sklansky vs. ivey - really a mismatch?

[Absolute 0]

I think if you asked the players in the event, not one of the 64- INCLUDING Sklansky would pick him to win. I agree that 2-1 is too much for anyone but that's why I said "close to."  This is how the match will go: Phil will chop away at him for the first couple or rounds. By the time the blinds get higher, Phil will have like a 26K to 14K lead. At that point, Sklansky will start to play pre-flop poker and hope to get lucky.

and then.....

Phil Ivey and David Sklansky battled back and forth for a while, with a few all ins, but the shorter stack usually had the best of it going in. Ultimately, Phil Ivey's hand didn't hold up, and he was eliminated. David Sklanksy advances to Round 2, where he will face the winner of the James Woods/Johnny Chan match.

From the little I have heard of this match, it seemed very hard-fought and equal.I know you don't mean to start a battle with David Sklansky, Daniel. (Also seems like that would spur some serious FCP vs 2=2 conflicts. You did say however this was the biggest mismatch of the first round, when some were speculating it might be the best match of the round.Now that the "upset" happened, I was wondering if you got a chance to view it or hear about it.Also, wouldn't you consider Orenstein over Chip Reese the biggest upset and perhaps the biggest mismatch?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

That match was "one of" the biggest mismatches. I described EXACTLY how things would go in that match and that's EXACTLY how they went. Ivey chopped away and then later when the blinds escalated Sklansky started to play aggressivley pre-flop. I also said that he was a smart guy and would realize he was an underdog and play accordingly. That's EXACTLY what he did.

[Scott31 0]

DAniel, Did you read Sklansky's lengthy response? It kind of sounds like you did, but maybe not. Anyway, I'm just curious as to whether or not you really felt he was a full-fledged 2-1 dog. That was the part that seemed to irritate him the most.

[PA32R 0]

DAniel,  Did you read Sklansky's lengthy response?  It kind of sounds like you did, but maybe not.  Anyway, I'm just curious as to whether or not you really felt he was a full-fledged 2-1 dog.  That was the part that seemed to irritate him the most.

Where did you read Sklansky's response?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I said close to 2-1. I figured something like 1.60, to 1.65. Hey, I could be wrong about the figure based on the fast pace blind structure, but if you wanted to do a heads up freezeout with 10,000 in chips and 25-50 blinds that never went up... I'd lay much, much more on Ivey. I said that Sklansky was a smart guy- he is. He did the right thing against both Chan and Ivey. He tried to hang as close as possible till the blinds went up and the post flop poker was much less significant. I guesstimated that Phil would probaly grind Sklansky down to a 26,000-14,000 advantage- that's exactly what happened.

[cap gusto 0]

daniel, i understand your position on the match of sklansky vs. ivey but do you feel that he took offense to your comments? I felt he was very defensive in his arguements in response. Not that i don't feel he made some very convincing points but was just curious to your thoughts on his response.

[Scott31 0]

Where did you read Sklansky's response?

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...6018&highlight=There it is. Warning: YOu may need a coffee break or two to get through it. It's long. :wall:

[boxcaral 0]

Is Slansky's ego so big that he has to defend himself against Daniel's impression of his skills in HUNLHE?Daniel set some conditions and made some hypotheticals. The only thing he did not correctly describe was the outcome, and he did not admit to actually laying a spread to anyone with real money. I think it was a pretty good call all things considered.On a similar note, how do you see the NCAA Tourney unfolding, Daniel?

[LeeDanger 0]

We need like a poker gossip magazine it seems like nowadays like the National Enquirer.

[Big-Ern777 0]

If you're a great player your game and success should speak for itself. I don't know why he spent the time putting in a fairly gigantic explanation on the "dreaded" 2 to 1 odds statement and where he matches up with other players like Ivey and Chan. Anyways, if his retort is that long he must feel he's being attacked to some extent, where as it was simply a prediction based on the gameplan for each player at the particular time and blind size of the match-up. I respect his deep mathematical thinking on various aspects of the game, but there are cases when odds are comletely over the top and unnecessary information. When you're playing heads up, simply figure that you're a dog or underdog at certain points in the match up, putting a number on this would seem like tedious information (speaking strictally from a player's view, betting would of course be different). So you're 48-52 against this guy! Yep, or in other words, an underdog...It's bullshit information when comparing people, because the actual calculated numbers truly have no relevance or bearing on your game; they just show that as I said before you're a dog in one situation and a favorite in the other and that's all you need know. What good is arguing the specific number on your shot of winning? "I'm not 40-60, I'm 45-55!" Setting odds for a match-up is fine, arguing that they're a little off would seem obsessive though. I'm surprised the statement even bothered him.

[hotdog da 2rd 0]

If you're a great player your game and success should speak for itself. I don't know why he spent the time putting in a fairly gigantic explanation on the "dreaded" 2 to 1 odds statement and where he matches up with other players like Ivey and Chan. Anyways, if his retort is that long he must feel he's being attacked to some extent, where as it was simply a prediction based on the gameplan for each player at the particular time and blind size of the match-up. I respect his deep mathematical thinking on various aspects of the game, but there are cases when odds are comletely over the top and unnecessary information. When you're playing heads up, simply figure that you're a dog or underdog at certain points in the match up, putting a number on this would seem like tedious information (speaking strictally from a player's view, betting would of course be different). So you're 48-52 against this guy! Yep, or in other words, an underdog...It's censored information when comparing people, because the actual calculated numbers truly have no relevance or bearing on your game; they just show that as I said before you're a dog in one situation and a favorite in the other and that's all you need know. What good is arguing the specific number on your shot of winning? "I'm not 40-60, I'm 45-55!" Setting odds for a match-up is fine, arguing that they're a little off would seem obsessive though. I'm surprised the statement even bothered him.

if somebody comes on the web and calls u a cripple, of course u have to defend urself. negreanu does it all the time. david sklansky is a theorist. if he's gona say something, he's gona say it in full depth, not like uh uh he's a 2-1 underdog and he's gona get killed. these sklansky bashes are lame. the guy is just trying to say that he can hold his own against top players and clearly proves it. lets see:sklansky vs. brunson (wtp event) - sklanskysklansky vs. chan - sklanskysklansky vs. ivey - sklanskygees that's pretty good for a non BIG GAME player wouldn't u say. some might even say he's undefeated against the BIG GAME players. lol

[ThePokerGeek 0]

I respect both Daniel and Sklansky's opinions and comments, but this part of Sklansky's response made me chuckle --

As to Daniels assertion that Phil would be favored over me in "any poker game known to man", that's ridiculous. I'm uncomfortable expounding on this too much because Phil himself didn't say it. And Daniel himself must know he is exagerating. For instance what about straight five card poker, no draw, one round of betting? What about hi-lo split where the low hand gets 60% of the pot? What about almost any game where the rules are such that neither one of us has never played it before?

Wow, let's make up games to refute Daniel's comment. That's the kind of logic that someone uses when someone's given a last wish before being put in the electric chair and they say, "Yeah, don't kill me."It's the context, not the syntax. Meaning of statement, not exact interpretation. Sklansky's acting like a lawyer looking for loopholes.Personally, it sounds like both Daniel and Sklansky believe about the same thing, but feel like they're still opposed and are nitpicking over incidentals.-PokerGeek

[hotdog da 2rd 0]

I respect both Daniel and Sklansky's opinions and comments, but this part of Sklansky's response made me chuckle --

As to Daniels assertion that Phil would be favored over me in "any poker game known to man", that's ridiculous. I'm uncomfortable expounding on this too much because Phil himself didn't say it. And Daniel himself must know he is exagerating. For instance what about straight five card poker, no draw, one round of betting? What about hi-lo split where the low hand gets 60% of the pot? What about almost any game where the rules are such that neither one of us has never played it before?

Wow, let's make up games to refute Daniel's comment. That's the kind of logic that someone uses when someone's given a last wish before being put in the electric chair and they say, "Yeah, don't kill me."It's the context, not the syntax. Meaning of statement, not exact interpretation. Sklansky's acting like a lawyer looking for loopholes.Personally, it sounds like both Daniel and Sklansky believe about the same thing, but feel like they're still opposed and are nitpicking over incidentals.-PokerGeek

goes to show he can also think outside the box, something people doesn't give him too much credit for. lol

[Big-Ern777 0]

If you're a great player your game and success should speak for itself.  I don't know why he spent the time putting in a fairly gigantic explanation on the "dreaded" 2 to 1 odds statement and where he matches up with other players like Ivey and Chan.  Anyways, if his retort is that long he must feel he's being attacked to some extent, where as it was simply a prediction based on the gameplan for each player at the particular time and blind size of the match-up.  I respect his deep mathematical thinking on various aspects of the game, but there are cases when odds are comletely over the top and unnecessary information.  When you're playing heads up, simply figure that you're a dog or underdog at certain points in the match up, putting a number on this would seem like tedious information (speaking strictally from a player's view, betting would of course be different).  So you're 48-52 against this guy!  Yep, or in other words, an underdog...It's censored information when comparing people, because the actual calculated numbers truly have no relevance or bearing on your game; they just show that as I said before you're a dog in one situation and a favorite in the other and that's all you need know.  What good is arguing the specific number on your shot of winning? "I'm not 40-60, I'm 45-55!"  Setting odds for a match-up is fine, arguing that they're a little off would seem obsessive though. I'm surprised the statement even bothered him.

if somebody comes on the web and calls u a cripple, of course u have to defend urself. negreanu does it all the time. david sklansky is a theorist. if he's gona say something, he's gona say it in full depth, not like uh uh he's a 2-1 underdog and he's gona get killed. these sklansky bashes are lame. the guy is just trying to say that he can hold his own against top players and clearly proves it. lets see:sklansky vs. brunson (wtp event) - sklanskysklansky vs. chan - sklanskysklansky vs. ivey - sklanskygees that's pretty good for a non BIG GAME player wouldn't u say. some might even say he's undefeated against the BIG GAME players. lol

Right..because making an odds estimate for kicks on a match-up is equivalent to calling them a cripple. And of course you must write an extensive rebuttle against this "crippling" statement. Sklanksy is an intelligent man, no doubt about it, but one thing there is also no doubt about is his tendency to overanalyze and go over the top on information that holds little importance or value, such as tediously arguing his odds against players like Ivey and Chan. Btw, Sklansky beat Brunson by outdrawing him on what I believe was every single all-in match up, regardless of who the dog was. If you consistently catch on the board on all-ins you can defeat any player despite skill. Sure, give credit where credit is deserved and undoubtfully Sklansky deserves credit for being a great player with mathematical genius and superb game theory, but on the other hand don't blow him out of proportion when it comes to his ability and refuse to ignore exactly how he beat a player such as Brunson, as you're no better than the person who simply denounces Sklanksy as bad. Biased is biased.