|
|
#21
05-10-2007, 12:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Dave doesn't put poker advice into print unless he knows he's right. And I don't mean he thinks he's right, or his advice is mostly right, I mean out to five decimal places, bet your daughter's virginity he's right right. [/ QUOTE ] Are you saying that DS is infallible? That in his dozens of books there are no mistakes, miscalculations, or bad advice? [/ QUOTE ] Are you making an accusation without providing proof of your accusation? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] 
|
|
#22
05-10-2007, 01:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Dave doesn't put poker advice into print unless he knows he's right. And I don't mean he thinks he's right, or his advice is mostly right, I mean out to five decimal places, bet your daughter's virginity he's right right. [/ QUOTE ] Are you saying that DS is infallible? That in his dozens of books there are no mistakes, miscalculations, or bad advice? [/ QUOTE ] Are you making an accusation without providing proof of your accusation? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I am merely asking a question counsellor. To err is human, and we are all human.
|
|
#23
05-10-2007, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Dave doesn't put poker advice into print unless he knows he's right. And I don't mean he thinks he's right, or his advice is mostly right, I mean out to five decimal places, bet your daughter's virginity he's right right. [/ QUOTE ] Are you saying that DS is infallible? That in his dozens of books there are no mistakes, miscalculations, or bad advice? [/ QUOTE ] Are you making an accusation without providing proof of your accusation? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I am merely asking a question counsellor. To err is human, and we are all human. [/ QUOTE ] Tis ok. Only pointed it out because you and I have disagreed with concepts covered within David's books before. I thought you were taking a jab, and if so I was asking you to back it up - my bad. No doubt there have been errors (usually in the edit and proof reading process), nobody can deny that - but the fundamental concepts have always been correct to date that I am aware of unless you know of something that I don't.
|
|
#24
05-10-2007, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
My point is that once something is reduced to math, arguments become moot. The math shows conclusivly what answers are right and what answers are wrong. (And yes, I understand that you can have some equations with more than one right answer because the solution is a range. But possible solutions outside that range are still wrong.)
Dave's whole talent is his ability to grasp the basic math and logic that underpin poker issues. Say what you want about his ability to execute at the table, but his fundamental understanding of the game is unassailable.
|
|
#25
05-10-2007, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
I think most of the criticism of Sklanners is not that his maths is wrong, it's that it sometimes doesn't apply very well to real world poker. His idea to raise preflop different amounts based on hand strength is rejected as exploitable by people who play more than DS, for example.
|
|
#26
05-10-2007, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
Not suprising coming from Radar.
I gave up early when I saw this quote from another thread about books: [ QUOTE ] Overall, I think the poker literature is pretty bad. There are a number of books that do an adequate job of explaining the basics of things like pot odds, and the importance of things like kickers, but there are virtually no books on limit or no-limit cash games that will actually make you a winner at the game. [/ QUOTE ] Seems they've taken the place of RGP as far as adversary. Only a matter of time until Carson joins that site... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] I wonder how he can stand not getting the attention. b
|
|
#28
05-10-2007, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
No books on limit cash games that can make you a winner?
Even if you ignore every 2+2 book, that statement is STILL ignorant. Weighing the Odds Real Poker II Hold'em on the Come How Good Is Your Limit Hold'em Those are all excelent. I haven't read the Johnny Chan one, but I hear that's good too.
|
|
#29
05-10-2007, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that once something is reduced to math, arguments become moot. The math shows conclusivly what answers are right and what answers are wrong. (And yes, I understand that you can have some equations with more than one right answer because the solution is a range. But possible solutions outside that range are still wrong.) Dave's whole talent is his ability to grasp the basic math and logic that underpin poker issues. Say what you want about his ability to execute at the table, but his fundamental understanding of the game is unassailable. [/ QUOTE ] pOKER /= Math Poker = Economics (micro) Poker = Math + Reads + Psychology + Sales + Instinct
|
|
#30
05-10-2007, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
[ QUOTE ]
No books on limit cash games that can make you a winner? Even if you ignore every 2+2 book, that statement is STILL ignorant. Weighing the Odds Real Poker II Hold'em on the Come How Good Is Your Limit Hold'em Those are all excelent. I haven't read the Johnny Chan one, but I hear that's good too. [/ QUOTE ] I think the fact that even though they're at odds with 2+2, it kinda hurts credibility to just ignore their stuff so completely. I understand they're competing, but c'mon. You still have to give credit where credit is due. b
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
