Sklansky slammers argument skewered!

[Daliman]

Hardly a day goes by that I don't see somewhere that David Sklansky can't be the foremost poker theorist and teacher because he's not the best player in the world, and has never won the WSOP main event. Well, I have a few thoughts on this.

Who is the best golfing coach in the world?
Probably Butch Harmon.
Was he a great golfer?
No a decent pro, but never better than average on the tour, at best.
Who is the best tennis coach?
Probably Nick Bolletieri.
Was he a great player.
Sure, but NEVER top level in the pros, and won few tournaments.
Who is the best football coach of all time.
Probably Vince Lombardi.
Was he a great player.
Nope.
Who is the best basketball coach of all time.
I'd say a toss-up between John Wooden and Red Auerbach.
Were they great players?
Not that anyone ever heard.
Who is the best Hockey coach ever?
Scotty Bowman.
Was he a great player?
I think he was a pro, but definitely not top level.
Who was the best baseball coach ever?
Tuff one here, but I'll go with Connie Mack.
Was he a great player?
Nope.

Are you seeing a trend yet?

Just because someone is not a the top of his sport does not mean that person cannot have a deeper understanding of it than anyone else or a better understanding of how to convey their thought to lesser minds and talents. Sure, Treetop and Stuey and their ilk made some brilliant plays, both in winning and in losing, but they were all broke at one time or another. I'm sure Sklansky could do very well at the top levels of poker, but the variation is more than he cares to deal with, and I'm sure he makes a dandy living doing what he does now, the way he does it. Having balls of steel and raising all-in with crap also frequently requires an ass of steel, as they often get bounced out on it.sure, Stuey was a phenomenal player, but he didn't die broke ONLY because of drugs; it was also due to his unwavering belief that he could beat anyone, anytime, and sometimes, the cards just don't cooperate.

Now then, let's make a quick list of the some of the top players all-time in their sport
Football: Jim Brown
Basketball: Michael Jordan
Baseball: Barry Bonds
Hockey: Wayne Gretzky

Now, do you really think these people, great as they were, wouls also be the best coaches possible? I'd say no. And why? Because talent plays a major factor at the top level, not just game understanding, and i'll tell you right now, a guy like Scott Skiles, who's not even a great coach, has forgotten more about basketball than most top players will ever know, but he didn't have enough athletic ability and talent to be a great player. In poker, ability is money, and talent is nerve. Sklansky is more interested in making a very good living than proving how good he is at poker. To take a small page out of his book, what good does it do him to be the 20th best player in the world if he continually plays the top 19?

Now, I know that DS can be insufferable at times, both in person and in print(I.E. TPFAP"...if you do not know how we came up with these numbers, close this book now. You are a bad player and you deserve to lose" or something to that extent. Is that REALLY necessary?). But really, the argument that he doesn't crush the 3000-6000 games or consistantly cash high in tourneys hold absolutely NO bearing on his standing as poker's leading theorist and educator, as I have just shown.

[JTG51]

I have two points, one nitpicking, the other legitimate.

The nitpick is, John Wooden was a great basketball player. He's in the basketball Hall of Fame as both a player and a coach (Lenny Wilkens is the only other person in as both).

Now the real point. Every activity is a you listed requires a tremendous amount of physical talent to play, but does not necessarily require that talent to teach. The same isn't true with poker. Knowing the technique required to hit a golf ball 300 yards does not mean necessarily lead to being able to do it. Knowing how to play a poker hand well should lead to doing it.

That said, I am in no way saying that Sklansky isn't the foremost poker theorist in the world (I certainly believe that he is), just that your argument isn't really valid.

[Dynasty]

Chess would be a reasonable game for comparison. The best chess coaches, including those who have helped World Champions train, have not been world class players, although they may be grandmasters.

[brad]

i was gonna use botvinnik as a counterexample.

top player/ thoerist / teacher

[David Sklansky]

Though I appreciate your support, I don't agree with your argument. There is no physical talent involved. Thus the foremost theorist must also be a heckuva player.

On there other hand there are some reasons why he might not be the number one most successful player.

1. As a theorist he has time to mull over situations but he can't do that in the heat of battle.

2. The very biggest games are beaten via talents and methods that don't apply to the medium size games that he teaches and writes about.

3. The very biggest games require insanely high gambling bankrolls without the necessary rewards. Something that most people do not know.

4. Players will often tighten up against him so as not to embarrass themselves. He can exploit this somewhat but in a ring game it hurts more than it helps.

Those downsides would apply to me to varying degrees. Still I believe this about my playing abilities: In a decathalon of ten different poker games with no open seats, playing against typical 50-100 players or smaller, where everyone is in disguise, no player in the world would have a higher EV than me. Ray Zee, Chip Reese, Howard Lederer, Doyle Brunson, and a few others would come close. But that's all.

[oddjob]

[ QUOTE ]
i was gonna use botvinnik as a counterexample.

top player/ thoerist / teacher

[/ QUOTE ]

how about checkers then.

jebediah mcclanton is by far the greatest checkers player,

but zeke "1 tooth" howards is clearly the greatest checker teacher/coach

[Daliman]

Physical talent really only applied to athletes named. Of course, in poker, physical ability has very little to nothing to do with poker ability, although endurance CAN matter, again, more mental than physical. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Daliman]

I don't really think golf takes that much physical talent that any regular person doesn't posess. You can't tell me guys like Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Tom Watson, and Lee Trevino had much more than excellent coordination going for them in the physicality department. Being muscular in golf has been shown to be a hindrance, although Tiger's influence has given the sport a push towards athletes being stronger and in better shape, but other than golf, would you really consider Tiger to be a GREAT athlete? Sure, MJ sucked at baseball, but he was and still is a great athlete. The chess argument made further down the thread I would have made also, if I knew anything about chess.

[J.R.]

Hand-eye coordination and prioperception are the essence of physical talent in sports of skill.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really think golf takes that much physical talent that any regular person doesn't posess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing personal, but this is an absurd statement. Golf does not take much physical strength that any regular person doesn't possess, but physical talent encompasses more the 21 inch guns.

[phish]

I think D. Sklanski has elucidated fairly well all the reasons why a great theorist may not be the most successful player. And there are reasons why the greatest players may not be good teachers/theorists. Teaching and theorizing are essentially verbal skills. They require an ability to conceptualize and communicate proper theory and practice. Many great players are utterly incapable of doing this. In fact, there are good players who do stupid things like blame the dealer, ask for deck changes, etc. They may win, but I certainly wouldn't want to talk poker with them.

And there are other reasons why a great teacher/theorist may not be the among the top money-winners. The best players are exceptionally great at hand-reading and/or picking up subtle tells, both of which are not easy to teach. Also, there is a gap in the poker literature concerning the topic of intimidation and image and how it affects your profit. This again is very difficult to teach. But some players have a natuaral instinct that allows them to play in a way that, though it may not be optimal for a given hand, will lead to his opponents making critical mistakes against him later. A very simple example is someone who is capable of checkraising the turn with anything or nothing. This can lead to his opponents more willing to check behind him, thus giving him a free card, or allowing him to win a pot he otherwise would've folded.
Perhaps this is where the next level of poker literature needs to go: how your to maximize your profit over the long term rather than just in that one hand you're currently in.

[doormat]

One thing unmentioned is the ability to communicate. You can KNOW more about a game than anyone else on the planet, but if you cannot explain it clearly and understandably, you will never be a great teacher. Great teachers also have the ability to identify a player's faults and work from there instead of using the same approach with every student. There are many other intangibles that separate good teachers from great ones, like patience and the ability to identify a person's strengths and weaknesses and maximize their results given those limitations. If you are teaching someone with a photographic memory how to play stud, your approach would be completely different than if you were teaching someone who had trouble remembering their hole cards but had excellent instincts for putting people on strong or weak hands, etc.

doormat

[JTG51]

I don't really think golf takes that much physical talent that any regular person doesn't posess.

You've obviously never played much golf, because this is a ridiculous statement.

[J_V]

Chess trainers are top-level grandmasters. To write books for the top level players, you must be a top-level player.

No one can teach the best in the world about chess as a whole. He can specialize (openings and endings) and improve the World Champions knowledge in this area.

I agree with D. Sklansky up until he started making some brash claims (which I applaud) but disagree with.

[brad]

well it doesnt mean anything but checkers has been 'solved' by computer i think (ie, perfect play)

[Daliman]

anyone paying attention would have noticed that I said good coordination was necessary. Don't kid yourselves into thinking these people are all great athletes, because they're not. There's 70-year old guys who can barely walk out there that can shoot par, and save me the "Walking the course" crap, cuz walking around outside is nothing thrilling in the athleticism department. Skilled? Sure. But so are pool players, and I don't see them ever being called athletes.

[JTG51]

Skilled? Sure. But so are pool players, and I don't see them ever being called athletes.

As far as I can tell, you are the only one here using the word athlete. We (at least I) am just pointing out that you are way off the mark when you say golf doesn't require that much physical talent. That's absurd.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't kid yourselves into thinking these people are all great athletes, because they're not. ... pool players, and I don't see them ever being called athletes.

[/ QUOTE ]

and from your previous post
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really think golf takes that much physical talent that any regular person doesn't posess.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's the crux of it. Nobody told you golfers were great "athletes", but that doesn't mean that golf doesn't require great physical talent. Pool is a good analogy. Some guys could work at it 10 hours a day their whole life, and never be more than a good player. That is, they could kick any regular guy's butt at the game, but not even come close to professional level. Golf is the same. You need some physical talents that you were either born with or not to make it to the top levels. Without that natural talent, you'll only be very skilled, but never a winning professional amongst professionals.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[ACBob]

This gets down to the age old question of best player of them all!

But, what is the criteria? Davdid sets forth a game condition which is neither likely nor realistic. Further, he surely does not mean for one session, say 8-10 hours but more like infinity as the game(s) has too much short term luck factor.

I like David Sklansky's work and the S&M method is the fundamental of my game with Abdulian aggression/play for my style.

Saying that, I ask David if you can outplay the rest in two areas:

1) Reading other players
2) Stamina to play for days with only short breaks

Thanks.

Bob Lewis

[Daliman]

Now, the stamina and fortitude to play for days on and is what I just don't get. I played for 15 hours straight once and felt like i'd been through a wringer, although I lost big, so I'm sure it's a different feeling altogether when you're winning, or especially crushing.