“He acts like he's really good and never dodges. Neither seem to be true,” said Cates of Grundy. “Then he says he will play, and doesn't.
“Can't really get more full of shit than that."
Both Cates and Grundy count themselves among the most successful players in the history of online poker.
Cates has won almost $9 million on Full Tilt Poker alone while Grundy boasts one of the most impressive poker graphs ever. It puts his profits at just under $8 million.
Last year the possibility of a Cates/Grundy heads-up challenge emerged as part of a promotion for the site SharkStaking.com, but the match never materialized.
More than a year later Cates is still trying to get action from the Brit.
In a forum thread about multi-accounting in high-stakes online poker Cates said in no uncertain terms that he was waiting for Grundy and would play as high as $500/$1,000.
Grundy replied in the thread saying, “He's always shooting his mouth off. I've never sat out to him, and never will. If I'm online I'll happily play him.”
PokerListings.com reached Ben Grundy via email but the poker pro said he wasn't interested in responding to Cates.
"He can say what he wants I don't really care," said Grundy.
We caught Cates online following the forum exchange and he pulled no punches with his opinion of Grundy and the possibility of the two squaring off in the future.
PokerListings.com: Grundy said that he's never sat out against you, and will happily play you. Do you feel like that's genuine?
Dan Cates: No, total bullshit.
What makes you say that?
Because for a guy that's supposedly won $8 million online or something he's pretty terrible, and I wouldn't say that lightly.
In addition he doesn't really play anymore unless he's multi-accounting and somehow tilts after losing two buy-ins at $50/$100.
Last year you were supposed to have a heads-up challenge against Grundy. Do you two have history?
Well I thought there was some chance then but unsurprisingly he was just as full of shit as usual and never responded to my messages.
Right now I'm basically calling him out for being full of shit in general.
I actually misunderstood a post on 2+2, where I thought he said Sauce and other top PLO players sat out vs him. To be fair I don't think he said that exactly.
Grundy said if he played a challenge against you, he wouldn't allow HUDs. Do you use a HUD? If so would you play him without one? Do you believe he'd even actually play a challenge against you?
I use a HUD but I would snap play him without one. And yes I think it's BS and he won't play me at all.
Do you think HUDs are a problem and "bad for poker" like some people have said?
I think to say they are unethical is ridiculous and I think banning them is impossible.
But I can see how they might be bad for poker. But by that same logic so are training sites, so is talking poker strategy...
Ranting against the use of HUDs is not very useful IMO. If they are so "unfair", then wouldn't those who are arguing against them just use them to gain this "unfair" advantage?
Unless they actually think they are unethical, and adhere to that moral belief even though it hurts them playing against sneaky HUD players.
This all started with a discussion about multi-accounting online. What's your stance on that issue?
It depends on the kind of multi-accounting exactly. A lot of it is not that bad.
As durrrr said it depends on the kind of multi-accounting, which should be punished in a perfect world.
However it's impossible in a lot of situations to detect it with any degree of certainty.
Multi-accounting itself is not a huge problem, and many instances are a matter of technicality. They're only bad based on being against the rules. Many European sites for example allow it.
On Grundy and future playing: What's to stop you from going online whenever he's online and sitting with him?
He's never online.
Visit www.pokerlistings.com