Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players

[David Sklansky]

It really is true. And I'm not going to say something mean like the merely good players don't fully appreciate me. That's not the reason. It has to do with the fact that almost all poker plays combine your assumptions about your opponents possible hands and his playing proclivities with the logic and math required to exploit those assumptions. And my books don't focus on how to make those assumptions. For various reasons, the biggest one being that public disclosure can backfire once it is well known.

So most of my stuff involves the best way to extract money given you have accurate assumptions. And in small or medium size games that's not hard to achieve. But it is in bigger games. And if you screw that up the logic and math won't save you. Good as it is. But it IS still very useful if you are a good enough player to read even pretty tough opponents. Something only great players do well.

[Gelford]

Tbh ... Mason has you crushed and it is not even close.

[bozzer]

David,

I'm not a great or even a good player, but I quite like your "stuff". I have a question.

Say you are heads up as the PFR against an intelligent player who called in the big blind.

Flop comes A72r. He checks. How much do you bet if you are holding:

a) AJ
b) KQ
c) TT

[Micturition Man]

Lol @ David's self-delusions.

You got that completely backward and I really find it hard to believe you don't know that.

The great players, by whatever standard you define "great", are not 2+2 fans. The big 2+2 fans are more typically the 30-60 live nit types.

The great (or supposedly great) old school live players like Chip and Doyle are either not book types or learned poker pre-2+2, or both.

The younger generation great players like Ivey or Rugby or any random tough internet pro either have not read 2+2 books at all, or learned far more from experience and discussion with other pros.

As for great tourney players, whomever they may be, I doubt any of them have been significantly influenced by 2+2 books.

Even strong analytical nerd types have always loved to bash 2+2. From Abdul to Tom Weideman to Chen/Ankemann (though they are too nice to really bash.)

I honestly can't think of a single really impressive poker player who is a strong enthusiast of 2+2 books*. Some of them probably started off reading 2+2 books but then they learn to move beyond them.

Now keep in mind I am not talking about twoplustwo.com, just 2+2 book. This website has probably had a major influence on lots of the great young NL players.

Also I'm not bashing 2+2 books here. They are valuable as far as they go. But to think that great poker players sitting around eagerly devouring the latest 2+2 text is nuts.

Sorry David.


* I have a feeling someone is going to offer Chris Ferugson as a rebuttal, based on his endorsements on the back of some 2+2 books. Not to digress too much but I have always strongly suspected he was just being nice. He's too into game theory to be a real 2+2 fan.

[curious123]

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly can't think of a single really impressive poker player who is a strong enthusiast of 2+2 books*.

* I have a feeling someone is going to offer Chris Ferugson as a rebuttal, based on his endorsements on the back of some 2+2 books. Not to digress too much but I have always strongly suspected he was just being nice. He's too into game theory to be a real 2+2 fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd guess Greg would be the more popular rebuttal here. Did Chris really endorse a 2 book? I don't recall that.

[Shandrax]

Since I like David's books a lot, I must be a great player by definition.

[Galwegian]

[ QUOTE ]
It really is true. And I'm not going to say something mean like the merely good players don't fully appreciate me. That's not the reason. It has to do with the fact that almost all poker plays combine your assumptions about your opponents possible hands and his playing proclivities with the logic and math required to exploit those assumptions. And my books don't focus on how to make those assumptions. For various reasons, the biggest one being that public disclosure can backfire once it is well known.

So most of my stuff involves the best way to extract money given you have accurate assumptions. And in small or medium size games that's not hard to achieve. But it is in bigger games. And if you screw that up the logic and math won't save you. Good as it is. But it IS still very useful if you are a good enough player to read even pretty tough opponents. Something only great players do well.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a footnote in NLHTAP that basically says something like '....we focus on the mathematics required to mathemtics required to make good poker decisions... ' (this is not an accuarate quote as I don't have the book to hand. I always thought that this was a damning admission to make. Your post above just reinforces this weakness.

First of all the book does have the word "practice" in the title - so surely it should have more on how to read opponents and make accurate hand range estimates. Secondly, this book is/was marketed as providing the information that a player needs to progress to an advanced level of play. Any book that sets out to achieve this must spend a lot of time talking about hand reading. Essentially your post above is an admission of this?

[Jeff76]

You have mostly missed the point of David's post FWIW.

He is saying that his books help you know what to do once you've got a good read on a situation and therefore great players are in a better position to use the material he presents (since they read situations better). Or to put it in a different way, knowing what the correct play is in a certain situation (what his books help with) does you no good if you cannot determine that you are in that particular situation (which his books do not help with).

I'd also hazard a guess that more top players have read ToP than you think.

[nineinchal]

I read all of Skalnsky's stuff and I really suck. Wasn't there a double my money back guarantee if I read the books and lost?

How do I get my money back?

[7n7]

Funny that David's books (reading) is a topic of discussion in this thread and yet your comprehension of his original post is so far off.