Tips for reading NLTP

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Your limited commentary still fails to prove that David/Ed aren't good NL players.

Do you post in the NL forums by chance? Would I be able to search there and find some strategy insight from you above and beyond "the authors of NLHETAP aren't very good NL players"?

There's an abundance of useful information in this book. Disseminating what the experienced players like and dislike is the real information gap it seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to prove they're not NL experts - that's common knowledge. Even they will admit it.



[/ QUOTE ]

When did they admit this? Where did they admit this? Can you please get them to admit this without posting as if they already have?

Will gladly concede if I am wrong or you show me proof.


[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't read the book very carefully, did you? Pay careful attention to the part where Slansky admits all those damn poker artists keep kicking his ass even though he's done all this wonderful algebra.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've actually read it quite well. Care to point me to this particular section/page? I've got my copy and am scanning through it but can't find this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe the part that SplawnDarts is referring to is at the very beginning -- perhaps in the introduction.

[7n7]

The closest I can come is when Sklansky states that theoreticians without other talents will be underdogs to non-theoreticians with talent.

I don't see anything that confirms SplawnDarts' assertion that these type people (talented non-theoreticians) "kick his [Sklansky's] ass".

Sklansky goes on to say that learning the concepts in this book will turn the talented player into a world-class player. That doesn't sound like a guy who doesn't consider himself quite good at the game.

Again, I'm just flipping through the pages. If I've missed something obvious, I'll eat some crow.

Statements made as fact without proof obviously bug me. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe the part that SplawnDarts is referring to is at the very beginning -- perhaps in the introduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's near the front.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe the part that SplawnDarts is referring to is at the very beginning -- perhaps in the introduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's near the front.

[/ QUOTE ]

The part where Sklansky says he "gets his ass kicked" isn't.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe the part that SplawnDarts is referring to is at the very beginning -- perhaps in the introduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's near the front.

[/ QUOTE ]

The part where Sklansky says he "gets his ass kicked" isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Learn to read for implication, grasshopper.

Look at it another way. Why is Slansky, who supposedly has a bankroll in the millions, playing 100/200 LHE all the time if he's so great at other games? 25/50 NL would almost certainly have a higher expectation for a good NL player, is offered @ Bellagio, and as far as I know Slansky has never sat.

Conclusion: One of the following is true
1) Slansky is not particularly good at NL and can't hit a high win rate against reasonable opposition
2) Slansky is so bad at game selection that he's playing the wrong game all the time.

1) seems far more plausible than 2), now doesn't it [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe the part that SplawnDarts is referring to is at the very beginning -- perhaps in the introduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's near the front.

[/ QUOTE ]

The part where Sklansky says he "gets his ass kicked" isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Learn to read for implication, grasshopper.

Look at it another way. Why is Slansky, who supposedly has a bankroll in the millions, playing 100/200 LHE all the time if he's so great at other games? 25/50 NL would almost certainly have a higher expectation for a good NL player, is offered @ Bellagio, and as far as I know Slansky has never sat.

Conclusion: One of the following is true
1) Slansky is not particularly good at NL and can't hit a high win rate against reasonable opposition
2) Slansky is so bad at game selection that he's playing the wrong game all the time.

1) seems far more plausible than 2), now doesn't it [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

If you actually think that David Sklansky would write something that would imply that he's not an expert in said field, well, then it is you that is fooling yourself grasshopper. I mean, are we talking about the same guy here? The guy that stated, "if there is a God, then he's like me"? One of the largest egos I think most of us have ever encountered?

I'm not sure that I've ever come across a more literal person (in poker theory) than David Sklansky. He tends not to litter his book with hidden meaning IMO.

And Sklansky plays 100/200 limit all the time? Whenever I see him at the Bellagio, he's in high limit mix games. Seriously, do you just make sh*t up?

Neither of your scenarios are plausible to me actually. The majority of Sklansky's income these days is unlikely to be derived from playing poker. Selling poker is more like it.

He's stated many times when asked why he doesn't play the larger games that it's just not something he wants to do, but never implied that he couldn't do it.

[SplawnDarts]

He doesn't want to do it because he loses money.

But if you want to idolize the guy instead of people who have real, proven track records in the biggest NL cash games and tournaments, then go right ahead. It does no harm to me. You can be wrong as much as you like.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't want to do it because he loses money.

But if you want to idolize the guy instead of people who have real, proven track records in the biggest NL cash games and tournaments, then go right ahead. It does no harm to me. You can be wrong as much as you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

No idolization here my friend but I can appreciate the accusation. It's the typical "you're on Sklansky, Malmuth's, Miller's, etc., etc. schlong" b/c you have the nerve to ask for any legitimate proof from their detractors. Standard play. I call it.

My only issue is your empty comments. You say things like, "he doesn't do it b/c he loses money" when you have 0 idea why he doesn't play. Just about every statement you make lacks any proof behind it.

I can tell you've got some interesting things to say regarding NL play and how it would vary from NLHETAP. I just wish you'd stop the silly Sklanksy insults and share a little.

If your point of posting in these threads is simply to knock the writers and offer no insight, then I'll stop asking for your opinions.

We obviously agree to disagree, so back to our regularly scheduled progamming shall we?

[SplawnDarts]

As I said, you're free to be wrong. Have fun with that [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I've shared plenty of strategy advice on this forum, and will continue to do so, but that really has little to do with my position on NLH:TAP and nothing to do with Ed and DS's faults as NL players.

[7n7]

Last word: word