Sklansky's top 5 - Page 3

WhiskyRiver · #21 10-23-2005, 08:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And no, I don't think Chris Ferguson quite makes the top five.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who does?

TheMainEvent · #22 10-23-2005, 08:26 PM

[ 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?"

About 75 today. If it was important to improve, I'd get up to about 20 in a month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't the same argument be made that if it were important for the top players to be skilled in the games in which you are superior to them but are not (currently) widely played for high stakes they would improve to your level as well?

Alex/Mugaaz · #23 10-23-2005, 09:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?"

About 75 today. If it was important to improve, I'd get up to about 20 in a month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't the same argument be made that if it were important for the top players to be skilled in the games in which you are superior to them but are not (currently) widely played for high stakes they would improve to your level as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's simply stating he had the ability to do this before and is simply a little rusty. So if it was important to improve he would simply refresh himself on these type of games and could improve to the top 20 within that time. He's not claiming he could improve to #1 in a month.

nebben · #24 10-23-2005, 11:06 PM

Sklansky is an arrogant prick. While he is undoubtedly good at poker, it is clear from posts in other forums (News/Gossip) that he thinks he has all the answers.

Alex/Mugaaz · #25 10-24-2005, 12:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky is an arrogant prick. While he is undoubtedly good at poker, it is clear from posts in other forums (News/Gossip) that he thinks he has all the answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is a prick, but his answers are very correct. You don't have to be nice to provide the correct answer.

nebben · #26 10-24-2005, 12:43 AM

His answers are based largely on conjecture and opinion in those forums. While I would not dare argue his poker advice (I love it), his take on religion is quite condescending (sp?). That is most certainly an area where he does not know it all (no one does), yet his "questions" demonstrate that he belives he does.

Alex/Mugaaz · #27 10-24-2005, 12:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
His answers are based largely on conjecture and opinion in those forums. While I would not dare argue his poker advice (I love it), his take on religion is quite condescending (sp?). That is most certainly an area where he does not know it all (no one does), yet his "questions" demonstrate that he belives he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then why aren't you pointing out what's wrong in the arguments and questions?

David Sklansky · #28 10-24-2005, 02:08 AM

"Couldn't the same argument be made that if it were important for the top players to be skilled in the games in which you are superior to them but are not (currently) widely played for high stakes they would improve to your level as well?"

No. Because most of the 74 best players in shorthanded games are not well grounded enough in theory to overcome me in eight handed games. There is a very big difference between six handed and eight handed when there are no suckers in the game.

-Skeme- · #29 10-24-2005, 03:03 AM

Are you simply not acknowledging my question because you do not wish to answer, or because you don't have an opinion on where Paul Phillips' level is at?

David Sklansky · #30 10-24-2005, 04:04 AM

A little bit of both. Why do you want to know about him?