Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players

[David Sklansky]

My original math was wrong. If 1,000,000 people are trying to succeed at poker and 50,000 of them have studied my books, then if half of the top 1000 have read my books, it means that readers who read are 1% and those who haven't are one twentieth of one percent to reach that pinnacle.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As to your comment about teams, do you think you could catch it if the top players did nothing but tell each other their hole cards but did NOT play the same money?

[/ QUOTE ]

u lost me here David. Please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

If two or more world class players played their own money but still signaled to each other theie hole cards, whether they were in or out, they could add perhaps a small bet an hour to their hourly rate, even if they were very careful to avoid doing anything that appeared out of the ordinary.

But I have no reason to believe this is actually happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what i thought you said, but i didn't want to put words in your mouth. Thanks for clarifying... thats not a small statement.

[David Sklansky]

But its only relevant if you are stupid enough to play in games where mostly the same players are playing every day (because multiple tables aren't going), there are many great players in the game, and your own edge is very small even if nothing is happening.

(If the cheaters are only pretty good players in easier games, they will screw things up, play in ways that can get them detected, always be found in the same game, and lastly not cut much into your profits since this form of collusion won't make up for what you figure to beat the whole table for.)

[TStoneMBD]

i think in general, succeeding in highly competitive poker games is largely based on specific mathematical components. you first have to be exceptional at weighing an opponents hand range and then also be exceptional at estimating your equity against that range, or estimating what the value of a bluff would be against a certain range and the probability that your opponent won't calldown with certain hands from that range. of course, having a knowledge of simple preflop and other various fundamentals is imperative, and without them youre in deep trouble.

david sklansky's books are excellent in that its readers will have a revelation that these components are the secrets to winning at poker, whether they conscientiously realize it or not. most players determine how to bluff from a very intuitive perspective, such as "i dont think he can call, i raise." david's books will expose these players to an entire new way of analyzing such problems, from a mathematical perspective. his books are also excellent at laying the groundwork required to progressively improve on the ability to estimate these components with increasing accuracy. it is then the reader's responsibility to do the tedious work of improving on their own abilities at this newly learned method.

many players that have succeeded in the poker world have done so simply because they are so skilled at intuitively estimating these mathematical principles without being exposed to the math whatsoever. this is largely due to their experience at the poker tables, but im sure its also based on natural talent. being able to solve problems based on math is certainly more accurate than solving problems based on intuition however, which is why so many of these players with a lifetime of poker experience risk being outclassed by a more mathematical group of developing players. of course, many players may have encountered the necessity of math in the midst of their longevity, so when they read Theory of Poker after several years of playing, they have already been self-exposed to the topics discussed in the book and don't greatly benefit from its teachings. it is also extremely difficult to encapsulate a lifetime of learning in a 100 page manuscript.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
and 50,000 of them have studied my books

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a misleading assumption, because it's obvious that 2+2 has sold many more books. I find it rather safe to assume that the majority of serious players has read your books with all the positive and negative conclusions that can be drawn from that.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
so many of these players with a lifetime of poker experience risk being outclassed by a more mathematical group of developing players.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you believe this "mathematical group of developing players" has largely gotten this understanding of poker from Sklanksy's books, this forum, or other sources?

I'm glad you chimed in here, because I have never been so impressed with televised poker as I was watching you and the other 2+2ers in the USPC (I didn't know you were 2+2 at the time until your thinly veiled comment to Alex)- 2+2 should use that tournament for advertising- you guys had the other players so badly outclassed it was almost silly.

[Gelford]

So at which site can we sweat you David ??

[Scientize]

[ QUOTE ]
There isn't much of anything in poker books that will help you beat high stakes games. There are books that will help you on your way to that road, by helping you at the beginning and intermediate level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barry Greenstein:
Why is that the case? What can't be articulated by you about what it takes? Is it a case of you knowing what to do in situations, but not knowing exactly how you know?

What are some specific books that you recommend? Are there any books that you find detrimental to learning the game properly?

Have you studied the work of Silvan Tomkins and/or Paul Ekman?

Any advice you can give me is appreciated. I would also like to say that Ace on the River has been very helpful to me. One quote from the book really has helped me, "Someone else might jump off this bridge right now. But no one can do that to me." That whole story really stayed with me, moreso than the poker strategy. So thanks. I would also like to say that the price being a $25 chip is classy. I can't stand every pricetag nowadays being .99 or .95 whatever. Just throwing that out there because it came to mind when I saw it.

Keep up the charity work, you're a true mentch.

[mucked4u]

[ QUOTE ]
scientize,

There isn't much of anything in poker books that will help you beat high stakes games. There are books that will help you on your way to that road, by helping you at the beginning and intermediate level.

I am the only poker book author who plays in and beats the high stakes games. (Doyle had collaborators.)

Your post reminds me of when Michael Konik suggested that all of the players in Poker Superstars 2 had read The Theory of Poker by Sklansky. In actuality, half of the field were born in other countries and had probably never read a book in English.

And to the person who thinks that there are teams in the biggest game, there aren't. Not all the players are as good as you might think. And it often depends on which games are played. Lately, I have decided to only play when we play at least 6 games. I don't want to fight the specialists, because my edge is too small or nonexistent playing other good players' best games.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

Barry I swear that in the past while watching an event on TV there were players discussing the value in their reading TOP during a break or strategy tip break.
Alll the best Barry in your life. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Troll_Inc]

This is one of my favorite 2+2 threads over the last few months.