Daniel N. compares Gus to Sklansky

[Your Mom]

This is from Danny's web site:

Strengths: Math skills. That may sound strange to most but everything Gus does is rooted in mathematics. Gus is arguably the best backgammon player in the world and has transferred those skills to the poker table. His approach to the game is closer to mathematically optimal than the approach of say, a David Sklansky type.


Discuss.

[disjunction]

I'm not sure that David Sklansky is a David Sklansky type. I mean, I'm sure he is, but it also seems like a lot of people misinterpret what this means.

[Paul2432]

Does DN even know what constitutes a mathematically optimal approach? If not, how can even make this statement?

Paul

[lighterjobs]

[ QUOTE ]
Does DN even know what constitutes a mathematically optimal approach? If not, how can even make this statement?

Paul

[/ QUOTE ]

he might.

[youngin20]

I think watching Gus play he is very aggressive, and willing to gamble, because he thinks in terms of +EV, not short term but long term. He knows he is better with a big stack, etc etc. I think they might have comperable strategies, since they are both obviously intelligent people. Although I think Gus may lack DS's nit component (mostly derived from a story posted here about how you didnt used to have to post in LP or something , so he would just play until the BB got to him, and then leave the table.) /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Paul:

I think that you have hit the nail on the head. I thinks it's obvious that Daniel N is a very talented player, but he's certainly not a trained mathematician, and his understanding of statistical theory is certainly lacking. Furthermore, based on his writings, my impression is that his impression of a mathematical type is someone who is extremely conservative and who chooses to take the low risk play as opposed to the highest expectation play. I suspect that if he ever took the time to read and understand books like David's Getting the Best of It and my Gambling Theory and Other Topics he would be very surprised by the information that they contain. This would be especially true with my book, and he would also discover that the best gamblers are statisticians and not mathematicians.

Best wishes,
Mason

[youngin20]

I think many of the big name players that we know have won a lot playing big bet games, like NLHE or PLO, or Limit holdem, but i think the ones who are less well known, but focus more on cash games probably have a better mathematical grasp of the game of poker. For example, Phil I., Ted Forrest, Barry Greenstein are rated both on Barry G.'s website and Daniel's website (not ted forrest) as being really great stud players. As some stud players might know, stud is a much more methodical game, with bluffs being formulated by expectation, raises by current hand or how live you hand is, etc. I think its a newer generation making their bones on limit hold em or NLHE, and the older generation having a background in stud, which makes for two different types of players.

[J.A.Sucker]

[ QUOTE ]
/snip good points; ... he would also discover that the best gamblers are statisticians and not mathematicians.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

So, to clarify, David was a math major, and you were a statistician, right? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Forever stirring the pot,

The J.A.Sucker

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Sucker:

Actually no. Both my degrees are in math. However, as a gradulate student I had almost enough credits in statistics to earn a masters degree there, and when I held a real job I always worked as a statistician.

As for David, he has a pretty good grasp of the statistical theory needed for gambling/poker, but his approach towards certain things is sometimes a little different from mine.

Best wishes,
Mason

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
This is from Danny's web site:

Strengths: Math skills. That may sound strange to most but everything Gus does is rooted in mathematics. Gus is arguably the best backgammon player in the world and has transferred those skills to the poker table. His approach to the game is closer to mathematically optimal than the approach of say, a David Sklansky type.


Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

link to this quote?

[theBruiser500]

i had a dream about gus hansen yesterday

[That guy]

If you are a mathmetician, is it that big a jump to understand statistics enough to be a great poker player? I understand applied statistics pretty well but I am by no means a mathematician. But if you are a mathematician, it would seem to me that statistical concepts would be pretty easy to grasp.

[That guy]

You don't have to have a degree in stats or math to be very good at numbers. I don't know what Negreanus level of sophistication is with statistics but I bet he understands more than you think. That said, his comments re. the 'big game' leave me wondering if he really does... Nevertheless, he has played enough poker to probably understand the mathematical concepts without necessarily thinking about it purely mathematically (ie, he fully gets the high 'bankroll variance' in the game without specifically quantifying it -- his instincts are just really good).

For me, understanding statistical concepts really helps give me confidence that my swings are normal and helps differentiate (along with hand analysis) -- 'runnin bad' vs 'playin bad'...

[jakethebake]

Doesn't hansen have a site? anyone have the link?

[WDC]

did he join you guys in the hot tub?

[VBM]

[ QUOTE ]
his approach towards certain things is sometimes a little different from mine

[/ QUOTE ]

i've always thought that you, DS, Ray & Ed all have nicely
complementary styles;

DS - always pushing & challenging, almost a Socratic approach to teaching

you - unfailingly polite, always patient, more of an introspective approach to poker, et al.

ray - compassionate; i remember a thread where Ray was alarmed at how many young 2+2 players use speed & coke to stay awake and play for longer stretches. that really stuck with me that he seemed genuinely bothered by it. Also, I like how when ray replies to threads, it's from the perspective of, "things you should be considering/planning x-steps ahead at the table..."

ed - a teacher in the best sense of the word. never too "hollywood" to answer a PM or to look at a thread and chime in, articulate like no one's business, confident & authoritative without being boastful or mean...

[J.A.Sucker]

Ray knows as much about the math of poker as David, Mason, or anyone, by the way. The old man is quite a cunning cat.

[VBM]

I didn't mean to somehow imply that he was less so, i guess i was just suprised/impressed with him as a human being, out of left-field...

[Blarg]

Ray seems to come across as too even tempered, balanced, and mature for the internet. He speaks like someone who is not just smart enough, but has digested some experience in his time and let it refine his temper. In some ways he's kind of like a Sklansky with a lot of the rough edges smoothed away and a kind of shine to him when the light hits him right.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is from Danny's web site:

Strengths: Math skills. That may sound strange to most but everything Gus does is rooted in mathematics. Gus is arguably the best backgammon player in the world and has transferred those skills to the poker table. His approach to the game is closer to mathematically optimal than the approach of say, a David Sklansky type.


Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

link to this quote?

[/ QUOTE ]

[MarkD]

I would love to see one of these guys (Negreanu or Greenstein), or anyone, do a similar profile of Ray Zee.

[el kang]

The quote can be found on this Full Contact poker thread (http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/viewtopic.php?t=4571). Daniel wrote a profile on Gus.

[jakethebake]

The best part is further down...

[ QUOTE ]
hes sklansky's and doyle's lovechild, with a little innovation by playing what most would call less than premium starting hands thrown in. needless to say, scary.

[/ QUOTE ]