Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sklansky simply won't risk this much money on a single freezout. Even if he feels he has a very slight edge.
Then he didn't need to say anything at all.Doesn't anyone see this point? He brought it on himself. Should have just kept his mouth shut. If he doesn't want to play, just don't accept it, like a ton of other players did. Instead he made up a long winded excuse with his fancy numbers and who is an underdog... well you can't decide who the underdog is until you've already played. You can't just guess! Also, there is no Wynn factor. So he is making money from them? Well sklansky makes money from his books... it's like saying you won't play him, because he has an edge in the books market and can afford more than you because of it.It's all stupid, and if they don't want to play DN... then just shutup and don't play... but there is no need to do all this talking. DN has all the right in the world to go make fun of them now, because they brought up a bunch of crap that really doesn't matter. It's like court, if you open the door to something, I can walk right in. Should have just kept it to themselves. If they don't have the money... maybe they're doing something wrong.
Not to say anything against the man, but Daniel instigated the most recent round of discussion by posting on their boards. This has been going on for well over a week. If they hadn't responded, you'd have the same cadre of idiots here saying Sklansky was a 'pussy' (their words, not mine) for a different reason. Yes, I do realize that the initial response to the challenge was by David, but it was certainly a valid initial response.That's why I think this whole war of words is idiotic. Look at what it does to the 'joe average' fan who doesn't have the cognitive capacity to think this shit through.Neither DS/MM nor DN is in the right here. They're both being immature adults, much like myself. I just don't have enough money to make 'an ass out of myself' by either declining a challenge, failing at the challenge, or responding to it in a way which doesn't appease every idiot on the internet--of which there are far too many for my liking.Lastly, to say that the state of 2+2's publishing profits are in any way comparable in this situation to the money that dan is making off of the room that he is promoting by playing these heads-up matches is ludicrous. To refute that there are no ulterior equity motives in these matches that provide a greater advantage for Daniel than ANY of his opponents is to make a truly absurd statement. Neither you nor I have any idea what he's making off his contract the Wynn's poker room.Some math, should you require itt:Assuming a 1 year contract, assuming daniel is a 60-40 dog in his matches, when weighted dollar per dollar for buyin.Daniel would have to wager $2m in these matches at that rate of underdoghood (woot, new word) in order to be a 'long term' loser. The actual rate of loss, which is proportional to the amount lost per match, is most likely a lot lower than this.Whether or not he wagers at this volume remains to be seen, but certainly you must admit that there's enough uncertainty in this equation where the money he's being paid through this and residual/related promotional income could somehow possibly offset any loss he could sustain assuming things went according to equity. For those of you who missed the point of this statement: my numbers are irrelevant, but there is enough uncertainty where the value of being a 'pussy' could possibly outweigh the average gain of the situation.Furthermore, the profitability for Sklansky is arguably far less than Daniel, as he is not really promoting anything related to the matches, nor is he affiliated in any way with the room in which the matches are being played. You underestimate the ability of David to 'guess' at the values of a gambling situation. He's been doing that since the mid 70s in various fields of wagering. Daniel, as far as we know, has been successful at one field of wagering, poker, and only in significant cash volumes since 1998 or so. Anyone who claims that he doesn't have the results to back up his words is speaking out of their anal sphincter.You also understimate the value of the uncertainty of the situation. Why should David bother playing the match if it doesn't provide him with enough value (in terms of capital profit, personal enjoyment, learning value, and residual equities) for it to be worthwhile? He'd rather capitalize off his publishing while there's still enough money to be made in poker to profit. Daniel would rather play highly publicized games to draw players (and perhaps scalpable whales) to the room he's promoting,.So he's (DS) a cold, numbers-based, and in the opinion of some, flaccid man. Who cares? There's no reason to criticize him for being a safe gambler. Slow and steady wins the race in live games, whether or not you choose to believe it. There's no reason to risk what most people make in 4 years on what is nearly a coinflip.-adamP.S. Matusow told raymer he had little tiny balls. We all saw that this wasn't true. We all saw how things ended up for Matusow's big, aggressive balls. War doesn't profit in the long run.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well first off i wanted to say I tried to read the forums in 2+2, but serriously the layout in there is so crappy i took about a 2 min look, b4 i got sick of clicking the links and then hiting the back button, yea you could call me lazy, it still is a crappy layout.
The 2+2 forums are much better than these forums.Phpbb is not a very good forum software, especially in terms of trying to find out who is replying to whom. On the 2+2 boards, you can (once registered) customize your viewing preferences to a great extent. I recommend flat view, set to 'view all posts' in a thread. Most of the phpbb features are dumbed down.They've had serious issues with adapting their servers to the recent rapid increases in use, but the features (especially searching features) are far more robust. If you know how to properly format a search, you can look around in the WPT forums there for the posts discussed. I'd help those who requested assistance out, but we all know that giving to beggars only promotes their lifestyle.-adam
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to say anything against the man, but Daniel instigated the most recent round of discussion by posting on their boards. This has been going on for well over a week. If they hadn't responded, you'd have the same cadre of idiots here saying Sklansky was a 'censored' (their words, not mine) for a different reason. Yes, I do realize that the initial response to the challenge was by David, but it was certainly a valid initial response.That's why I think this whole war of words is idiotic. Look at what it does to the 'joe average' fan who doesn't have the cognitive capacity to think this censored through.Neither DS/MM nor DN is in the right here. They're both being immature adults, much like myself. I just don't have enough money to make 'an ass out of myself' by either declining a challenge, failing at the challenge, or responding to it in a way which doesn't appease every idiot on the internet--of which there are far too many for my liking.Lastly, to say that the state of 2+2's publishing profits are in any way comparable in this situation to the money that dan is making off of the room that he is promoting by playing these heads-up matches is ludicrous. To refute that there are no ulterior equity motives in these matches that provide a greater advantage for Daniel than ANY of his opponents is to make a truly absurd statement. Neither you nor I have any idea what he's making off his contract the Wynn's poker room.Some math, should you require itt:Assuming a 1 year contract, assuming daniel is a 60-40 dog in his matches, when weighted dollar per dollar for buyin.Daniel would have to wager $2m in these matches at that rate of underdoghood (woot, new word) in order to be a 'long term' loser. The actual rate of loss, which is proportional to the amount lost per match, is most likely a lot lower than this.Whether or not he wagers at this volume remains to be seen, but certainly you must admit that there's enough uncertainty in this equation where the money he's being paid through this and residual/related promotional income could somehow possibly offset any loss he could sustain assuming things went according to equity. For those of you who missed the point of this statement: my numbers are irrelevant, but there is enough uncertainty where the value of being a 'censored' could possibly outweigh the average gain of the situation.Furthermore, the profitability for Sklansky is arguably far less than Daniel, as he is not really promoting anything related to the matches, nor is he affiliated in any way with the room in which the matches are being played. You underestimate the ability of David to 'guess' at the values of a gambling situation. He's been doing that since the mid 70s in various fields of wagering. Daniel, as far as we know, has been successful at one field of wagering, poker, and only in significant cash volumes since 1998 or so. Anyone who claims that he doesn't have the results to back up his words is speaking out of their anal sphincter.You also understimate the value of the uncertainty of the situation. Why should David bother playing the match if it doesn't provide him with enough value (in terms of capital profit, personal enjoyment, learning value, and residual equities) for it to be worthwhile? He'd rather capitalize off his publishing while there's still enough money to be made in poker to profit. Daniel would rather play highly publicized games to draw players (and perhaps scalpable whales) to the room he's promoting,.So he's (DS) a cold, numbers-based, and in the opinion of some, flaccid man. Who cares? There's no reason to criticize him for being a safe gambler. Slow and steady wins the race in live games, whether or not you choose to believe it. There's no reason to risk what most people make in 4 years on what is nearly a coinflip.-adamP.S. Matusow told raymer he had little tiny balls. We all saw that this wasn't true. We all saw how things ended up for Matusow's big, aggressive balls. War doesn't profit in the long run.
a little long but the time was worth it....wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead he made up a long winded excuse with his fancy numbers and who is an underdog... well you can't decide who the underdog is until you've already played. You can't just guess! Also, there is no Wynn factor. So he is making money from them? Well sklansky makes money from his books... it's like saying you won't play him, because he has an edge in the books market and can afford more than you because of it.
That's a terrible analogy. You can be pretty certain that the wynn casino benefits a great deal from having these HU matches held there regardless of the outcome. As Daniel's employer, you can be fairly certain that they're doing what they can to encourage him to play these matches. I'm not saying that they're necessarily compensating him explicitly, but when you know that you have the ability to do something that will benefit the one who is writing your paycheque; that has SOME value to you, or at least it would for me. For Daniel, that benefit (no matter how marginal) exists as a function of how much the Wynn benefits - and we know that the Wynn benefits independent of the outcome. The same can't be said for an author of a book. While Sklansky might benefit in some extremely marginal way for having beaten daniel, he also stands to lose some marginal benefit of probably roughly the same value, if not more.That really says nothing about whether or not the odds he's giving are correct or why sklansky is turning down the offer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
highly regarded by who? respected by who? Here's a fact every player I know who has his book is a losing player. Basically if you want to make a living in poker play someone who reads this guys books easy money
highly regarded by whom*count it*Seriously,though, I probably owe Sklansky about a couple grand from reading a quarter of small stakes hold'em. Is he Negreanu? God no. Is he better than us? Oh HELL yes. Read his stuff, your pockets will appreciate it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
daniel has always struck me as a gentleman.his post at 2+2 kind of disappointed me.
It bothered me far less than his posts here about barry, which were far easier for idolizing fans to latch onto and misinterpret as something more than gamesmanship. I like the wording of the 2+2 post. It's playful, but it was unfortunately gobbled up as an excuse for some of the posters here to lambast Sklansky and Co. as if they actually knew anything about them. When I made the mistake of improperly wording my plea to all parties involved to shut their mouths, I had this kind of stuff in mind. It'd be better to deal with it in private. The kind of buzz it generates based off of public forum-based posts is far too silly to draw enough of a respectable response to counter the replies of the riffraff, such as myself.Anyways.. looking forward to seeing the MT vs DN match results when I get back from my road trip to tejas. Maybe I'll ask sean to drop me off in Tunica so I can blow a few Benjamins at baby NL in tunica, getting plastered. On second thought..-adamp.s. The only guy I have any issue with on the 2+2 boards would be Mat, who apparently doesn't know a troll when he sees one.. or at least doesn't know a semi-respected poster/troll feeder from someone whose posting history consisted of two brief spurts of talking to his roommate and fanning the flames of classic, circular logic-based troll wars. Ahem. Just because you meet someone in person doesn't mean they're not entirely different from that encounter when online.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Every week there is some kid on here that says Skalansky sucks. I really don't get it. How can you say he is a losing player when he has been winning at all different forms gambling for years?
where's the proof? In the posts I read by Sklanski himself he can't even muster up 100k to play Danny yet someone said he was tearing up the 300/600 for years that's not even including book sales. Something is way off here!
Link to post
Share on other sites
But I wouldn't call it middle limit. DN ia better than DS.. so what.. that just makes DS smart for not taking the gamble. Knowing your limitations, and game selection are key things great poker players have.
It proves he only takes the money off his fellow book readers not real players!Great poker players play against great poker players
Link to post
Share on other sites
The 2+2 forums are much better than these forums.Phpbb is not a very good forum software, especially in terms of trying to find out who is replying to whom. On the 2+2 boards, you can (once registered) customize your viewing preferences to a great extent. I recommend flat view, set to 'view all posts' in a thread. Most of the phpbb features are dumbed down.They've had serious issues with adapting their servers to the recent rapid increases in use, but the features (especially searching features) are far more robust. If you know how to properly format a search, you can look around in the WPT forums there for the posts discussed.I'd help those who requested assistance out, but we all know that giving to beggars only promotes their lifestyle.
Eh maybe fullcontactpoker is dumbed down a lil, but the fact thats it's so conveniant, makes it my choice forums. Just becuse 2+2 can be customizable doesnt mean anything to me. I mean I could read a hundred books, and take weeks installing linux onto my computer, just because every computer science kid in my class tells me it's the best OS out there, but I'm not going to. The basic fact was is that 2+2 was just plain ugly too me when I first laid eyes on it. It was like looking at some elementry school kids webiste on geocities =P. By the way I dont think they have enough advertisements, not only should they have the top and right side filled with them, but they should include the left and bottom as well (no sarcasm there).
Link to post
Share on other sites
oh my god that thread makes them look like the biggest poker pussies ever.  it says a lot that those guys cant find any backers, assuming they are even trying.  YOU JUST PLAY THE censored GAME!!Then you will see who is better! The winner has all the money.... Sklansky censored me off with all this crap.He sounds like a 10 year old trying to come up with excuses for why his homework isn't done.  He is all math, no instinct he is not even a poker player IMOSkalansky sucks! sorry but keep reading his garbageI don't really care about the challenge it's just fact Skalanski is all talk his results definetely don't back up his mouth
I'd rather be a censored than be someone who made any of the above statements. And if you're going to insult the man with incidental evidence while spelling his name wrong, at least spell his name consistently the same way ;)Seriously, what is up with you guys? You're reaching absurd conclusions about people based on online posts. Read the troll threads on 2+2 where 2 posters criticize greg raymer for not playing in a $50k tourney to see some examples of where this argument of needing to have consistently large testicles fails. Also, if you plan to criticize someone, your arguments are a lot better when they don't resort to name-calling as a primary means of debate.
What the hell is the Wynn Factor?? Honestly... this guy is such a puss I can't even believe it.
This has already been discussed elsewhere on these forums and is easily explained by Sklansky's stating that Daniel is "being laid a price." Yes, Daniel has established that he's putting up all the money for these matches, but he's also getting paid an undefined by probably large sum for his services in general. If he earns a point commission on the room's profits or has even discussed marketing/planning these matches with anyone at Wynn this is even more apparent.
"I won't risk 100,000 dollars as a 52% favorite." Who said he was a 52% favorite?
52% is an example or perhaps an estimate, but the number itself is irrelevant. Is your name EV-man or evman as in Evan? If it's the former, you should understand that risking a large amount of one's net worth as a small favorite, while profitable in terms of the long term, will cost a lot more in the short term if better investments of ones time and capital are available. If this reminds you of money managemenent and the stock market, it should. Some people don't like risking large sums of money on coinflips. The edge in a headsup limit match among players at this level cannot be very large. Why flip coins for 100 large? If refusing to do so makes one a censored, so be it. I'll take the low road, I guess. You learn a lot less, risk a lot more, and make it easier to develop serious psychological issues with gambling when you do brash things like this.
sklansky is such a coward, he can rationalize not playing daniel any way he wants but the bottom line is, hes scared. period, end of discussion.
Yes. Your subjective opinion is the end to all arguments. Congratulations!
Basically if you want to make a living in poker play someone who reads this guys books easy money
Maybe your friends are illiterate..? Read the mid/high posts from the guys who have moved from 10/20 to 100/200+ successfully in 5 years or less. There is a reason that after super system, the original version of which is largely Poker Philosophy as opposed to theory, theory of poker is the most commonly cited work by winning players. Yes, it has flaws.
The players I play with are 18-26 years old.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!! I rarely feel the need so laugh out of insolence while writing a post, but your arguments combined with this quote pretty much sum up the size of the grain of salt with which your words are being taken by the smarter posters here (a class of which I assure you I am NOT a member). Do you play mostly no-limit, perchance?Crap, I just broke my own rule of assumption.-adam
Nice I was looking to seeif anything i wrote in your monster post was critical of me .. Im in the clear..
Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead he made up a long winded excuse with his fancy numbers and who is an underdog... well you can't decide who the underdog is until you've already played. You can't just guess! Also, there is no Wynn factor. So he is making money from them? Well sklansky makes money from his books... it's like saying you won't play him, because he has an edge in the books market and can afford more than you because of it.
That's a terrible analogy. You can be pretty certain that the wynn casino benefits a great deal from having these HU matches held there regardless of the outcome. As Daniel's employer, you can be fairly certain that they're doing what they can to encourage him to play these matches. I'm not saying that they're necessarily compensating him explicitly, but when you know that you have the ability to do something that will benefit the one who is writing your paycheque; that has SOME value to you, or at least it would for me. For Daniel, that benefit (no matter how marginal) exists as a function of how much the Wynn benefits - and we know that the Wynn benefits independent of the outcome. The same can't be said for an author of a book. While Sklansky might benefit in some extremely marginal way for having beaten daniel, he also stands to lose some marginal benefit of probably roughly the same value, if not more.That really says nothing about whether or not the odds he's giving are correct or why sklansky is turning down the offer.
Seriously, I don't know what to say other than, so what?Yes, he works for the Wynn, and it's his job to get people in the casino. So what? He made this challenege and laid out the stakes. If you don't like the stakes, then don't play. End of discussion. DS and MM didn't end it there though, they had to try and save face, even though nothing was ever directed solely towards them. My analogy wasn't meant to be a literal comparison, but to show that it's a stretch what he is trying to say. It really has no place in even being mentioned. Again.... It's a poker game. 2 people put up money... they play till someone wins. The end. If Sklansky can't accept that, he needs to stop calling himself a poker player... he is nothing but an angle shooter, and won't ever play unless he knows he has some monetary advantage, because he sucks too bad to win it with his own supposed skill. There isn't much more to it than that. If he's not good enough to play at those stakes, then why bother saying anything? He's actually hurting himself here, and in his twisted little head, he thinks he's making himself look like the big man. Well he's not. It's transparent what he's trying to do, and it makes him look more like a child than any amount of mocking DN could do to him. Nobody directed this challege towards him specifically... and he took the time to try and pick it apart and say how it wasn't worth it. Well if he was as good as he thinks he is, then it would be. But he's not. End of story.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Skalansky is a a flat out VAGINA! Thats it, end of story. Daniel lets him pick the game, gives a 10% discount, and Skalansky comes back with "Wynn factor" and "more than 48% less than 53%". His books are incredible and you simply cant be a good poker player and disagree that he writes about the fundamentals very well. That being said, how does he come up with 48%-53%? Are these estimates? If so, what is the margin of error? See, this crap doesnt matter. What matters is, they start off with the same amount of chips. They both have imperfect information, and one wins. I think Daniel has definitely bent over backwards and this guy wants the moon and the stars, with the key to heaven, and a guarantee that if he loses he can have his money back. Sad :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Skalansky is a a flat out VAGINA! Thats it, end of story. Daniel lets him pick the game, gives a 10% discount, and Skalansky comes back with "Wynn factor" and "more than 48% less than 53%". His books are incredible and you simply cant be a good poker player and disagree that he writes about the fundamentals very well. That being said, how does he come up with 48%-53%? Are these estimates? If so, what is the margin of error? See, this crap doesnt matter. What matters is, they start off with the same amount of chips. They both have imperfect information, and one wins. I think Daniel has definitely bent over backwards and this guy wants the moon and the stars, with the key to heaven, and a guarantee that if he loses he can have his money back. Sad :wink:
Your tagline quote is not from Dutch Boyd. Maybe he said it once, but you need to take his name off of there. People were saying that shit years before he was even born.just fyi
Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously, I don't know what to say other than, so what?Yes, he works for the Wynn, and it's his job to get people in the casino.  So what?  He made this challenege and laid out the stakes.  If you don't like the stakes, then don't play.  End of discussion.  DS and MM didn't end it there though, they had to try and save face, even though nothing was ever directed solely towards them.  My analogy wasn't meant to be a literal comparison, but to show that it's a stretch what he is trying to say.  It really has no place in even being mentioned.  Again.... It's a poker game.  2 people put up money... they play till someone wins.  The end.  If Sklansky can't accept that, he needs to stop calling himself a poker player... he is nothing but an angle shooter, and won't ever play unless he knows he has some monetary advantage, because he sucks too bad to win it with his own supposed skill.  There isn't much more to it than that.  If he's not good enough to play at those stakes, then why bother saying anything?  He's actually hurting himself here, and in his twisted little head, he thinks he's making himself look like the big man.  Well he's not.  It's transparent what he's trying to do, and it makes him look more like a child than any amount of mocking DN could do to him.  Nobody directed this challege towards him specifically... and he took the time to try and pick it apart and say how it wasn't worth it.  Well if he was as good as he thinks he is, then it would be.  But he's not.  End of story.
Something was directed towards them though. I do agree with you that basically they shouldn't have said anything. But when someone mocks you on your own site, I think that ellicits a response, no? I wouldn't be surprised if Mason hasn't the time. And we all know if you've read their books that they don't really do anything without an edge. They are still poker players and I think it's naive and stupid to say their not. Isn't that what poker's about to some people? Making money. To make money, you need an edge. Simple as that. To be a poker player, you don't have to just put up 100k on coin flips. I never knew that is what they did. I don't understand why everyone is going around trashing Sklansky and Malmuth because they didn't want to play. It's their money, and they can decline if they wish. I do agree that Sklansky shouldn't have posted a way in which he should have played and then not done it, if that is what's really going on. But the fact that everyone just attacks David and Mason is pretty dumb. Let's name some other pros that aren't playing. Are they too scared also? Who knows? They probably have the same reasons that David and Mason have, but aren't saying anything. By the way, don't go into the WPT forum at 2+2. Besides about 10-15 people who actually know what the hell they are talking about, the rest of morons. Better to stay in the forums about the specific games. But to each their own. :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something was directed towards them though. The original challenge wasn't directed at them. They were the first ones who came out and spoke up about how they don't have the advantage, and tried to change the whole thing around. Everything directed at them after this was only because of what they said in the first place. They opened the door.And we all know if you've read their books that they don't really do anything without an edge.And if you've read their books, you know that they think of poker itself as having an edge if you're playing correctly. If they really believe what they write about, they should have the edge already. To be a poker player, you don't have to just put up 100k on coin flips. It's not a coin flip if they really believe what they say. If they are such skilled players, and can play at optimal play, there should be no way that it's 50/50... If anything, they would give themselves the edge because of the way they play. *Just like DS did in the HU Tournament* How is this different? He made such a big deal about how he wasn't an underdog in that.I don't understand why everyone is going around trashing Sklansky and Malmuth because they didn't want to play. It's their money, and they can decline if they wish. This seems to be what you're missing. This is exactly what I said, they could have declined. But they didn't, instead they chose to make up long winded excuses, and try to change the stakes. YES... They could have just declined, but they didn't do that, they brought all of this on themselves. Let's name some other pros that aren't playing. Are they too scared also? Who knows? They probably have the same reasons that David and Mason have, but aren't saying anything. Exactly, why was there a reason to say anything? Why try to change the stakes up? It is what it is, if you're too scared, or to *cough* busy... then just don't say anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But I wouldn't call it middle limit.  DN ia better than DS.. so what.. that just makes DS smart for not taking the gamble.  Knowing your limitations, and game selection are key things great poker players have.
It proves he only takes the money off his fellow book readers not real players!Great poker players play against great poker players
No, you nitwit.. great players play at the highest stakes where they have an edge... If you play at such of a high stake that you nolonger have an edge, you are not a great player, you are a sucker. Because DS wouldn't be able to play against DS, or in the big game, doesn't mean he's not a great player. Just not the greatest player. And DS never claimed to be the greatest player. If you think Sklansky is such a fish, I encourage you to go play that sucker at the bellagio. Please keep us updated with your results.
Link to post
Share on other sites
How am I a fool by telling you a fact everyone who has one of his books is a losing player? The players I play with are 18-26 years old. I think these players are alot like Skalansky and have no backbone their not real players no feel for the game.
So now it's not the contect of Sklansky's book that makes them losing players, it's their lack of backbone? So the fact that you think Sklansky has no backbone somehow links these other guys to him and his book?That's absolutely ridiculous! Why don't you just concede that you made a bad call when judging the guys books. You can't link a players balls to poor strategy just because they own the guys book.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats it, I don't even really post here often, but I think I will stick to the stategy session. I mean just reading "Skalansky is not a good poker player" is making me laugh too much to take this guy seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Something was directed towards them though. The original challenge wasn't directed at them. They were the first ones who came out and spoke up about how they don't have the advantage, and tried to change the whole thing around. Everything directed at them after this was only because of what they said in the first place. They opened the door.And we all know if you've read their books that they don't really do anything without an edge.And if you've read their books, you know that they think of poker itself as having an edge if you're playing correctly. If they really believe what they write about, they should have the edge already. To be a poker player, you don't have to just put up 100k on coin flips. It's not a coin flip if they really believe what they say. If they are such skilled players, and can play at optimal play, there should be no way that it's 50/50... If anything, they would give themselves the edge because of the way they play. *Just like DS did in the HU Tournament* How is this different? He made such a big deal about how he wasn't an underdog in that.I don't understand why everyone is going around trashing Sklansky and Malmuth because they didn't want to play. It's their money, and they can decline if they wish. This seems to be what you're missing. This is exactly what I said, they could have declined. But they didn't, instead they chose to make up long winded excuses, and try to change the stakes. YES... They could have just declined, but they didn't do that, they brought all of this on themselves. Let's name some other pros that aren't playing. Are they too scared also? Who knows? They probably have the same reasons that David and Mason have, but aren't saying anything. Exactly, why was there a reason to say anything? Why try to change the stakes up? It is what it is, if you're too scared, or to *cough* busy... then just don't say anything.
Daniel's post in the WPT Forum was stupid and childish. I don't think you can really disagree. If you have read Tournament Poker for Advanced Players or know anything about Variance, you will know that putting up alotta money when it's too close may not be the correct decision for them to make. Everyone has to respect that. 100k is a shitload of a cash folks. Let's say Sklansky is a 53% favorite in his choice of games. Would you play 55 vs. AK over and over again for 100k a couple of times? That is alotta cash to wager in the short run on something so damn close. I would venture to guess David entered in the HU Championship because it is good for business. He always wants to get his moneys worth! Anyone ever notice this? It's on TV man. He was wearing a 2+2 shirt. HOH2 is almost out. Put it together. There is a substantial difference in put up 100k vs. entering in a HU tournament that costs substantially less that is televised. Think McFly! I don't think anyone could criticize anyone for trying to change things in their favor. I didn't bother to read the trash on 2+2 about all this stuff Sklansky wrote. All I know is if I were to play heads up against someone, I want an edge, etc...Mason made his excuse in response to Daniel's childish challenge/mockery. Certainly it ellicits a response. Fact is, Mason is effin busy with HOH2. I don't think you can disrespect that. He has to proofread and edit the entire script for errors, and make sure the book is how he wants it, all in a month. I don't think he is in any position to play a high stakes HE match vs. Daniel. Simple as that. It would be idiotic to think that he was in shape for it. He has barely put in 4 days worth at the tables in 5 months. Please.....It's really too bad that the challenges erupted into all that it has. It really drags everyones face through the mud here, Daniel included. I think that if he just wanted to flat out play people heads up, then there were certainly better ways to go about it. It's nice though, that two people can have an intelligent discussion without resorting to calling people obscene names, and insulting those involved. Everyone has reasons for doing the things they did, but no one respects that.
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

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...