Re: another Schneids question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I may be wrong but I think in the book thread he said none of the stats were his??

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: another Schneids question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I may be wrong but I think in the book thread he said none of the stats were his??

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

He may have said that in a thread, but I think it is a natural assumption to make.

I love the book and consult it daily. But some things just differ from my assumptions. For example, when advice is given and then you see several pages of charts, my assumption is that using the scientifice method one could test the advice against the actual recorded results and see that this is indeed the most profitable way to play in that situation. It confuses me when it is not.

Re: another Schneids question
 

Am I the only one that thought those are his stats? Maybe with some of Jeff's thrown in there. But his statement "how do you know what hands I play and why would you think those are my stats?" took me by surprise. This almost sounds like "Don't be silly no way I would play like this book says" I think I must be taking his post the wrong way.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I may be wrong but I think in the book thread he said none of the stats were his??

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

He may have said that in a thread, but I think it is a natural assumption to make.

I love the book and consult it daily. But some things just differ from my assumptions. For example, when advice is given and then you see several pages of charts, my assumption is that using the scientifice method one could test the advice against the actual recorded results and see that this is indeed the most profitable way to play in that situation. It confuses me when it is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: another Schneids question
 

the stats for High are definitely his. if you read the book very carefully it becomes completely obvious. he's just kidding around.

Re: another Schneids question
 

[ QUOTE ]
the stats for High are definitely his. if you read the book very carefully it becomes completely obvious. he's just kidding around.

[/ QUOTE ]

His response does not sound like a person kidding around. In fact, it sounds as though he is offended that someone would believe those to be his stats.

Re: another Schneids question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the stats for High are definitely his. if you read the book very carefully it becomes completely obvious. he's just kidding around.

[/ QUOTE ]

His response does not sound like a person kidding around. In fact, it sounds as though he is offended that someone would believe those to be his stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

i can't read stox's mind of course, only his book [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. by "kidding around" i meant that he doesn't mean to seriously imply these are not his stats. i'm kinda surpised so many people actually thought they might not be.

Re: another Schneids question
 

I don't know why it's such an issue for him. I kind of assumed they were his stats too of course as seems only natural.
But he has vehemntly denied in several threads including in books-pubs forum that the high-stakes player's stats are not necessarily his.
This hasn't been just a one-time playful denial from Stox. It seems to genuinely bother him that people make the assumption that they are definitely his stats.