|
|
#51
11-13-2006, 11:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How good is David Sklansky?
Should you choose to frequent Bellagio you will undoubtably get a chance to observe Mr. S playing the biggest games availalbe except for THE BIGGEST game that is sometimes, (rarely), available. MR. S, you may find, through your observation, most likely suffers from ADD. I believe that it is almost impossible for a person with ADD to be a great Poker Player. Mr S may be the exception. He certainly knows poker. His first love, though, must be betting Horses. For while at the table Mr S. is always reading, not a poker book or a novel, no, he is reading the daily race form.
I do not play high stakes poker. I do play poker. I do read Sklansky. I bet he plays well enough that no one, not even THE BIG GAME participants, should welcome him with open arms to their game. pokerisme 
|
|
#52
11-13-2006, 11:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How good is David Sklansky?
[ QUOTE ]
he always seems like he doesn't care at all about what's going on and that playing poker is the last thing that he would like to be doing at the time. [/ QUOTE ] he seems pained to be at the table and in the presence of such lesser minds playing a boring game, but I don't think he could beat the highest games no matter how hard he tried.
|
|
#53
11-14-2006, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How good is David Sklansky?
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that it is almost impossible for a person with ADD to be a great Poker Player. [/ QUOTE ] No way, like eveyr poker player has ADD. People with ADD need something that actively stimulates them to keep them interested/focused. Thus multi tablers and video gamers.
|
|
#54
11-14-2006, 01:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How good is David Sklansky?
[ QUOTE ]
like eveyr poker player has ADD [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm.. interesting. I was trying to be a bit funny but I yield to your wisdom. Maybe Mr S's ADD does make him a great poker player. pokerisme
|
|
#56
11-14-2006, 03:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How good is David Sklansky?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I believe that it is almost impossible for a person with ADD to be a great Poker Player. [/ QUOTE ] No way, like eveyr poker player has ADD. People with ADD need something that actively stimulates them to keep them interested/focused. Thus multi tablers and video gamers. [/ QUOTE ] so true
|
|
#57
11-14-2006, 12:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How good is David Sklansky?
I have played with DS several times in high stakes mixed games, from 100-200 up to 400-800. DS is a very good player, and super tight compared to most players in those games. I'm merely very tight compared to most players in those games. In fact, playing optimally tight on the first round is one the most important ways you beat those games. Yes, you need to make great decisions on every round, but many of the players in these games do make very good decisions on later streets, but many of them simply play way too loose on early streets to make up for it with their "great" play on later streets.
Back to the point. DS beats these games, and plays well. I think the main reason that you here some players out there saying he's not good, is that he plays so much tighter than they do, they assume he's making a mistake by doing so. Most of the time, they are the one making the mistakes. Also, DS practices the most exacting and rigid form of game selection I've ever seen. I generally sit in the game that I think provides the maximum EV, and don't worry that much about variance. DS only sits in a game if his EV is very large, and the variance that goes with it isn't too extreme. As such, he will never play in the Big Game, because even if he figures to beat it, he knows that the EV will not compare favorably to the variance. Especially if compared to a 300-600 game that is going at another table in the room. You can argue with DS's game selection, and say he is too rigid, and would make more money if he took more shots at bigger games. You may be correct in saying so, and DS might be passing on profit that his bankroll is big enough to go after. But to say he is a weak player is a huge mistake. Also, just because he is very tight on the first round of betting, don't think that he is too tight on later streets. If you try to bluff him, he will call you down with a mediocre hand when it is appropriate for him to do so. Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
|
|
#58
11-14-2006, 12:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How good is David Sklansky?
[ QUOTE ]
I have played with DS several times in high stakes mixed games, from 100-200 up to 400-800. DS is a very good player, and super tight compared to most players in those games. I'm merely very tight compared to most players in those games. In fact, playing optimally tight on the first round is one the most important ways you beat those games. Yes, you need to make great decisions on every round, but many of the players in these games do make very good decisions on later streets, but many of them simply play way too loose on early streets to make up for it with their "great" play on later streets. Back to the point. DS beats these games, and plays well. I think the main reason that you here some players out there saying he's not good, is that he plays so much tighter than they do, they assume he's making a mistake by doing so. Most of the time, they are the one making the mistakes. Also, DS practices the most exacting and rigid form of game selection I've ever seen. I generally sit in the game that I think provides the maximum EV, and don't worry that much about variance. DS only sits in a game if his EV is very large, and the variance that goes with it isn't too extreme. As such, he will never play in the Big Game, because even if he figures to beat it, he knows that the EV will not compare favorably to the variance. Especially if compared to a 300-600 game that is going at another table in the room. You can argue with DS's game selection, and say he is too rigid, and would make more money if he took more shots at bigger games. You may be correct in saying so, and DS might be passing on profit that his bankroll is big enough to go after. But to say he is a weak player is a huge mistake. Also, just because he is very tight on the first round of betting, don't think that he is too tight on later streets. If you try to bluff him, he will call you down with a mediocre hand when it is appropriate for him to do so. Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan) [/ QUOTE ] Thank you for the post, this is exactly the type of response I was hoping for when I started this thread - first hand evaluation from someone who is qualified to provide one. Thanks, bigbootch
|
|
#59
11-14-2006, 01:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How good is David Sklansky?
I've played with David maybe 10 times, mostly 10/20 and 25/50 NL games at Bellagio with one 50/100 game back when Gui was learning the game. I have NEVER seen him stay longer than 20 minutes. Granted, I'm sure some of the times I came when he had already been playing for a while, but who knows. At least half of them, he comes in and then leaves. And this wasn't for game selection reasons. He played tight, but not as tight as his image dictates. He is also very aggressive and I had a feeling he made a move a few times. The one time I saw a showdown was a relatively small pot at 25/50 where he showed a winning full house. So, yeah, I have no idea.
|
|
#60
11-14-2006, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How good is David Sklansky?
[ QUOTE ]
I have played with DS several times in high stakes mixed games, from 100-200 up to 400-800. DS is a very good player, and super tight compared to most players in those games. I'm merely very tight compared to most players in those games. In fact, playing optimally tight on the first round is one the most important ways you beat those games. Yes, you need to make great decisions on every round, but many of the players in these games do make very good decisions on later streets, but many of them simply play way too loose on early streets to make up for it with their "great" play on later streets. Back to the point. DS beats these games, and plays well. I think the main reason that you here some players out there saying he's not good, is that he plays so much tighter than they do, they assume he's making a mistake by doing so. Most of the time, they are the one making the mistakes. Also, DS practices the most exacting and rigid form of game selection I've ever seen. I generally sit in the game that I think provides the maximum EV, and don't worry that much about variance. DS only sits in a game if his EV is very large, and the variance that goes with it isn't too extreme. As such, he will never play in the Big Game, because even if he figures to beat it, he knows that the EV will not compare favorably to the variance. Especially if compared to a 300-600 game that is going at another table in the room. You can argue with DS's game selection, and say he is too rigid, and would make more money if he took more shots at bigger games. You may be correct in saying so, and DS might be passing on profit that his bankroll is big enough to go after. But to say he is a weak player is a huge mistake. Also, just because he is very tight on the first round of betting, don't think that he is too tight on later streets. If you try to bluff him, he will call you down with a mediocre hand when it is appropriate for him to do so. Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan) [/ QUOTE ] Awesome insight.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
