Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's a shame all the posters on here are front-runners for DN. Suited_Up might have a different opinion if he hadn't met the man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's a shame all the posters on here are front-runners for DN. Suited_Up might have a different opinion if he hadn't met the man.
I think it's pretty clear that I am not a DN FR. I like him, I think he is a good player, but I stand up for David and Mason here...
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a shame all the posters on here are front-runners for DN. Suited_Up might have a different opinion if he hadn't met the man.
trying for the most part to ignore this part of these matches, its pure crap from both sides. Might as well be in high school and have them meet out back at 3:30 after school to beat the shit out of each other.
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
you sir, deserve castration.
Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way to everyone who wonders where the proof is that he is a winning player. What do you think he has been secretly working at Mcdonalds? He has been a professional gambler for years and made a living at it. What other "proof" do you need.On second thought, I haven't seen him all over ESPN, so no, I guess he does suck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok... the AK vs 55 analogy... this is EXACTLY what Suited-Up is saying...

"would you play AK vs 55 for 100k over and over again?"
no... if someone offered you this you would simply decline.... you would not respond by saying "ok, sounds good, I'll play the pocket fives side... but I'll only do it if you remove an ace and a king from the deck, and it's AK offsuit.... and if I lose I'll give you 90k but if you lose you give me 110k"that is what sklansky and malmuth did... instead of simply saying "no thank you" they had to come back with some counter offer that basically said"I think I'm better than you, but I don't have as much money as you... so I can't prove it... you are a huge dog in all of these matches... but none of us want to play you, because we don't like playing against the underdog"wtf? sklansky just wanted to get involved to get in on some of the publicity and feed his big ego.... I'm not trying to take anything away from sklansky, He's a poker god. and I'm not trying to defend DN just cuz it's his site... this is just the way I see it... If sklansky didn't see it as profitable he should have just said "no I don't want to play I don't find it profitable"instead he made a huge excuse to say "I'm just as good as you, if not better, but I don't want to play"
Link to post
Share on other sites

From Mason's 2+2 postDaniel:Your challenge is silly. Heads-up poker is not something I do or have ever done. So I agree that you would probably have a small edge against me. Does that make you feel better?No Mason you are silly.But I do stand on my previous statement that most of those who do take you up on your offer will be a favorite over you. So if you're so anxious to lay me 11-to-10, let me bet on some of those players with those odds.I know dedicating yourself to being the best at something you love should allways be ripped apart by haters like you Mason. By the way, I'm literally crushed with publishing work, Harrington on Hold 'em, Volume II is top priority at the moment. It will be followed by other important books including Theory and Practice of No Limit Hold 'em by David Sklansky and Ed Miller. So I'll only be in Wynn occasionally the next couple of months.Literally crushed from all that bragging. I bet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From Mason's 2+2 postDaniel:Your challenge is silly. Heads-up poker is not something I do or have ever done. So I agree that you would probably have a small edge against me. Does that make you feel better?No Mason you are silly.But I do stand on my previous statement that most of those who do take you up on your offer will be a favorite over you. So if you're so anxious to lay me 11-to-10, let me bet on some of those players with those odds.I know dedicating yourself to being the best at something you love should allways be ripped apart by haters like you Mason.  By the way, I'm literally crushed with publishing work, Harrington on Hold 'em, Volume II is top priority at the moment. It will be followed by other important books including Theory and Practice of No Limit Hold 'em by David Sklansky and Ed Miller. So I'll only be in Wynn occasionally the next couple of months.Literally crushed from all that bragging. I bet.
You're post is juvenile and stupid. Mason admitted he was a dog in the heads up match, which I think was part of why people were flipping out, claiming that Mason thought he was better but still declined. It makes sense right? Mason is a ring game player. He plays full tables. Heads up poker is completely different. I think it's understandable that Mason would not want to play heads up if he has no experience. It's also understandable that the ones who take up Negreanu's offer are gonna be favorites. They choose the game and the stakes, and are normally outstanding players in and of themselves. Look at his first match against DO. A limit hold em specialist. I don't get what the hell you are saying. I think Mason's statement is obvious to everyone but the thinking impaired. What if Mason was busy with his grandma in the hospital? You would have nothing to say. If he told you that, it would have been acceptable, and he would have recieved no flack. So why something at all? He is doing is job. He owns a book publishing company. Two ****ing books are coming out this summer. That is a crapload of work. I am sure so much that we can't comprehend. He doesn't seem happy about it anyway. You conveniently left out the part about how he complains that he hasn't been at the table too much all year. He is pretty disapointed he can't play some more poker I imagine. Congratulations on posting complete shit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really care about the  challenge it's just fact Skalanski is all talk his results definetely don't back up his mouth
What results would those be? Does the fact that he's been making a living as a poker player since at least the 70's not count as good results?Just because you don't see him on the WPT or ESPN doesn't mean he doesn't get results. He's found games and levels he can consistently beat and he sticks with that. That's called being a smart poker player.Let us know how your career is doing after 30 years.[And please, some one take the shovel out of his hands before he digs himself deeper.]
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whew. I'm glad I don't have a public message board in my fantasy baseball league. I'd hate to have total strangers calling each other names over their respective opinions of the perceived fairness of my Biggio-for-Overbay trade. But maybe that's just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whew. I'm glad I don't have a public message board in my fantasy baseball league. I'd hate to have total strangers calling each other names over their respective opinions of the perceived fairness of my Biggio-for-Overbay trade. But maybe that's just me.
And out of left field.........
Link to post
Share on other sites
ok... the AK vs 55 analogy... this is EXACTLY what Suited-Up is saying...
"would you play AK vs 55 for 100k over and over again?"
no... if someone offered you this you would simply decline.... you would not respond by saying "ok, sounds good, I'll play the pocket fives side... but I'll only do it if you remove an ace and a king from the deck, and it's AK offsuit.... and if I lose I'll give you 90k but if you lose you give me 110k"that is what sklansky and malmuth did... instead of simply saying "no thank you" they had to come back with some counter offer that basically said"I think I'm better than you, but I don't have as much money as you... so I can't prove it... you are a huge dog in all of these matches... but none of us want to play you, because we don't like playing against the underdog"wtf? sklansky just wanted to get involved to get in on some of the publicity and feed his big ego.... I'm not trying to take anything away from sklansky, He's a poker god. and I'm not trying to defend DN just cuz it's his site... this is just the way I see it... If sklansky didn't see it as profitable he should have just said "no I don't want to play I don't find it profitable"instead he made a huge excuse to say "I'm just as good as you, if not better, but I don't want to play"
YES YES YES YES YES!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is something all of you "math guys" can understand:Skalansky + Author = AwesomeSkalansky + Theory + Author= Fundamentally best there isSkalansky + "half-hearted, ridiculous counter offer" + made up, pulled out of thin air stat(ie Im 53% favorite over Daniel) = Pitiful attempt to save faceCome on guys, Daniels "one time offer" might have been a bit childish, but you have got to think of this from his point of view. He has to be sitting back and just thinking, "what the hell is up with these guys? They say they can beat me, they are superior in their game of choice, but they want an advantage going in. Its like me playing Michael Jordan one on one and him asking me to spot him 2 points on first to ten, and Jordan gets the ball first, make it take it." I think DN's post was funny and I guarantee you he was laughing to himself the whole time he wrote it. I dont have anything against Skalansky as a player, author, or person. But if you say you are better than someone and are unwilling to back it up, you lose credibility. I think Skalansky loses credibility with every post he conjures up on this topic. I can see str8 through it, it sounds like most reasonable posters here can as well. My 2 cents :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites
From Mason's 2+2 postDaniel:Your challenge is silly. Heads-up poker is not something I do or have ever done. So I agree that you would probably have a small edge against me. Does that make you feel better?No Mason you are silly.But I do stand on my previous statement that most of those who do take you up on your offer will be a favorite over you. So if you're so anxious to lay me 11-to-10, let me bet on some of those players with those odds.I know dedicating yourself to being the best at something you love should allways be ripped apart by haters like you Mason. By the way, I'm literally crushed with publishing work, Harrington on Hold 'em, Volume II is top priority at the moment. It will be followed by other important books including Theory and Practice of No Limit Hold 'em by David Sklansky and Ed Miller. So I'll only be in Wynn occasionally the next couple of months.Literally crushed from all that bragging. I bet.
You're post is juvenile and stupid. Mason admitted he was a dog in the heads up match, which I think was part of why people were flipping out, claiming that Mason thought he was better but still declined. It makes sense right? Mason is a ring game player. He plays full tables. Heads up poker is completely different. I think it's understandable that Mason would not want to play heads up if he has no experience. It's also understandable that the ones who take up Negreanu's offer are gonna be favorites. They choose the game and the stakes, and are normally outstanding players in and of themselves. Look at his first match against DO. A limit hold em specialist. I don't get what the hell you are saying. I think Mason's statement is obvious to everyone but the thinking impaired. What if Mason was busy with his grandma in the hospital? You would have nothing to say. If he told you that, it would have been acceptable, and he would have recieved no flack. So why something at all? He is doing is job. He owns a book publishing company. Two censored books are coming out this summer. That is a crapload of work. I am sure so much that we can't comprehend. He doesn't seem happy about it anyway. You conveniently left out the part about how he complains that he hasn't been at the table too much all year. He is pretty disapointed he can't play some more poker I imagine. Congratulations on posting complete censored.
Shootah, purchase an aircraft learn to fly. Run out of gas while you're in the sky.
Here is something all of you "math guys" can understand:Skalansky + Author = AwesomeSkalansky + Theory + Author= Fundamentally best there isSkalansky + "half-hearted, ridiculous counter offer" + made up, pulled out of thin air stat(ie Im 53% favorite over Daniel) = Pitiful attempt to save faceCome on guys, Daniels "one time offer" might have been a bit childish, but you have got to think of this from his point of view. He has to be sitting back and just thinking, "what the hell is up with these guys? They say they can beat me, they are superior in their game of choice, but they want an advantage going in. Its like me playing Michael Jordan one on one and him asking me to spot him 2 points on first to ten, and Jordan gets the ball first, make it take it." I think DN's post was funny and I guarantee you he was laughing to himself the whole time he wrote it. I dont have anything against Skalansky as a player, author, or person. But if you say you are better than someone and are unwilling to back it up, you lose credibility. I think Skalansky loses credibility with every post he conjures up on this topic. I can see str8 through it, it sounds like most reasonable posters here can as well. My 2 cents :roll:
nealdo17 is 100% correct.Imho.
Link to post
Share on other sites

sklansky is not a GREAT poker player...but he is a good one. i have met him on one occassion with a friend who routinely plays in the 400-800 game that he sits in sometimes, and my friend does not view him as one of his toughest opponents in the game at all. sklansky is just very very good at articulating poker strategy and theory, but as many people have said, he doesnt have the feel for the game. that is why all of the games he plays are limit. sklanksy is also very good at turning poker into as pure of mathematics as it can be, but there is the feel part when applying every single theory and odd, and only great players have that.

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.
Suited Up nailed it! Nice post
Link to post
Share on other sites
sklansky is not a GREAT poker player...but he is a good one. i have met him on one occassion with a friend who routinely plays in the 400-800 game that he sits in sometimes, and my friend does not view him as one of his toughest opponents in the game at all.  sklansky is just very very good at articulating poker strategy and theory, but as many people have said, he doesnt have the feel for the game. that is why all of  the games he plays are limit. sklanksy is also very good at turning poker into as pure of mathematics as it can be, but there is the feel part when applying every single theory and odd, and only great players have that.
Oh my some people get it! Been saying it all thread
Link to post
Share on other sites
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' date=' 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' date=' perchance?Crap, I just broke my own rule of assumption.look guy you need to learn how to read cause the person previously asked me a question I answered. As far as no limit I play it but it's not my best game STUD is my best game so bad assumption. As for Skalanski he has no backbone you can look for his results here on the web. I doubt he is even a winning player. I will concede he is a great limit hold em player but other than that he is pretty laughable.[/quote'']I don't post on here that much, basically because of censored like you. I really only post when I think someone needs to be corrected, and you are the lucky winner. The man you quoted has posted just about everything that needs to be said. I would like you to find me a page on the web like you quoted that shows Sklansky is not a winning player. It's pretty well known that he beats 300-600 Hold Em games, and is an expert on pretty much every form of poker. my favorite part is when you acknowledge that he is a great limit Hold Em player, and then go on to say that you doubt he is a winning player. As far as tournament poker goes, he has the same number of bracelets as Daniel, and his recent firsts in two of the PSII sngs, the winner of the "Poker by the Book" WPT, moneying in the WPT Championship, and coming in 6th in a bigger tourney at the Mirage also speaks for themselves. I don't think anyone would respect his books, especially Daniel, if he wasn't a winning player. I think you are an egotistical ignoramus, that either hangs out with similar folk, or illiterates. Anyone that reads Sklansky's books (and I hope you realize that it is Sklansky and not "Skalanski"), will be a winner in the long run. I would really like to see you take on some of the players in the Stud forum (since that is, of course, your best game) in a heads up match, or even just sit with them at a ring game and try to hold your head above water). I am actually surprised you haven't mention the fact that Sklansky, Malmuth, and Ray Zee have written the best book on Stud ever. And no, Adam's, West's, and certainly not Warren's books come even close. As for Sklansky having no backbone, that is a pretty big opinion. Realize that he is in poker for the money. That is his job. He isn't a gambler. If he doesn't want to take the challenge, then so be it. What about all the pros that aren't taking his challenge that aren't saying anything? They catch no flack whatsoever. As far as the challenges go, I think they are somewhat childish. Why Daniel chose to walk into the 2+2 forums and taunt Slansky and Mason is beyond me. It seems like deep down something really bothers Daniel about the two. Can you really fault anyone for not wanting to unneccessarily risk large sums of money on virtual coin flips? I think it shows a certain patience to put up with this crap anyway. It seems like if Daniel really wanted to just play poker heads up with people, he didn't need to spread all this censored about it online all over the place. I am pretty sure he could have just talked to these people over the phone, over e-mail, or in person. It seems like a "coincidence" to me that as soon as he is playing exclusively at the Wynn, that these challenges start. This is the Wynn Factor that Sklansky mentioned: He brings up a buzz about it, and he recieves some cash to play or whatnot. Anyway, I really hope that you realize pretty much everything you have posted in this thread is flaming censored, and that with every post you write, you lose respect and credibility to anyone capable of intelligent thought.
seriously I don't understand what you're saying !you lose respect and credibility to anyone capable of intelligent thought.
talking about intelligence heard of a paragraph so we can actually read the book you just wrote. You basically wrote a Seinfeld post it was meaningless,and a waste of time(your time really).
Link to post
Share on other sites
sklansky is not a GREAT poker player...but he is a good one. i have met him on one occassion with a friend who routinely plays in the 400-800 game that he sits in sometimes, and my friend does not view him as one of his toughest opponents in the game at all. sklansky is just very very good at articulating poker strategy and theory, but as many people have said, he doesnt have the feel for the game. that is why all of the games he plays are limit. sklanksy is also very good at turning poker into as pure of mathematics as it can be, but there is the feel part when applying every single theory and odd, and only great players have that.
Oh my some people get it! Been saying it all thread
Hey guess what!!! They aren't agreeing with what you said. You said that Sklansky sucked and that anyone who reads his books is a losing player. And rwood and everyone else who you claim "supports" your POV will agree that sklansky does NOT suck nor does reading his books guarentee a lose.
Link to post
Share on other sites
sklansky is not a GREAT poker player...but he is a good one. i have met him on one occassion with a friend who routinely plays in the 400-800 game that he sits in sometimes, and my friend does not view him as one of his toughest opponents in the game at all. sklansky is just very very good at articulating poker strategy and theory, but as many people have said, he doesnt have the feel for the game. that is why all of the games he plays are limit. sklanksy is also very good at turning poker into as pure of mathematics as it can be, but there is the feel part when applying every single theory and odd, and only great players have that.
Oh my some people get it! Been saying it all thread
Hey guess what!!! They aren't agreeing with what you said. You said that Sklansky sucked and that anyone who reads his books is a losing player. And rwood and everyone else who you claim "supports" your POV will agree that sklansky does NOT suck nor does reading his books guarentee a lose.
1.Well his results suck2. Everyone I know who reads his book are losing players
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...