david mentoring brandi

[Socialite]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> ADMOOOOOOOOO </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[AJackson]

Brandi,

I wouldn't normally waste my time commenting, but I know that our obsession with you is equaled by your obsession of what we think of you, so I know my comment will be read by you.

Your post tells us that your understanding of poker is still at an elementary level.

You excel at every game? I don't doubt that David is a great teacher, but this is a ridiculous claim. I've spent years studying hold'em, nl and limit cash, short and full, and tournament poker and I can't claim I excel at any of those. I win at all of them, but I'm still middle of the pack in understanding. Yet in a fraction of that time, you excel at all the games. That sort of claim should be limited to Phil Ivey and PA.

You knew you were a 76% favorite with AKs? Did you see his cards in the reflection off his sunglasses? The rest of us work in ranges. We have him dominated X%, we're in a coin flop X%, he has us dominated X%. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, perhaps you've taken poker to the next level where you can work without ranges and put people on exact hands.

Before the flop you believe that due to David's and other pros lessons you will now be, on average, a 75% to 95% favorite. This is really where you show your ignorance. 95% isn't even possible unless you're in an AA vs KK and KK situation. Something like KK vs K2o gets close but still falls short. But forget the 95%. The idea that you think you can average that sort of edge is laughable. You never push with KK or QQ and run into a bigger pair? You never take coinflips? You never get short stacked and have to push with medium holdings? You never make a call, knowing you're behind but it's mathematically correct? You never pressure small stacks, putting their tournament life on the line and get called?

Of course you do, if you're halfway decent. And all of those situations bring down your average. It's that part of the statement that shows you're still very lacking in the math department.

It's the idea that, for the most part, you're going to be getting your money in preflop in only pair over pair (and maybe AK vs Ax) situations that shows your lack of poker understanding. You can play this style, many donkeys do, but you'll end up playing a small stack that eventually takes a bad beat from a big stack or is forced allin in the blinds with trash.

If you want to learn to become a winning poker player, I say go for it. Sounds like you have some competent teachers. But to strut around here like your already a winner, excelling at all the games, only serves to make you look ridiculous.

That being said, I find you hot. I'll be in Vegas in a few weeks and if you're needing a satilite entry, I'm sure we can come to some arrangement.

[jalexand42]

[ QUOTE ]
Brandi,

I wouldn't normally waste my time commenting, but I know that our obsession with you is equaled by your obsession of what we think of you, so I know my comment will be read by you.

Your post tells us that your understanding of poker is still at an elementary level.

You excel at every game? I don't doubt that David is a great teacher, but this is a ridiculous claim. I've spent years studying hold'em, nl and limit cash, short and full, and tournament poker and I can't claim I excel at any of those. I win at all of them, but I'm still middle of the pack in understanding. Yet in a fraction of that time, you excel at all the games. That sort of claim should be limited to Phil Ivey and PA.

You knew you were a 76% favorite with AKs? Did you see his cards in the reflection off his sunglasses? The rest of us work in ranges. We have him dominated X%, we're in a coin flop X%, he has us dominated X%. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, perhaps you've taken poker to the next level where you can work without ranges and put people on exact hands.

Before the flop you believe that due to David's and other pros lessons you will now be, on average, a 75% to 95% favorite. This is really where you show your ignorance. 95% isn't even possible unless you're in an AA vs KK and KK situation. Something like KK vs K2o gets close but still falls short. But forget the 95%. The idea that you think you can average that sort of edge is laughable. You never push with KK or QQ and run into a bigger pair? You never take coinflips? You never get short stacked and have to push with medium holdings? You never make a call, knowing you're behind but it's mathematically correct? You never pressure small stacks, putting their tournament life on the line and get called?

Of course you do, if you're halfway decent. And all of those situations bring down your average. It's that part of the statement that shows you're still very lacking in the math department.

It's the idea that, for the most part, you're going to be getting your money in preflop in only pair over pair (and maybe AK vs Ax) situations that shows your lack of poker understanding. You can play this style, many donkeys do, but you'll end up playing a small stack that eventually takes a bad beat from a big stack or is forced allin in the blinds with trash.

If you want to learn to become a winning poker player, I say go for it. Sounds like you have some competent teachers. But to strut around here like your already a winner, excelling at all the games, only serves to make you look ridiculous.

That being said, I find you hot. I'll be in Vegas in a few weeks and if you're needing a satilite entry, I'm sure we can come to some arrangement.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

[El Diablo]

David,

This is the product of your extensive one-on-one mentoring?

For the sake of America's future, I hope you stick to poker and don't take on the task of teaching math to America's youth.

[Bonified]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL David's trying out his hypothesis from "Tournament Poker" that you can teach a woman a few simple rules and they can do well in the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is as close as I can get to why Sklansky is risking the inevitable fallout when Brandi goes nuts and tries to destroy his reputation as she has previously done with just about everyone else she's been involved with. Basically, just imagine what he'll be able to charge for lessons if Brandi luckboxes her way to a final table.

[aggie]

Brandi,

Can you please talk a little more about the bell curve and standard deviations and how they relate to poker? Thanks!

[ifoughtpiranhas]

Brandi can you please talk more about dirty holes and how they relate to sattelite buy ins

[Angrymoog]

OMG, a 35 BB downswing.



All the percentages, baby!

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also who is that other guy? I think he's a high stakes c-game regular, don't think he plays many, or any, tourns.

[/ QUOTE ]

That guy's one of the best poker players in the world. Not kidding. Not only does he not play many tourneys, he barely ever plays holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who is the guy? The Brandi stuff is just the same ol' same ol'; the only thing interesting to me in this thread now is identity of the mystery awesome non-holdem player in the picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know his last name. But his first name is Chris and he's from Chicago. He travels around with his wife playing cash games around the 300/600 level. No tournaments.
He used to play on Stars as Bluffmenot, but haven't seen him there for awhile.
And he definitely plays better than DS.

[unbluffable]

I think its funny that Cindy Violette Jenn Harmon and Annie Duke are all still in the Stud O8/Omaha O8 tourney with healthy chip stacks with about 80 left. But they aint got shiiite on you Brandi, no worries.