[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]


Is the best 1,000/2,000 players that much better than the best 300/600 player or is it just bankroll that lets the 1,000/2,000 player into that game.



[/ QUOTE ] Well if you read the OP its Sklansky's contention that most of the big game players are not any better than a top 300/600 player. Believe Sklansky, or don't, for rather obvious reasons I can't make an informed guess at that.


[ QUOTE ]
Is not better to be GOOD at mixed games than just one specialty? In a rotation of 5 games the good mixed game player has 4 games to take the money and the specialist only has one game to take the cash?


[/ QUOTE ]

Depends, I suppose. Obviously being good at a number of games means you are less likely to have to avoid juicy games. For a high stakes player (not just the highest stakes player) there's an obvious benefit to that. If there are a limited number of juicy games at higher stakes, it would be too bad to have to pass up a, say, great seven stud hi-lo game because you aren't good at that game.

On the other hand, being a specialist who is great at one game, means you have an expectation of profit against almost any opposition, and if the game you are a specialist at is commonly spread, that too is a good position to be in.

I would reject your proposition, that its either or, though, and say the best position would be to be very good at all kinds of games, and a specialist in one or two (if we assume, that is, that it is not possible to become a top top level player in all the games).