My First Banning - Page 2

Heimdal · #11 02-09-2006, 07:47 PM

ObnxNole · #12 02-09-2006, 07:50 PM

I don't think this thread has any merit to it. Sklanksy may be a little of the wall with his thinking sometimes but that's what makes him so brilliant. The man is a genius and his opinion should be heard all over the poker community.

LearnedfromTV · #13 02-09-2006, 08:03 PM

I voted no, but I'm just a lurker.

I do find that David's posts here come with an air of implied superiority. Basically, he doesn't seem to feel it necessary to elaborate and/or address cogent opposing arguments with the same depth that they are presented. It would be considered unacceptable for any other poster to take a strong, controversial position on a complex situation/topic and then fail to undertake the real business of defending it ( details ).

David seems to think appeal to authority is a sufficient argument on this forum. It isn't. I appreciate the in-depth analyses of many posters on this forum, and I am certain that David is capable of the same. It is a shame that he chooses instead to make proclamations with minimal support and to flippantly reject opposing analyses without taking their positions seriously.

It isn't rare for the smartest or more knowledgeable person in a subject to think he doesn't need to explain himself, but it is puzzling for this attitude to come from someone who values his teaching ability so highly. There is no question that there is more depth behind David's position in the 77 hand, and it should be obvious that leading into the raiser with a set is not the best play in some conditions; I just wish he'd post the full analysis, because proclamations without support and appeal to authority-style arguments are no better than trolling.

captZEEbo · #14 02-09-2006, 08:42 PM

wow, might as well ban daniel negreanu and paul phillips and phil ivey. God forbid a smart man post non-standard 2+2 advice and pose interesting question for us to debate and think about.