t be the best thing for him to do in his adopted country.
Colman offered his own explanation later on a Two Plus Two post. Stating, “I really don’t owe anyone an explanation but Ill (sic) give one,” Colman went on an extended rant about how the game of poker is a “dark game,” pointing out how those that are the “losers” lose much more than those that are considered “winners.” “It bothers me that people care so much about poker’s well-being,” he wrote, “as poker is a game that has such a net negative effect on the people playing it, both financially and emotionally.”
If those are Colman’s true feelings, then so be it. There isn’t much more that can be said on that on the “pro” side…but we’ll pick this up again in a moment.
Finally, there’s nothing written anywhere in the tournament poker world (I’d have to review the World Poker Tour’s position, but I do believe they have even been refused on occasion) that dictates that a tournament winner has to do the “dog and pony” show that we’ve gotten used to over the last decade of the game. However…well, let’s get to the “cons.”
The Cons
The “Big One for One Drop” was a bit of a disappointment this year.
After expanding the field to 56 players (rather than the 48 of 2012), only 42 players decided to take their shot at this event.
As one of the spotlight events of the tournament (which will be extensively covered by ESPN and was railed online by thousands), the winner of the “Big One” might be expected to show a little emotion over the victory. Instead, fans and media alike were treated to someone who looked as if they were headed to the gas chamber.
Whether Colman likes it or not, poker has a devoted following. They want to be able to cheer on their favorites, despise the villains and discuss each situation accordingly. Anyone who has been around the game for any length of time has already seen the “dark side” that poker can bring out and those people still choose to look at the brighter side that the game has (the “One Drop” charity – which Colman never mentioned at any time – raised over $4 million off this tournament alone).
Colman, through his actions after winning, has not only denied the fans but someone who may aspire to be like him.
Finally, you just won $15 million in the biggest poker tournament of 2014. You (figuring that you at least had 10% of your action) have put a big mark on the profit side of your ledger for your tournament poker year and, potentially, for your career (you are now in the Top Ten on the Hendon Mob for career earnings).
Giving an interview – even if to say, “It’s not about me, this was about a fine charity that will be able to do great work” – and taking an adequate picture (once again, original shots have been deleted) to celebrate the victory isn’t out of the question.
Final Thoughts
Colman’s victory in the “One Drop” has been overshadowed by his reluctance to embrace the position he was in. The runner-up in the tournament, Daniel Negreanu (never one to shy away from a reporter or television camera), picked up the slack for Colman by answering all questions and other media requests, but there is perhaps the difference.
A creation of the “poker boom” of the early 2000s, Negreanu – recognizing the factor that poker is still not out of the “back rooms” as of yet – realizes that promotion and putting a good face on the game is still necessary.
Colman, it appears, does not. If Colman believes otherwise – either because of deeply held personal beliefs or something else – then he may be shutting down his own potential revenue streams when there are no players left to play.
