Anyone else think that...

[Riverman]

Clark knows way more about holdem than either David or Mason?

[TimTimSalabim]

No. Do you see why?

[thirddan]

that is probably not true, but if i make a post i would much rather see a response from Clark than David/Mason because a response from clark will probably improve my skills as a poker player while a post from mason will tell me how much 2+2 has grown or when the next book is coming out and a reponse from David will probably tell me that there is no god or that he is much smarter than me... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Michael Emery]

Judging from the weakly played hands Mason has posted recently, I'm even starting to think I know more about holdem than him /images/graemlins/smile.gif. As for David, I doubt any poster on these forum's would be able to compete with his overall knowledge of the game. Or have a +EV expectation if they were to play him.

Mike Emery

[knifeandfork]

i have a feeling there are a few posters that would have a good +ev against the great DS. Barryg1 comes to mind.....
mho,
jason

[Michael Emery]

[ QUOTE ]

i have a feeling there are a few posters that would have a good +ev against the great DS. Barryg1 comes to mind.....
mho,
jason


[/ QUOTE ]

Barry would have a very good shot indeed. But when I said that I was thinking more about the regular hold'em posters on this site. If someone thinks some of these 40-80 hold'em players that people admire here (and who might be the best of the regular posters here) would match up well over time against someone like Sklansky or another world class player they are mistaken. If they could they wouldnt be playing 40-80 but 4K-8K with Greenstein.

I know someone is likely to throw a rebuttle similar to "not everyone plays as high as they could" at me, so I might as well answer it now for the people that think that. People end up at a certain limit for a reason. They can kid themselves all they want saying "oh, I dont want/need to play any higher", "I know I could beat 300-600 if I wanted", but thats usually not the case. Someone like Sklansky would run circles over time around a 40-80 player like Clark (or any of us regulars) due to a further understanding of the game. I just think its silly how some people start to compare regular posters to people like Sklansky and assume they know as much. Wouldnt it sound silly if you were reading a chess forum and read a poster stating "I think some people here are better players than Bobby Fischer"?

Mike Emery

[TimTimSalabim]

It's like saying Matt Leinhart knows more about playing quarterback than Joe Montana. After all, what has Joe done lately?

[Riverman]

The Joe Montana analogy is not a good one. Clark consistently demonstrates more of an understanding of how to make the most money at holdem than either Mason or David.

I will concede that the condesending and arrogant nature of David's posts make it difficult to discern much about his actual poker play, but some of Mason's recent posts make it very clear that there are significantly better limit holdem players than him on this site.

[1800GAMBLER]

Clark def. knows more about holdem than Mason.

[TimTimSalabim]

How do you think Clark would do in this lineup? (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14463)

[Riverman]

I should have clarified- I mean limit holdem.

That said, I bet Clark is way better than Mike Sexton.

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
If they could they wouldnt be playing 40-80 but 4K-8K with Greenstein

[/ QUOTE ]

So why doesnt sklansky play 4-8 w/ greenstein?