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

[jooka 0]

dont forget this one:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...ighlight=#59530and this one:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...ighlight=#59473and this one:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...ighlight=#59458not to forget this one:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...ighlight=#59437I dont think its inappropriate for sklansky to respond after all that.

[mrnuts 0]

From daniels point of view he was just stating the obvious and that is that a guy who plays 60+ hours a week in the biggest games in the world is gonna be a favorite over a poker author who plays fewer hours at lower stakes. He took back his comments on the 2-1 thing but didnt back off sklansky being a dog and he clearly should have been. According to Sklansky he said he would play weak and probably be down 60/40 early and then have advantage when the blinds got higher but that is just ridiculous. To think that ivey isn't gonna know when the right time to gamble in a heads up situation is clearly a way of sklansky saying he is a better move in specialist(which may be good game theory tactic but lacks any skill). And for his comments on daniel not being able to beat the big game (according to greenstein) i can't wait for daniels response to that. He obviously hasn't been killing the big game but obviously was killing the lower levels(all higher than 300/600), and for sklansky to say daniel is only successfull against weaker players is hipocracy in the fact that sklansky plays at much lower levels and against clearly WEAKER competition.

[ChkDeezNuts 0]

From daniels point of view he was just stating the obvious and that is that a guy who plays 60+ hours a week in the biggest games in the world is gonna be a favorite over a poker author who plays fewer hours at lower stakes.  He took back his comments on the 2-1 thing but didnt back off sklansky being a dog and he clearly should have been.  According to Sklansky he said he would play weak and probably be down 60/40 early and then have advantage when the blinds got higher but that is just ridiculous.  To think that ivey isn't gonna know when the right time to gamble in a heads up situation is clearly a way of sklansky saying he is a better move in specialist(which may be good game theory tactic but lacks any skill).  And for his comments on daniel not being able to beat the big game (according to greenstein) i can't wait for daniels response to that.  He obviously hasn't been killing the big game but obviously was killing the lower levels(all higher than 300/600), and for sklansky to say daniel is only successfull against weaker players is hipocracy in the fact that sklansky plays at much lower levels and against clearly WEAKER competition.

You want to know who kills the big game?Look at their personal net worth......till we have that info...we know nothing....But my money is on Doyle, Chip, and Berman.

[Bigkspec 0]

It's interesting that the posts criticizing Sklansky are mostly one liners and challenges to him, but the posts defending him have long, thought out rationale.Sklansky's life probably revolves around poker--he's an author, a teacher, and a player. And he's done well enough over the past to be respected. When people challenge his credibility in any of the above categories, he has the right to respond. If I called any of you terrible poker players, I'd bet you'd respond with threats and name-calling (As much of this forum is nowadays--just look at anything involving Smash). The fact that Sklansky used logic and reasoning in a point-by-point refutation without slander or accusations is commendable. If anyone's going to challenge him, do it in a way that contradicts with what he said. Don't throw out challenges like "Put him in the big game and see if he wins!" because that's not his argument.

[gadjet 11]

I think there's another thing to add… DN's coming out with a new book. DN has been able to break many of Sklansky's rules and be a big success, and DN's book will try to break the typical traditional theory outlining how the game can go outside the confines of math which Sklansky has difficulty with because he believes everything in the world, including a sunset can be mathematically explained…. Sklansky is the Knish sp? of the poker pro world. Sklansky's on tilt… if they ever do play heads up, DN will destroy him, he must be at least a 3:1 dog.. haha! Because now all he has to say while they're playing is "Noone reads your books, and you know you are a 4 to 1 payout against me at best…. "

[faketree 0]

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

Actually mine is one of the right ones. It contains Daniels comment about certain players not reading sklanskys books.

[Suited_Up 2]

About TSClark's lengthy response....It's kind of like DN is new money. Know what I mean?For everyone elses response. I think a lot of you are making arguments that don't really apply. So he does well in the 300/600 game... But at no point was anyone talking about whether he could make money playing poker. It was about the level of competition in a tournament... and more specifically about a HU match with one person. Why does his success in limit ring games matter?Also... If you can discredit what DN said, why should you automatically take what DS said as fact. They could technically both be full of crap just shooting their mouths off, and everyone here is taking everything as fact, on whoever's side they most believe. Just because DS writes half a book about DN being wrong, half of which you can't even understand, doesn't mean it's a better argument or has more validity. As I said before, it sounds like he's trying to sell more books.

[Bigkspec 0]

From daniels point of view he was just stating the obvious and that is that a guy who plays 60+ hours a week in the biggest games in the world is gonna be a favorite over a poker author who plays fewer hours at lower stakes.  He took back his comments on the 2-1 thing but didnt back off sklansky being a dog and he clearly should have been.  According to Sklansky he said he would play weak and probably be down 60/40 early and then have advantage when the blinds got higher but that is just ridiculous.  To think that ivey isn't gonna know when the right time to gamble in a heads up situation is clearly a way of sklansky saying he is a better move in specialist(which may be good game theory tactic but lacks any skill).  And for his comments on daniel not being able to beat the big game (according to greenstein) i can't wait for daniels response to that.  He obviously hasn't been killing the big game but obviously was killing the lower levels(all higher than 300/600), and for sklansky to say daniel is only successfull against weaker players is hipocracy in the fact that sklansky plays at much lower levels and against clearly WEAKER competition.

Sklansky's argument is that skill isn't necessary equated with winning in NL HU situations with high blinds. I think a lot of us have seen this at the late stages of a tournament with high blinds--skill sometimes takes a backseat to luck. Sklansky's argument was that by moving in every hand with high blinds, he could either 1) Take highly valued blinds and grind Ivey down or 2) Get called and not really be that much of a dog--outside of high pocket pairs, most hands aren't better than 2-1 against even the worst hands. Based on Sklansky's post, he's not choosing all hands like 2-7 to go all-in with anyway. And with blinds that high, it'd be hard for Ivey to wait out a high pocket pair. If Ivey has as much talent as he does, would he even want to gamble as only a 60-40 favorite when he has, for example A-10? It's a tough call.So if Ivey choose to gamble, he'd be putting his tournament life on the line as a small favorite. If he waited too long for his "good hand to gamble with," Sklansky might even have the chips to take a blow. And even if Ivey did gamble, there's a chance Sklansky had a good hand as well. That's Sklansky's stance--not that he has more skill.All in all, Sklanky's premise is that NL HU is a very volatile game, and it's absurb to give anyone a huge edge. On the side note of Daniel beating the big game, when did Daniel ever say that? I've read all his forum entries and it seems like he just breaks even in the long run...he's posted a lot of losing days. Also, Sklanky isn't a hypocrite for challenging Daniel's ability in the big game. For him to be a hypocrite, he would need to say that he could beat it as well but plays lower limits. I don't believe he makes that argument.

[TS Clark 0]

About TSClark's lengthy response....It's kind of like DN is new money.  Know what I mean?

Well said. And, as you know, old money doesn't often like new money. The interesting thing though is that with the explosive growth of poker, the "new money" (like DN, Gus Hansen, Fischman, etc.) is quickly becoming "old money." With all the money in these new touneys, the process of going from poker zero to poker hero is pretty darn fast. It'll be interesting to see some long-term results for lots of these guys (both old and new) in years to come when poker has some drop-off (as it inevitably will).As for selling books, I think lots of these guys are being snarky to each other trying to do this very thing. DN making comments in a recent CardPlayer about "you won't find this hand on the Group 3 Sklansky chart" (not coincidental, since we know DN is writing a book), Sklansky defending himself at so much length in the 2+2 forum (protecting his turf), Gus Hansen talking about the "hidden structure" that he's found, etc..Lots of turf wars bound to break out when every one is marketing themsleves and their wares like ferrets on speed.

[jooka 0]

On a side note, I think this makes DN look bad because I get the feeling his tournament results wont be very good this year. So far he hasnt done well at all and seems he has more business dealings going on and not so much focus on just poker, kinda like Hellmuth was last year. Just speculation of course but so far this year DN's main focus doesnt seem to be poker.

[cap gusto 0]

David Sklansky is easily one of the most respected poker authors in the game. I find it hard to believe that a man of his understanding of the game is a dog to any players exempting a few. (This would be a minimal dog) When applying his mathematics, game theory, and poker skill in a HU situation with the blind structure mentioned, I just feel that there is no way his "dog" status can be mathematically correct. He makes very convincing arguments that are backed up with statistically viable and legit data. There is no denying that DN, Ivey, and above mentioned players are world class, but so is Sklansky. I don't think there is the possiblity of writing a book like Theory of Poker without having applied it with great success. If DS is just trying to sell more books as some have said then whoever buys them is going to be much better off in their poker game for it.

[mrnuts 0]

According to sklansky daniel is only winning tournaments because they are filled with WEAK players but shouldn't he reflect on his own tournament results before making such a ludricrous statement. What is he saying for his own game if he wasn't won ANY tournies in the last 20 years and he plays SMALLER buy in events than daniel does. Granted he plays less tournaments but since they are against even weaker competition you figure such he would post some decent results. The fact that he brags about winning 4 out of 10 sit n goes is priceless and then goes on to rip daniel who has won 4 MAJOR tournies and over 4 million in last year. If you look at Sklanksky's record he has ONLY 3 CASHES IN HIS LIFE IN NO LIMIT HOLD'EM TOURNY'S, AND NO HIGHER FINISH THAN 25TH. haha im sorry but that alone makes ivey a bigger favorite than 52/48, and those stats alone cleary warrant daniel's remark about no limit being his WEAKEST game.

[mrnuts 0]

not to mention that ivey has far more experience playing heads up, given the fact sklansky has only done it twice live for big money......and phil over 10 times this too has to be taken into concideration. Clearly sklansky was just offended by daniel's remarks but the fact is most of them were dead on and the stats back it up

[bobbytheo3 0]

DN's success in the big game or big NLHE tourneys are irrelevant to this argument, as are slansky's choice to play smaller stakes than DN. Slanskys point was simply regarding his odds against Ivey in the heads up tourney and I still haven't seen anyone really make a good argument against any point he made regarding his mathematical/game theory approach to the match and how it would give him his best possible chance to beat ivey. (which he did, but that isn't important either. even if he lost, it doesnt mean his strategy wasn't sound or his odds of winning weren't around 50%)

[Suited_Up 2]

What's really funny, is that I think what really made sklansky mad, was that Daniel said 2-1 odds. Which is like sklanskyland to give odds. So it got him real mad, cause DN crossed over into the math side of the game against the math guy. LOL. How gay is this whole thing.

[corndog 0]

That's why, as Barry Greenstein has said, Daniel out does the best players in tournaments even though he doesn't beat them in side games

I thought this was a pretty interesting point. Sklanksy is alluding to the fact that Daniel's a losing player at side games. Why would he say something like this? DN has told us he wins at side games.

[mrnuts 0]

On a side note, I think this makes DN look bad because I get the feeling his tournament results wont be very good this year. So far he hasnt done well at all and seems he has more business dealings going on and not so much focus on just poker, kinda like Hellmuth was last year.  Just speculation of course but so far this year DN's main focus doesnt seem to be poker.

sorry buddy but only you look bad for making that ridiculous comment. if 450k isnt very good then ill happily take not being good for the rest of my poker days. 450k in a little over 2 months isnt that bad to me, let alone being the all time money leader in tournaments in the history of poker.

[jtwoms 0]

To Mr. Nuts and all other posters who fall in this category,It is absolutely absurd for anyone to bring Sklansky's tournament record into this argument. Why you may ask? Well that is because we are talking about something different than a multi-table tournament. We are talking about No-Limit Heads Up Hold'em. We are not judging him on his play outside of NL HU, because that is not his argument. His argument is that he can become a "move-in specialist" when the blinds become higher. And about this mrnuts "(which may be good game theory tactic but lacks any skill)"Since when does it matter if you have skill as long as your winning? So what if moving in requires no skill, if it works, why not use it. Making an argument like that is contradictory because game theory takes an innordinate amount of skill, and you are saying that something that is very skillfull does not require skill. Somehow that doesnt make sense to me.Enjoy,JT

[Dirtydutch 8]

LOL. Remind me not to start $hit with the Sklan-Man(although his grammar is almost as bad as mine.).Dutch.

[jayistheman 0]

i think that batman could beat the crap out of spiderman.... can anyone prove me wrong?

[Awful 0]

I think the biggest thing is that by naming Ivey a 2-1 fave, he's calling into question some of Sklansky's work on no-limit freezeouts, controlling the opponent's edges, and overcoming edges in the soft skills of poker (as opposed to mathematical theory).In Tournament Poker for Advanced players, he illustrates a +EV prop bet where you play a freezeout with your opponent where your adversary lays you 2-1 on the condition that you push all in preflop with every hand played in the freezeout. There aren't enough hands that beat a random one 2-1 to lay 2-1 on the outcome of the freezeout, and as a result the all-in move can negate edges larger than that (because once someone picks up a big pair, the only hand they can lay 2-1 with at +EV vs. 2 completely random cards, they've USUALLY been ground down quite a bit).He shows that the all-in move eliminates skill enough to reduce edges to the 60-40 range or lower (depending on the aggressiveness of the blind structure).By naming Ivey a 2-1 favorite, he didn't just challenge Sklansky, he challenged Sklansky's theoretical work. I think that's the key to this whole explosion; he implied that Sklansky was wrong about some theory aspects. DS believes his knowledge of the game includes how to mask skill disparity at NL when heads-up; THAT is why he worries about it; his adjustments could only be made by deciding to minimize his opponent's edges and through admitting he's the worse player. He's not claiming superiority. He's simply defending his theoretical work.

[AnnChristiansen 0]

DN has been able to break many of Sklansky's rules and be a big success

Name three.

[mrnuts 0]

To Mr. Nuts and all other posters who fall in this category,It is absolutely absurd for anyone to bring Sklansky's tournament record into this argument.  Why you may ask?  Well that is because we are talking about something different than a multi-table tournament.  We are talking about No-Limit Heads Up Hold'em.  We are not judging him on his play outside of NL HU, because that is not his argument.  His argument is that he can become a "move-in specialist" when the blinds become higher.  And about this  mrnuts "(which may be good game theory tactic but lacks any skill)"Since when does it matter if you have skill as long as your winning?  So what if moving in requires no skill, if it works, why not use it.  Making an argument like that is contradictory because game theory takes an innordinate amount of skill, and you are saying that something that is very skillfull does not require skill.  Somehow that doesnt make sense to me.Enjoy,JT

I was referring to sklansky's statement that negreanu beats up on only weak players and that is why he is so successfull in tournaments and not in big cash games. If you are gonna make a statement like that im sorry but your own results are going to be questioned.

[Mister Hand 0]

Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed reading this thread. in particular, I thought the posts by Gamblinleaf and TSClark were very well thought out. I don't think that Sklansky is overly annoyed with anything that was said; he just wanted to refute the erroneous estimates of his chances in a HU match. I think the idea that Sklansky is doing anything close to "flaming" is pretty silly, especially when compared to some of the stuff that's gone on in this board. If anything hurt Sklansky, i'm guessing it was DN's claim that certain pros hadn't read his books when if fact they had. If Sklansky is concerned about his repuation as a poker author, he has a right to be. He earned that rep.One question to those who think that Sklansky's own estimate of being 48% in a typical HU against a top NL player is "way off": What percent of the time do you think he would win? If he's right that any player pushing all-in every hand will win 40% of the time in a typical blind structure, does another 8% for one of the foremost game theorists in the world really seem that out of line?

[mrnuts 0]

Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed reading this thread.  in particular, I thought the posts by Gamblinleaf and TSClark were very well thought out.  I don't think that Sklansky is overly annoyed with anything that was said; he just wanted to refute the erroneous estimates of his chances in a HU match.  I think the idea that Sklansky is doing anything close to "flaming" is pretty silly, especially when compared to some of the stuff that's gone on in this board.  If anything hurt Sklansky, i'm guessing it was DN's claim that certain pros hadn't read his books when if fact they had.  If Sklansky is concerned about his repuation as a poker author, he has a right to be.  He earned that rep.One question to those who think that Sklansky's own estimate of being 48% in a typical HU against a top NL player is "way off":  What percent of the time do you think he would win?  If he's right that any player pushing all-in every hand will win 40% of the time in a typical blind structure, does another 8% for one of the foremost game theorists in the world really seem that out of line?

didnt see the match live but im pretty sure that sklansky didnt push in every single time thus the 60/40 doesnt really apply as there was some "play" im involved in which ivey is a clear favorite post flop. I would say ivey wins between 55-60 out of 100.