David Sklansky in the 2002 Big One

[Tyler Durden]

He finished somewhere between 37th and 45th and won $20K. I didn't know this. I found it in Cardplayer.

[tiltboy]

He finished 42nd, FWIW.

[Ray Zee]

that is a major accomplishment for anyone that doesnt play in lots of tournaments and gets to know the other players.

[Stew]

LOL @ Ray, let me see 42nd out of 839. That's almost exactly in the top 5%. I'd say a mighty fine accomplishment no matter how few or many tournaments a person plays in. No need to stand up for David here, the fact is due to his reputation and the amount of poker material and knowledge that he publishes and posesses, simply more is expected of him (by people that don't know him, readers, board posters, etc). than quite honestly is realistic. I mean let's face it, David could be the best or worst poker player in the world and all it takes is a bad call on a pre-flop all-in by David with Aces against deuce,seven to a seven, deuce, deuce flop and that's it. Short-term luck in an event like the world series is as equally important as any amount of skill a person has. It's kind of like the NBA finals vs the NCAA College Basketball Championship. In a one and done format, more upsets will happen by teams that probably aren't as skilled as their opponent. But, for whatever reason, they pulll out a win that day. In the NBA Playoffs, the better team virtually almost always wins in a 7 game format. The same can be said for Poker Tournaments: in one event or the next, those "deadmoney" guys have a shot, but over the course of several tournaments their success rate will not be as good as the skilled player. Anyway, not to stand up for David too much b/c I certainly don't think he's a world-class "Tournament" Player, but he sure is a World-Class Poker Player and 42/839 is not something anyone would be ashamed of.

[Robk]

As was mentioned on here a few months ago, he has actually won 3 WSOP events, which also doesn't seem to be common knowledge.

[Rushmore]

As long as the topic seems to have come up (again), there seems to be a fairly impressive spectrum of opinions on whether or not "Dr. Sklansky" is merely an academic, or if he has, indeed, distinguished himself in the poker world with any practical success.

The fact that this thread exists is testimony to this fact.

You read his books, attend his seminars, defer to his accumen, yet have no idea whether or not he is just some egghead with a website?

Let's all just go to that online champ guy's site. Or maybe that Advantage thing. Hell, I heard Whoopi Goldberg was starting a poker site, complete with forums, advice, and a link to Miss Cleo's Poker Tips.

[pufferfish]

I’m not trying to disrespect Mr. Sklansky, but this post reminded me of an article I read at the time.

When Scott Gray filled the three seat in one of the six remaining tables yesterday, poker theorist David Sklansky was sitting in the one seat with more chips than Scott. He limped in a hand, so Scott raised it on up and Sklansky passed. That was the last hand David Sklansky played in three hours. During the next three hours he was an empty chair. He anted himself down from seventy thousand in chips to less than ten. He made the money. And when they pay him his twenty thousand they’ll say, “Sir, thank you very much for attending. Please come back next year.” But in the words of Yeller from The Cincinnati Kid, “Man, you better write yourself a new book.” Because the gold bracelet ain’t being awarded by a voice vote, nor to the guy who can do the fanciest fractions. The winner of the World Series is the guy with balls as big as Montana, and a heart to match.

Excerpt: World Series Of Poker 2002 Jesse May Reports (#6 Day Three)

pf

[Stew]

I actually remember that article as well. But, would you rather leave the touanrment getting busted out before doubling your money (or more if he got in via a Sat or Super). Or would you rather be known for at least attempting to prove you have a big sack and empty pockets to match?

[pufferfish]

I don’t walk in Mr. Sklansky’s shoes nor do I know his motivation for playing the tournament. Personally, I don’t think I could sit for three hours without playing a hand.

TC,
pf

[Jeffage]

Your goal in any poker game/tournament is to maximize expectation. Survival to get into the money is a big factor in tournaments. Its very possible Sklansky just wasnt getting cards. While it may be more entertaining for the viewer to see him raise all in with Q9s and tip his hat when he blanks off, all that matters is winning the most money possible. $10,000 profit is a pretty good day for most poker players. JMHO.

Jeff

[clovenhoof]

That's a major accomplishment, period.

Plus everything that Stew said, too.

'hoof

[clovenhoof]

I suspect that as David gets older, his wrists simply can't bear the weight of yet another gold bracelet.

'hoof

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I’m not trying to disrespect Mr. Sklansky, but this post reminded me of an article I read at the time.

When Scott Gray filled the three seat in one of the six remaining tables yesterday, poker theorist David Sklansky was sitting in the one seat with more chips than Scott. He limped in a hand, so Scott raised it on up and Sklansky passed. That was the last hand David Sklansky played in three hours. During the next three hours he was an empty chair. He anted himself down from seventy thousand in chips to less than ten. He made the money. And when they pay him his twenty thousand they’ll say, “Sir, thank you very much for attending. Please come back next year.” But in the words of Yeller from The Cincinnati Kid, “Man, you better write yourself a new book.” Because the gold bracelet ain’t being awarded by a voice vote, nor to the guy who can do the fanciest fractions. The winner of the World Series is the guy with balls as big as Montana, and a heart to match.

Excerpt: World Series Of Poker 2002 Jesse May Reports (#6 Day Three)

pf

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone else find it amusing that Jesse May was writing about the tournament and not playing in it? If David's play was so boring why did he spend over three hours watching his every hand? Oh, perhaps he missed a few! Ya think!!

I read this article when originally published and dismissed it it out of hand due to the probable bias, lack of likely foundation and pretty much a useless account of something that didn't happen (ie: not playing any hands) rather than focusing more on hands that were played.

[whiskeytown]

on the other hand....he started with less then $10000 - and I THINK the next highest people were up near the $40000 range, as I recall -

and he still outlasted 3 of them - I don't understand the motivation either, but I've had a couple NL tourneys where I got a big start, and then got creamed handwise, virtually getting blinded out - and I have a feeling at the WSOP, you don't see many unraised hands...

now if he had mucked AA somewhere, I'd be super critical, but I doubt he did that..

RB

[pokerlover]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ Ray, let me see 42nd out of 839

[/ QUOTE ]

There were actually only 613 people in the big one in 2002. Still 52nd isn't too shabby.

[Stew]

I misread it or assumed (you know what happens when someone assumes) 2003. Thanks for pointing that out.