[mucked4u]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, my magazine hasn't arrived yet, but I re-read the online article. It's ok, and I think all poker writers make little mistakes here & there that end up in print, so that's almost expected.

I understand what you're saying and don't have much problem with it. I'm just puzzled with all the hoopla in the higher stakes thread about it. Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to cut you down or anything it's just... I don't understand what is with the overly thrilled posts.

I can only conclude either I am missing some important concept here, or there are a lot of bad players browsing the higher stakes forum who really have no business there. O_o

Anyhow, it seems your article is getting a lot of POSITIVE remarks from 2+2 kids, which is a good thing of course. There has been some bad taste going around in the recent past and it's good to see some amends between the 2+2 & Bluff group.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the article is decent. I dont get this idea about Sklansky dollars. I know for a fact there is nothing in TOP under this subject. Percentages etc yes, but not dollars.
Perhaps this author is creating a new lingo relating to TOP concepts.
By the way I suggest strongly that if you do not own TOP you are far from being competent. Yes the odd "natural" comes along but they are EXTREMELY very rare.
I play with a large group of TV educated players and they never heard of TOP.
Yes I am serious that not one of them heard of the book or author.
I had an extra free copy of TOP to give away and absolutely no one wanted it.They however consider their ace rag game very competent.

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]