Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But as I pointed out in my original post, the strongest theoretical players actually look down upon 2+2 books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are you getting this from? I see it in your post, but I don't see your references.

[/ QUOTE ]


Search for posts from Tom Weideman, Abdul Jalib, Jerrod Ankenman, or Bill Chen either on RGP or here.

Or just believe me.

[/ QUOTE ].

I just did a search for 3 of the 4. No luck. Can you link 2 or 3 of the posts on 2+2 you are referring to ? I quit RGP years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]


Most of those posters were active on 2+2 years ago. Abdul got banned actually.

If you search the RGP archives for Abdul Jalib as author and the term "2+2" you get this:

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=2%2...07&safe=off


I guess you can try the same with the other names as authors.

But really I can boil it down for you. As of a few years ago at least 2+2 books were known for being highly exploitive, as opposed to game theoretical, in their strategy recommendations.

Basically they were premised on the notion that your opponents are bad, and that you have very specific knowledge of how they play.

The 'optimal' approach is based on trying to construct unexploitable strategies that should be effective against almost any real world opponent and do not require specific knowledge of opponent tendencies.

All the theorists I mentioned believe that the game theoretical/optimal approach is both more valuable and more interesting in the long run. It is also more difficult to productively research. They also believed that Sklansky lacked the rigor to do productive research in this area.

Also as a side note Abdul thought 2+2 was way too narrowminded about the value of computer sims. (They were.)

This is why those people mostly had a somewhat low opinion of 2+2 work.

(I should note that we have digressed from the topic of whether 'great players' are big 2+2 fans, since the theoreticians I have mentioned are not necessarily 'great players' by the as yet undefined standards of this thread.)

[drj003]

[quoteThe 'optimal' approach is based on trying to construct unexploitable strategies that should be effective against almost any real world opponent and do not require specific knowledge of opponent tendencies.

[/ QUOTE ]


ALL the great players say that you should play the other player. You have to know their tendencies at all times. This is one of the things that makes a great poker player great. Not to be nit picky.

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[quoteThe 'optimal' approach is based on trying to construct unexploitable strategies that should be effective against almost any real world opponent and do not require specific knowledge of opponent tendencies.

[/ QUOTE ]


ALL the great players say that you should play the other player. You have to know their tendencies at all times. This is one of the things that makes a great poker player great. Not to be nit picky.

[/ QUOTE ]


I give up.

[drj003]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[quoteThe 'optimal' approach is based on trying to construct unexploitable strategies that should be effective against almost any real world opponent and do not require specific knowledge of opponent tendencies.

[/ QUOTE ]


ALL the great players say that you should play the other player. You have to know their tendencies at all times. This is one of the things that makes a great poker player great. Not to be nit picky.

[/ QUOTE ]


I give up.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL didn't mean to make you give up. It's just that I couldn't let that one go.

[SenecaJim]

I would like to add to my earlier comments about David's post seeming like common sense to me.

Stating that certain "great" players look down on 2+2 and then name-dropping,,even if "trust me" was good enough I'm not sure what you are refuting. David said "often", not always, and he said great players in contrast to good players, not all great players.

So are you then saying ALL great players NEVER use and appreciate a 2+2 book more than a good player. Or seldom instead of often. Or THESE great players don't.

I really don't see anything wrong with the statement, and as afore stated, it just makes common sense to me anyway.

I guess the only hitch would be you have to give David credit for knowing what he is talking about. And coming to this site, I would think you would.