[Persistence]

Let me see what I can add here. Everytime I've checked out the high-limit HORSE tables when David was sitting, he has always done pretty well as far as I could see. I've seen him with up to 200k at the 1k/2k eight-max table, which is the most I've ever seen there. I'm not sure if there is a cap to how much someone can buy in for on that game, but nonetheless idk why in the world David would buy in for that amount, I didn't witness it, but I can't imagine he didn't win it. I would agree that I'd put Phil's stud skill over David's, but I saw him win a few large pots during the whole 2k/4k showdown, in stud hi, so who knows? On Barry's website where he rates certain players he has Phil's strength (iirc) as stud, and David's weakness as stud variations, so it's a strange pairing.

I've read that David has killed the big game though (at least at one point or another), where it's just about every game out there, afaik, which would be credit to his mixed games skill. I think it's HORSE games, then PLO, NLHE, and 2-7 lowball too, so one would have to think you can't be a one trick guy to succeed in that atmosphere. But with all of that said, I wonder, what game is it where the greatest advantage can be (theoretically) gained over a weaker opponent. I guess it all depends on the person's skill or lack thereof, not sure I'm wording the question correctly or not, but it's an interesting thought considering how someone above posted how there may be less chance for an edge in something like razz, for example. Not saying I agree or disagree, it's just a point that was made.

Yeah, from his variety of results it seems clear that something like NLHE may very well be David's worse game, and considering that is all that comes on TV basically, you have to wonder what number of people have condemned poor NLHE players as bad poker players, even when they do exceptionally well in everything else.

Edit: Oh yeah, sorry, I do have some minor info (that may be slightly inaccurate) to add to the whole showdown and the swings and all. David did in fact lose his original buy in of 100k to Phil starting off. He rebought in for another 100k, and was down to about 50k again to Phil's 250k at one point I distinctly recall. From there he managed to climb back to being stuck about 20k, where Phil had 120k and David had 180k. The game broke at that point and from there on I didn't catch anything. If the two continued with those stacks though it's incredible to think David was as low as 50k to 250k underdog, and managed to turn that into a huge 350k (ish) stack.