|
|
#13
10-23-2005, 05:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sklansky\'s top 5
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, didn't want to hijack the 'Sklansky's mistake' thread. Right after folding the pocket fives to Huck Seed on this week's Poker Spuerstars 2, Sklansky said "If there was a decathalon in poker...there's only four or five players who are in my league". has David ever gone on record as to who those players are? He actually said something similar to me in an interview at the '04 WSOP and I was a little surprised. Gary [/ QUOTE ] Yeah I heard Phil Ivey and Howard Lederer say the same thing, but oh wait...no I didn't because they don't say absurd things like that. I'm sure DS is a good player, but making comments like that only makes you look bad. Okay I'm sure he believes it's true, but I'm sure there are many others whom believe it's true about themselves but don't see the need to say how great they are. My default opinion about anyone who talks like that, is that their comments are untrue. If you used this rule about almost everyone who spoke in such a manner, you would be right the large large majority of the time. ie - Phil Hellmuth 
|
|
#14
10-23-2005, 06:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sklansky\'s top 5
[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be Reese, Ivey, Greenstein, and *Absolutely Not* Jesus. [/ QUOTE ] FYP. I have much respect to Chris, so this isn't a diss on him. He's an extremely good player, one of the best WSOP specialists, maybe the best. But, he just dosn't fit in this list.
|
|
#15
10-23-2005, 06:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sklansky\'s top 5
[ QUOTE ]
I know Sklansky has tremendous respect for the Prof, so I'm sure he is on the list. I'm sure none of the top pros however would put Sklansky on their top 5. Interesting eh? [/ QUOTE ] For a pro poker player, Howard hasn't been playing much poker lately. He's great, sure. He's just has other projects he's been busy with (I.E. www,fulltiltpoker.com where he's the acting president of the company) I just don't think someone is going to be a "top decathaloner" if they've been "out of training" for a long stretch.
|
|
#16
10-23-2005, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sklansky\'s top 5
"Yeah I heard Phil Ivey and Howard Lederer say the same thing, but oh wait...no I didn't because they don't say absurd things like that. I'm sure DS is a good player, but making comments like that only makes you look bad.
Okay I'm sure he believes it's true, but I'm sure there are many others whom believe it's true about themselves but don't see the need to say how great they are." Those comments are not said out of the blue. They are made to dispute assertions like he "teaches a lot better than he plays". Also keep in mind that I said TEN games not six. And that I am not including shorthanded. Thus my overall understanding of general theory would put me above most of the great multiple game players who usually play five or six games, five or six handed. And no, I don't think Chris Ferguson quite makes the top five.
|
|
#19
10-23-2005, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sklansky\'s top 5
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Yeah I heard Phil Ivey and Howard Lederer say the same thing, but oh wait...no I didn't because they don't say absurd things like that. I'm sure DS is a good player, but making comments like that only makes you look bad. Okay I'm sure he believes it's true, but I'm sure there are many others whom believe it's true about themselves but don't see the need to say how great they are. [/ QUOTE ] Those comments are not said out of the blue. They are made to dispute assertions like he "teaches a lot better than he plays". Also keep in mind that I said TEN games not six. And that I am not including shorthanded. Thus my overall understanding of general theory would put me above most of the great multiple game players who usually play five or six games, five or six handed. And no, I don't think Chris Ferguson quite makes the top five. [/ QUOTE ] That's quite a few qualifications. How would you rate yourself against the top players in the six shorthanded games that they normally play? And, what about your Nobel prize comment from a few months back? Was that a product of someone dissing your Nobel prize-winning ability?
|
|
#20
10-23-2005, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sklansky\'s top 5
"And, what about your Nobel prize comment from a few months back? Was that a product of someone dissing your Nobel prize-winning ability?"
I'm pretty sure I was misquoted. In any case I meant to say that if I had decided to enter the science field, I believe that I would have been good enough so that I COULD, not WOULD have won a Nobel prize. In other words I would have been in the same league as at least some of those few thousand who are doing things where they have a chance to win one. Meanwhile the reason I said it was mainly because it seemed like something viewers would find interesting regarding a poker player. I didn't really consider it bragging because since I didn't do it , I have nothing to be proud of. "That's quite a few qualifications. How would you rate yourself against the top players in the six shorthanded games that they normally play?" About 75 today. If it was important to improve, I'd get up to about 20 in a month.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
