Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Apologies if this was posted elsewhere, I don't see it.http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat...p;vc=1&nt=2tl;dr?DN writes a cardplayer article about taking shotsSklansky: Dood u r wrong, and don't call me a nit! HU4rollz!some n00b: raymer had to beg for stakes to win the ME!raymer pwns n00bDN pwns SklanskyIt turns out they basically agree, but along the way DN talks about the gambling habits of Chip Reese, Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey, Bobby Baldwin, Chau Giang, David Benyamine, Patrick Antonius, Gus Hansen, John Juanda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that Daniels article was an intersting one. I did find it to be fairly simplisitic. For the record, Sklanksy is a nit. And is bad for just about any poker game. He is miserable to play with. Has no clue how to create a light and happy atmosphere, and I find his game to be quite boring. Yes I have played with him on several occassions. This is from hours at the table, not from the rail.As far as the article that DN wrote is concerned, I think there is more to it. The two players that Daniel talked about are very common in the poker world. Sadly, only a few in EACH category will ever succeed. A sophisticated grinder can often fail because he does not realize the game is evolving. Even at low limits, his style of play will show low variance. But he will soon fall victim to more creative individuals who do quite well at the same limits that he plays.The risk taker deserves a lot more attention imo. I have met many of them in my years of playing. And I would consider myself to have taken far too many risks. Having said that, I could not be happier with the decisions that I have made. It is because of those decisions that I am where I am today. If we take a close look at the risk taker. He can and will go broke quite often. Now the question is, how does he get back in action? In order to take those types of risks, you need to have borrowing power or the ability to be staked. A risk taker typically will do much better in tournaments vs. cash games.I think I could fill a chapter in a book on this topic. But I honestly don't think it's quite as black and white as it might seem to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the article is on the simplistic side, but DN never says it is that black and white. The guys in the article are just examples.

If we take a close look at the risk taker. He can and will go broke quite often. Now the question is, how does he get back in action? In order to take those types of risks, you need to have borrowing power or the ability to be staked.
This is something I'm not sure I get. Are you two saying that it's something inheritently good in taking risks per se? The way I see it, you can be very conservative with bankroll management and still aggressively take shots at higher limits with money you set aside for that purpose. Why would you ever need to put so much of your bankroll on the line that you risk going broke?I guess that for some people the risk works as a motivation to get better quicker so it is really the fastest way to get there (granted that they can get staked/rebuild if they go bust). That's the only pro I can see and it's a pretty scetchy one.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...