sklansky's reply to daniel's comments (long)

[BilliardsBoy 0]

It does come off as complaining, IMO. To say this was just a thesis or something for DN to see smells a little funny. So what if, off the cuff, DN said that he was a long shot to beat Chan or Ivey. I agree, and a lot of people probably would too. I think Sklansky is overestimating himself here, or underestimating two of the best players in the world. I don't think DN was saying Sklansky was a bad player, and neither are any of the posters on this thread, but for him to try to argue that he was 48% to win is absurd. He should have just taken what DN said in stride and written it off as just an opinion that doesn't affect his life. Instead, he took it to heart and felt the need to lash out. The issue here is that Sklansky here's "2-1", and DN is really just saying "dog."

[MikeR 0]

I will admit that my skills at reading are not as high as most world class players. (They should thank their lucky stars for that.) God I love Sklansky.

[ChuckSty 0]

ANyone who would lay 2-1 odds against sklansky in a heads up NL game against anyone is not right in the head.i would say 48% is probably about right. the guy is a math genius and the application of game theory in NL heads up play can be pretty scary shit. and in addition to this, his whole idea of not always looking at his hole cards would actually bring towards the mathematicians favor by increasing the amount of game theory involved and lessoning the amount of psychology. i'm not at all saying he was a favorite but 2-1, no way. granted it was certainly a big response to one small comment made by DN.but hey i'm a defensive SOB too, so i guess i kind of understand

[Dr_Shakes 0]

i think there's a 30% chance he's gloating. maybe even 40% if the blinds had gone up.

That is the funniest thing I've read all day! I haven't read his book but this is so interesting converstation that i am intrigued and I guess he has made one more book sale!Peace

[MikeR 0]

In 50 years, most of the hot pros of today will be forgotten, and people will still be reading Theory of Poker.

[Guest]

What many of you fail to understand is why it appears he's so defensive. Everything he's published in poker has always been very formal and thorough. So when merely writing about his criticisms about the 2 to 1 odds he comes off as very defensive. All he is doing though, is merely elaborating on that point to make sure no details are missed.Surely after you write a few 1000+ word research/theory essays you'll see what I mean about finding it difficult to write more casually.

[Lorax 0]

I think I am gonna buy the book.....I really having trouble getting to sleep at night and if the book is anything like his post - then this will be one of the best drug-free sleep aids I have ever run across....!!

[BilliardsBoy 0]

In 50 years, most of the hot pros of today will be forgotten, and people will still be reading Theory of Poker.

True, but in 50 years I think DN will be like 45 and going strong, so you'll probably still hear from him too.

[brian36lefty 0]

Some people made these points, but hey I want my 2 cents in here to. First, Skalanksy is an absoulute brilliant man and teacher of the game. His knowledge of game theory is far beyond just about anyone else in the poker world, which is why his statement of only 6 people of so knowing that information was correct.Second, he is correct in accessing the fact he is only a small underdog against world class players in a fast moving structure nl game. If you have ever read his advanced tournament book, he talks about some of the flaws of nl tournament play and the fact that the all in move can neutralize a better player.Third, so what if he doesn't play in the big game. First off he said, his reading skills is not on the level of some of the world class players there, and also he might be giving off tells because of the ability of these best players to read them. Also, it probably isn't in his best finacial interest because his expected value in a 300/600 game is probably higher. Last, he mentioned this and it was something brought up earlier on this forum, the fact that Daniel is not one of the top players in the big game and therefor is probably an overall loser at these stakes. I, like most here, think Daniel is a great player and love all that he has done for the poker world, but the simple fact is this, in a cash game setting Doyle, Chip, Chau, Ivey, Berman all have advantages on him.

[MetalFaceDoom 0]

1. Sklansky would beat anyone here who argues against him.2. Sklansky is a successful author. If you argue about his success in poker, its above average. He doesn't play huge stakes, but he also doesn't need to. If you asked him what he did for a living, his answer wouldn't be poker, much less gambling. (aside from his "gambling for a living" book. but its his writing, not his playing)3. As an author in the realm of poker, being able to back up your writing by playing the game well certainly does help. Its not as if his knowledge and writing is going to help so many other players and not him. So if someone calls his playing weak, that would also imply that his books are as well.4.

Sklansky clearly felt that the odds that DN laid out were way off and, again, since he's a math guy, he may have taken this "ignoring of the truths of math" personally.

Couldn't be more correct. DN was making a point, which mathematically was absurd. Sklansky might not have been able to look pas that but he knows what he's talking about when it comes to numbers, you can't deny that. Im sure DN could have thought about it more and maybe given different numbers, but i dont think he was analyzing, again, just trying to make a point.5. If i made a thread that said you (any of you specifically) sucked at poker, most of you would reply.hugs and kissesMF

[ChkDeezNuts 0]

I will say this:Get Sklansky and a selection of what ever any of you guys think are the best pros.....and have them play LIMIT holdem 40 hours a week for one year.....I am willing to say that I am pretty confident that Sklansky would have the best results at the end of the year.PS.- If you read SS2, the LIMIT holdem section is spectacular.....read it...then compare it to Holdem for Advanced players (sklansky).....all the concepts are basically the same.

[MilesZS 0]

In 50 years, most of the hot pros of today will be forgotten, and people will still be reading Theory of Poker.

True, but in 50 years I think DN will be like 45 and going strong, so you'll probably still hear from him too.

haha 50 years and Daniel will be 45. I hope I can make the kind of money it takes to make me 45 in 50 years. Hell, I'd be happy if they let me be 55 in 50 years. That's much better than 72.

[DeadMoney6545 0]

Sklansky's book is considered just as valuable if not more than Doyle's SS (1 0r 2) in many many many circles... the whole "math geek" poster hit it right on the head... many many players base their complete game off mathematics and no feel... it kills me how all the DN apologists absolutely flamed this guy for defending his own personal opinion about HIS OWN GAME.. Sklansky is a flippin genius and has great knowledge of the game... his odds against this forum ... 3:1 any game... (maybe not nickel dime limit... but pretty much anything else)just my opinion... i could be way off... lolHow many people have actually read his book?

[KDawgCometh 2]

2. Sklansky is a successful author. If you argue about his success in poker, its above average. He doesn't play huge stakes, but he also doesn't need to. If you asked him what he did for a living, his answer wouldn't be poker, much less gambling. (aside from his "gambling for a living" book. but its his writing, not his playing)

300/600 is high stakes poker and from what I've heard, he kills it

[BilliardsBoy 0]

I don't think anyone is doubting his abilities or his genius. I can't speak for everyone, but my only point was that Sklansky took the number DN threw out there to heart, but DN was simply trying to say he felt Sklansky was an underdog. And I would agree with saying that Sklansky going against Phil Ivey and Johnny Chan and winning puts him at a fair disadvantage. Probably not 2-1, but I also think that 48% is a little to much.

[elkang 0]

Sklansky is a writer and theorist. This is a perfect opportunity for him to teach and expound on his views briefly on his own damn forums. He has an audience and a topic that has been in contention.The post is perfectly normal for the situation and I don't feel exudes any personal animosity.I think the biggest point is that he is not a 2 to 1 underdog and that he was underestimated. Can you all concede that? I said that the 37% underdog win rate was about accurate (I said 40% to the underdogs)... so I was much closer to Sklansky's than to Daniel's 2:1.And btw, Phil Hellmuth was underestimated too... I picked him to win his bracket.. but was surprised to see him win it all. I would have bet some money on Daniel though...

[AKQJs_2o 0]

In 50 years, most of the hot pros of today will be forgotten, and people will still be reading Theory of Poker.

True, but in 50 years I think DN will be like 45 and going strong, so you'll probably still hear from him too.

Hmm ... don't bother reading any of Slansky's books. The math is probably too deep for you.

[mk 11]

again, does anyone have a link to daniel's original comments?

[jooka 0]

In 50 years, most of the hot pros of today will be forgotten, and people will still be reading Theory of Poker.

True, but in 50 years I think DN will be like 45 and going strong, so you'll probably still hear from him too.

Hmm ... don't bother reading any of Slansky's books. The math is probably too deep for you.

[DeNuts1 0]

Anybody ever notice how Daniel pisses more people off in the professional poker world than any other pro? And whats this with the "off the cuff crap"? If you are great at something and somebody takes a shot at you on or "off the cuff" would you not respond?

[AnnChristiansen 0]

DN was simply trying to say he felt Sklansky was an underdog.

If that is all he was trying to say he has a very, very poor way of expressing it. It's just as easy to write "3-2" or "6-5" as it is to write "2-1". And yet DN chose to write "2-1". And DN also said things that were factually incorrect -- the list of people who haven't ready Sklansky's books is but one example.DN and Sklansky are at opposite ends of the poker player spectrum. DN wins by reading people and has little technical understanding (he wouldn't know a stochastic differential equation if it pulled down his pants and gave him a blow job) while Sklansky has a deep technical understanding of the game and isn't as good at reading people.So Sklansky did a great service to the poker community by explaining the technical reasons behind his play and explaining why DN's comments were mathematically off the mark.

[EJ333 0]

I think Sklansky was simply refuting some of the unfounded comments that Daniel made. "Phil Ivey should dominate Sklansky. It's funny that this match was mentioned here as most exciting, when the players in the room were thinking that it was likely the biggest mismatch on the board.Phil is close to a 2-1 favorite to win this match." DNOk so he didn't say 2-1 exactly. What is close? 9-5? 8-5? Certainly more than 3-2. I would take Sklanksy at 8-5 all day against Ivey providing the blinds escalate. As for not being able to read his opponent, I wonder how easy it is for anyone to get a meaningful read on an opponent like Phil Ivey, particularly in a heads up situation. This is further exagerrated by the difficulty of the getting information from betting patterns in a heads up match. For example at a full table if someone under the gun raises 3x the blind, you would assume that he has some sort of hand. In heads up a raise of 3x the bb means next to nothing.Further Daniel states something to the effect that there is a long list of pros that never read any books by Sklansky. Comments like that, whether they are true or not just seem petty and unwarranted. Daniel is one of my favorite players to watch and read about. In a forum like this, his every word is going to be put under a microscope and debated. He probably gives more insight into his life than any other player around (with the exception of Al Can't Hang, www.alcanthang.com/poker) and I think we all appreciate him sharing his thoughts. It will be interesting to see if he responds to Sklansky's comments, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[TS Clark 0]

When WRTO made his original comment about who hasn't read Sklansky's books, and Daniel made his reply about Sklansky's reading abilities (or lack therof) and that he (DN) knew lots of successful guys who hadn't read his (DS) books, it struck me as a little strident on DN's part. I didn't really understand why someone with DN's abilities felt the need to take time to personally respond and somewhat impugn Sklansky's poker ability -- especially since Sklansky has not represented anywhere that I've read that he's the best poker player on earth.As I've thought more about it, I realize that this whole little snarking match (whether it was intentional or not on DN's part, I don't know) is mirrored in my favorite sport -- baseball. The "old school" baseball guys don't care about numbers, statistical analysis, etc. -- they are confident in their ability to "read" whether a player is good based on their judgement and gut alone. The "new school" guys (Beane, Epstein, DePodesta) use their guts, too, but are also heavily reliant on statistical analysis to make judgements about personnel. This has created a classic standoff between the old school guys (who call the new school guys "eggheads") and the new school wunderkinds (who believe the old school guys are "dinosaurs").I think this same thing happens in the poker world. There seems to be a sort of exclusive club mentality among the top guys in both the TA and LA communities (of which, DS and DN are clearly leaders respectively). I really do believe that some of them think they're already on the Ark and that the doors to the boat are closed. It's a pretty natural human response for ego-driven people to try and close ranks. And one of the ways you prevent INclusion is to promote EXclusion. This is why, I think, you hear the top guys frequently running down the up-and-coming guys (as well as the top guys on the other side of the theoretical fence, a la what DS and DN are allegedly doing to each other).All of this stuff comes down to issues of style and personality. Poker, for all its growth, is still a strange little subculture (just like baseball). And the tensions between the different "schools" of thought (read-dependent vs. mathematical, no-limit vs. limit, etc.) are very much a product of this strange little subculture where everyone knows everyone, everyone is ego-equipped, and everyone has an opinion. I'm sure DN has felt slighted on many occasions by the Sklansky-types (who feel he is just super-lucky), and might be returning some of that ire to DS and his devotees. And, obviously, we don't know what (if any) underlying personal issues might have loaded into this back-and-forth between DS and DN.I guess my point is that the growth of this sport (poker) is going to bring many things like this into focus in years to come. And, that's great for us as the viewing public. That's what created some interest. If there was only one absolute truth about the right way to do things, what fun would it be? And if everyone got along, where's the entertainment? I'm just glad these little human dramas get played out in front of us, so WE have something to debate. And, also, we get to watch the experiments on playing styles and their effectiveness take place in front of us. Which, when you think about it, is one of the really cool things about any competitive endeavor.Sorry the post length. Just thought this was an interesting topic.

[faketree 0]

again, does anyone have a link to daniel's original comments?

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...opic.php?t=5803

[Absolute 0]

Actually, that's not the right thread.It's this one..http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...=asc&highlight=