Negreanu comments on Gus Hansen and David Sklansky

[mrwatson23]

On his website, Daniel Negreanu says that Gus Hansen's style is more mathematically optimal than a "David Sklansky type." Is he right?

[The T.A.]

[ QUOTE ]
On his website, Daniel Negreanu says that Gus Hansen's style is more mathematically optimal than a "David Sklansky type." Is he right?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think tournament results clearly state who is actually "correct."

[BarronVangorToth]

David S. somewhere wrote this very thing though that Gus DOES play a mathematical game. In other words, David didn't put himself and Gus in different schools of thought, so I don't see why people will think that it's A or B.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[mrwatson23]

Even if Hansen is a better player (I don't know if he is), does that prove his style is more mathematically optimal? Sklansky has spoken highly of Hansen in the past, so I really hope he give his thoughts on Negreanu's statement.

[lighterjobs]

[ QUOTE ]
On his website, Daniel Negreanu says that Gus Hansen's style is more mathematically optimal than a "David Sklansky type." Is he right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this belongs in the 'poker theory' section.

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On his website, Daniel Negreanu says that Gus Hansen's style is more mathematically optimal than a "David Sklansky type." Is he right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this belongs in the 'poker theory' section.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that since this forum is about poker on TV and Daniel and Gus are both poker TV celebs this is a correct forum for this post. It would have probbly been correct to post it many other forums on here as well.

[Ray Zee]

i agree with you, and david has been winning and getting in the money in tournaments and winning consistently in cash games for the 35 years i have known him. thats where my money goes if i had to bet on the long term.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
"David Sklansky type."

[/ QUOTE ]


What the Hell is a "David Sklansky type"? And what is the differentiation between 'mathematically optimal’ and ‘DS type’. This whole thing reeks of buffoonery and simple notions run amok and general gossipy nonsense.

The poker world seems more and more seeped in drivel, and more renown for nonsense than sense.

By the way, David Sklansky is not my type.

-Zeno

[cwsiggy]

Sklansky's style lacks imagination according to one famous pro. Perhaps that is the difference.

[Grindin']

Yes, the Gus Hansen being more mathematically optical statement befuddles me. Anyone care to enlighten me?

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the Gus Hansen being more mathematically optical statement befuddles me. Anyone care to enlighten me?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well Daniel says in his post optimal , as does the original posters, I don't know who made typo you are talking about I didn't see it any of the posts. But heaven forbid someone make a typo.

[VBM]

fwiw, i was turned onto by 2+2 by something Negreanu said, to the effect that, TOP is crucial to any learning poker player's education...

I think your post is inflammatory and has little quantitative or qualitative value.

[TStoneMBD]

as far as im concerned, daniel knows what hes talking about and until i am good enough to judge for myself, my bet is on him.

[dcs1897]

Could you please post the link to this? Thanks.

[TMFS9]

Maybe the lack of imagination is due to everybody reading his books and learning his style as the standard for the last decade or so.

[cwsiggy]

He was talking about the fact that he does great at mid high levels but can't beat the really high games because you need extreme creativity at that level.

[Bernas]

I don't think it is creativity that he is speaking of.

Both Sklansky and Hansen are extreme Math guys. They both use Math as a fundemental basis for their game.

Gus does all the math that fundamentally sound Poker players do, but I think he takes it to the next level. When he bets, he considers the odds of a player holding the range of cards he considers necesarry to call the amount that he is going to bet. By doing this, he puts less importance on what he is holding. This is why he is able to play trash hands.

Neither one is wrong, but I agree with Daniel in the fact that Hansen's method is more optimum in tournament poker, where the folding equity of a bet is increased.

[Grindin']

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the Gus Hansen being more mathematically optical statement befuddles me. Anyone care to enlighten me?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well Daniel says in his post optimal , as does the original posters, I don't know who made typo you are talking about I didn't see it any of the posts. But heaven forbid someone make a typo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I apologize. I meant to write optimal, but in my haste must have spelled out optical.

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the Gus Hansen being more mathematically optical statement befuddles me. Anyone care to enlighten me?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well Daniel says in his post optimal , as does the original posters, I don't know who made typo you are talking about I didn't see it any of the posts. But heaven forbid someone make a typo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I apologize. I meant to write optimal, but in my haste must have spelled out optical.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well optimal means "most desirable" so I am guessing Daniel means that Hansen way of doing it is better.