Brunson ' quote about Sklansky

[PiquetteAces]

Brunson says : " How can you say , for instance , that I am better player than David Sklansky or Mike Caro ? I think that obviously I am a , but the two of them are the foremost authorities on poker . They know everything , the situations , what you're suppose to do , WHEN IT COMES TIME TO PERFORM THEM , THEY CANT DO IT . They chill up or something happen .

That 's come from " championship tables at the WSOP 1970-2002 on page 50 .

So , Brunson think he is OBVIOUSLY a better player than David Sklansky .

Brunson might think : " I play 2000-4000 & higher when while David Sklansky play almost only HE30-60 . I have 9 wsop'bracelets and DS has only 1 ."

Sklansky might think : " 2000-4000 & higher is to big for my bankroll , and even if it was ,a lineup with Doyle Brunson , Johnny Chan , Daniel Negranue , Chip Reese , Annie Duke , etc make me only a very small favorite & in the long run I will have an higher hourly rate playing 30-60HE with some tourists and a lot less pressure .What is for the bracelets , I am not a tournement ' specialist and I play less than half a dozen of tournement a year because I think that my skills are more usefull in a cash game "

For me , I think that Brunson is wrong when he says that they dont perform ; I dont think that Caro & Sklansky ( or Mason Malmuth, or Ray Zee ) need to sell books to support some poker ' loses .

any comments would appreciated , and comments from David Sklansky would be a lot appreciated .

-jpp

[stripsqueez]

i wouldn't presume to know who is a better player - but in my view there is plenty of logic behind Brunson's reason as to why he is better

what i have read from Sklansky (being only "The Theory Of Poker" and what i see on this forum) indicates to me that he has a near complete grasp of the scientific and strategic concepts that aid an understanding of the game - that means very little when considering how good he would be at a table filled with other good players - i havent read anything he has written that indicates to me that he has a more profound understanding of the game

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[phish]

I think to the extent that Brunson has a higher hourly rate than Sklansky, that is as objective a measurement of 'better' as you're going to get. Now of course, Brunson plays much higher, but I consider that as all part of being a 'better' poker player. Poker involves more than just knowing the theory and concepts. In that department, the 2+2 writers along w/ Mike Caro are probably unequalled. But great poker at the highest levels also involves heart, people skills, hand reading, image, etc. Brunson may not be anywhere near the theorist that Sklansky or Malmuth are, but his other qualities more than make up for it.

And let's say you have two players, one who plays 30/60 and is technically the better player. But the other one plays 80/160 and, though technically a weaker player, makes more money per hour. Who's the better player? I'd say the guy playing 80/160, because he obvously has the heart to play at the bigger limits and make more money.

[Iceman]

I doubt anyone could beat David Sklansky in a mixed game involving many different forms of poker. David's knowledge of poker theory is unparalleled, and contrary to the comment, he is very able to apply that theory to the games. If he doesn't have the bankroll for 2000-4000 that doesn't mean he's a lesser player - even if he did, why play that if he could earn more in 30-60 and 80-160? Brunson may be better than Sklansky specifically at shorthanded high-ante games and deep money no-limit, where reading opponents counts for a lot more, and theoretical knowledge is relatively less important.

[Acesover8s]

[ QUOTE ]
Brunson says : " How can you say , for instance , that I am better player than David Sklansky or Mike Caro ? I think that obviously I am a , but the two of them are the foremost authorities on poker . They know everything , the situations , what you're suppose to do , WHEN IT COMES TIME TO PERFORM THEM , THEY CANT DO IT . They chill up or something happen .

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to hear this crap all the time. Mid-limit players I would play with would say that they played with Sklansky and that he could talk the talk but not walk the walk.

This is obviously quite silly, as poker is not a physical sport like basketball, or require fine dexterity like brain surgery. Obviously if he writes to raise limpers preflop with AKs, there is nothing preventing him from doing it in a live game.

[Jeremy'sSpoken]

Who cares who the better player is? I doubt David does. They are both better than me (for now) and that is all I care about.

What's next a post on whose Dad can beat who up?

[WarmonkEd]

there's a part in brunson's no limit hold'em where he states that he believes in "rushes," and all the "scientists" (he puts scientists in quotes) who say otherwise are wrong. That statement BLEW MY MIND. How he can be a professional gambler and NOT understand statistics boggles my mind.

Anyway, if you read his nolimit holdem section, all he does is play LAG, which, I guess works in no-limit.

[1800GAMBLER]

I don't have the book here in front of me but i read that section a lot differently. He says he's going to play the next hand but he's doing this because of the image of a rush. I'm sure somewhere earlier he explains how one event is random after another when talking about streaks. If you are still confused Al made an article about the paragraph on cardplayer.

[Jedi Poker]

In his prime, Brunson was regarded as the best big stack live game no-limit holdem player in the world. In that game, you can use personal charisma to create rushes by making 'em fold fold fold fold fold, trap 'em, then make them fold fold fold and fold some more until they give up. It is very difficult to accomplish this if you didn't have heart, if you didn't have very high acuity in "feeling" player weakness, and didn't believe in rushes - at least, the psychological momentum kind.

[krazyace5]

all he does is play LAG

What is LAG?

[harboral]

I'm confused about the real goal of this post. There are only about a dozen true high-limit (NL) players that stood the test of time from the late 1950's into the 1980's - how can anybody dispute his claim that he is the best? Sklansky is NOT (as you said) a high limit player, and if you read Super System, you see that Brunson believes that the NUMBER ONE GAME is NL - that certainly leaves the two he mentions in the WSOP Final Tables book OUT. As far as David responding, I doubt that will happen - he has already admitted there is no point in him playing in games where he is not a big favorite - and his reasoning is sound - he does not need to prove anything and why go into a game with limited EV? As for rushes, you sound like somebody that hasn't played much. Rushes DO HAPPEN - nothing strange about that, again - David (or any math expert) would state that winning hands are going to get clumped together occasionally, AND, a strong player that picks-up a couple pots can then bully the game for another hand or two (especially at NL) - and sometimes those junk hands you bully with wind-up making the nuts................As for Brunson saying they don't perform well - well IMHO - you count your winnings and the guys with the most $ at the end of the year are the ones that performed best - that leaves David and Caro OUT of the short list of great players.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Warmonk,

Actually, both statistics and strategy do bear out the notion of "rushes."

Yes, each hand dealt is random, but that does not mean good hands are evenly spaced. You'll get AA once in 221 hands -- on average -- but that's not the same as saying you can expect AA every 221st hand. Given that, statistics predict that you can expect some "clumping" effect. When that is for the good, it's a "rush." When it goes the other way, it's a "cold wave." Both will happen.

But while the cards dealt are independent, random events with no memory of the prior hand dealt, there is much more to winning NLH than good cards. Players DO remember prior hands, and they DO notice when someone goes on a streak of big pots. When a player is running like that, the smart strategy is to stay out of the way unless you have a strong hand. With 9 players at a table, the odds of anyone having a big enough hand to challenge a "rusher" are less than 50%, so he can often run off a few pots before anyone catches a monster.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi Piquette,

Okay, so let's settle it. Who's better: Barry Bonds or Tiger Woods?

Answer: they play different games. Ask Barry Bonds to hit the green from 245 yards with a 3-wood from the rough with a tree in the way, and he has no chance. Ask Tiger Woods to hit a major league curve ball, and he'll whiff.

Doyle Brunson and David Sklansky play entirely different games. Sklansky is a mid-limit Hold'Em player, and a very good one. Brunson is a high-stakes No Limit Hold'Em player, and one of the best ever. Sit Brunson down at a 30/60 table with Sklansky, and Sklansky will probably walk away with the cash. Sit Sklansky down at a 100/200 No-Limit table with Brunson, and Brunson will pick his pockets.

They're entirely different games.

Cris

[PiquetteAces]

Your right all the way .

But I never ask " who is the best ? "

I'ts just that I think that " Doyle Brunson is wrong when says that he is OBVIOUSLY a better player than Sklansky because , like you say , they dont play the same game and we cant compare . Equally I think DB is wrong when he says that Sklansky & Caro dont perform , when its time to "

- jpp

[1800GAMBLER]

Loose-aggressive player. I don't think the book shows he plays loose at all, he's hugely tight in EP and only looser than average in LP, which is very good for NL were position has more effect on the EV of a hand. His book is as good as a perfect formula for beating NL of the kind he plays. Finding those games now though is near impossible.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
I have 9 wsop'bracelets and DS has only 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

DS actually has 3 WSOP bracelets.

[mickblueeyes]

I disagree with the Tiger Woods/Barry Bonds analogy. This would be more like challenging the world's best 9-ball player to face off with the world's best 8-ball or snooker player. I am sure Sklansky is capable of playing Brunson's game, and probably at a very high level, beating most regular and good players, though he might find Brunson challenging. I think Caro might fare better in high level No limit against him. However, putting Brunson in 30-60 or 100-200 with Sklansky might prove very different. Though Brunson is very capable at this level, Sklansky might have the advantage.

[Ray Zee]

i have played alot with both of them over the course of 35 years or so. they both are the best in their fields. david concentrates on limit and doyle no limit. but either would be a favorite in most any game played. they are both truely two of the best poker players in history and not likely will anyone be able to top each ones accomplishments.

[AJo Go All In]

i'm confused. isn't doyle's regular game a mixed high-LIMIT game at the bellagio with hansen, chan, ivey, etc?

[DrPhysic]

I think your post makes more sense than anything else in this entire string.

Which poster in the string, other than RZ, thinks he can sit down with DS and DB at either a mid limit LHE table or a high limit NLHE table and expect to come in second?

All we're doing here is cheering for our favorite sports hero, and mine is Tim Duncan. So What?

At the same time, if we recognize that each is an expert in their respective fields, there is a huge amount we can learn from each one.

Respectfully,

Doc

[George Rice]

Who cares?

[Al Schoonmaker]

If you go to cardplayer.com, "magazine," in the top left corner, writers, and my name, you'll find two articles about playing your own rush and defending against another person's rush.
Regards,
Al

[WarmonkEd]

ok, I don't believe in this clumping effect. That's like saying "because red has been hit 10 times in a roulette game, the next one will be red." I think we all know that's simply NOT true.

I DO believe in the psychological effect that you can inflict on people (who believe in rushes) by making them THINK you're on a rush.

And I DO have the book in front of me and he says nothing about "psych'ing" people out and making them fear him because he's on a rush. This is how he states it verbatim pg 451:

"If you don't play that way... you'll never have much of a rush. I know that scientists don't believe in rushes... but they make about fifteen hundred a month. I've played poker for almost 25 years now...and I've made millions at it. A big part of my winnings comes from playing my rushes.

There's only one world class poker player I know who doesn't believe in rushes.Well...he's wrong and so are all the other 'scientists', besides how many of them can play poker anyway?"

[WarmonkEd]

Hi Al,
I just read your articles on rushes, and if Brunson was going to write a section about rushes, that's how he should've done it.

[Al Mirpuri]

LAG = Loose Aggressive Games
LAP = Loose Passive Games
TAG = Tight Aggressive Games
TPG = Tight Passive Games

[twomarks]

I didn't know Mr. Sklansky had 3 WSOP bracelets. What are they for?

Thanks,

twomarks

[Still the Spank E]

Doyle Brunson is one of my heroes, as he should be to anyone who plays the game, but this is not the first time I've heard him say things I considered CLASSLESS. After busting out (first round!) of the 2003 WSOP, the Texas Dolly was asked what he thought of the chances of the defending 2002 champion's (Robert Varkony) repeating as winner. Instead of showing grace and the humility appropriate to a true champion (which, of course, he IS), he told the ESPN interviewer that he didn't give him much of a chance (no doubt accurate, particularly in retrospect), and that he (Doyle) couldn't imagine how he got through the field the year before in the first place. What's up with that? I mean, he is deservedly considered one of the top players to ever live, but that--and his remarks about DS--demonstrate a little something missing in the character department, don't you think?

[Andy B]

Since when is answering a question truthfully "classless"?

[bunky9590]

If he held them in so much contempt, why the heck were they asked (By Doyle personally) to write sections of his Super/System book?

Doyle's just blowing off. Probably got aces cracked by some whale holding 93o or something like 10 minutes prior.

[morgant]

i thought it was candid and great the way he responded to that question. should he have given the stereotypical pc response? btw varkoni irked the crap out of me, watching him act like the big cheese, with his coach and grandstanding etc.

[Lucky]

This is poker, not exactly the Grey Poupon of pastimes. Dolly calls 'em like he seems 'em. That's why he's lasted longer than any of them, and always outplayed the "scientists."


"If you're Big Star Bound, let me warn ya it's a Long Hard Ride."

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi AJo Go All In:

Doyle's regular game today is approximately what you describe. But they also play pot limit Omaha for ultra high stakes. Years ago, when Ray was a little younger, Doyle was known as a no limit player for very large stakes. But those games don't exist anymore.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi WarmonkEd:

Actually, this is very easy to understand, but you need to know the history of poker. Back in the mid 1970s when Super/System was being put together, the statistical understanding of poker/gambling that is available today was just beginning. For instance, when I ventured on the scene starting around 1980 I couldn't believe that a good statistician hadn't addressed many of the issues that players of that time were wrestling with.

In a sense, Doyle was one of the first of the professional poker players to begin to approach poker in a more scientific manner. That's what his book Super/System is about. But it probably couldn't be helped that some of the old silly ideas were able to creep in.

By the way, as I understand it, Hold 'em Poker by David Sklansky was actually published a couple of months before How I Made $1,000,000 Playing Poker, the original title of Doyle's book, appeared. Since David was (and still is) a real mathematician, none of these ideas about luck and rushes are in his work, and the presentation of Hold 'em Poker was much more rigorous (in my opinion) than Super/System.

The effect of this is that, again in my opinion, Hold 'em Poker has been far more influential than Super/System, did more to bring poker out of the dark ages (even though both books did a lot in this area), and did more to bring the everyday person into our game.

Best wishes,
Mason

[kingstalker]

Doyle RULES!!!!!

[TylerD]

Shouldn't that be O'Doyle rules, oh wait this isn't that Adam Sandler film.

[Gildersneeze]

[ QUOTE ]
Warmonk had this to say about a world without Robocop:

ok, I don't believe in this clumping effect. That's like saying "because red has been hit 10 times in a roulette game, the next one will be red." I think we all know that's simply NOT true.

[/ QUOTE ]The clumping effect happens. Its opposite also happens. Think about it like this.

If you're playing tight (solid) poker, especially when just starting out and playing ABC hand groupings only, you're only going to see between 15% and 23% of all flops dealt if you stick strictly without fail to those hand groups (not counting unraised BB checks).

Now that 15% to 20% of all flops is an OVERALL figure. We'll use 1000 hands as an example. If you're seeing 20% of flops over the course of 1000 hands, that's 200 starting hands that you get, you see the flop, or one in every five flops. However, that doesn't mean every five flops, you got dealt one of the big hands.

More than likely, that 1000 hands was spread over three or four sessions at the table. Let's say out of those 200 hands you played, 98 of them came in your first 250 hand session. That means you only have 112 good starting hands left to go, but 750 hands left to play.

Unfortunately for you, all those good hands clumped into your first 250 hand session.

If clumping didn't happen, I wouldn't have sessions where I pick up pocket rockets three or four times in a night. I'd only pick them up specifically every 220 hands.

Using the one in 220 rules, think about this in this little set of numbers. AA will represent which hand out of a set of 220 that you were dealt aces.

[1,2,3,4...215,216,217,AA,219,220]

So on deal #218, you picked up the Aces. Now let's put it next to another set that starts at #1. Again, AA represents which hand out of 1-220 you get the Aces.

[1,2,3,4...215,216,217,AA,219,220][1,AA,2,3...215,216,217,218,219,220]

Notice on the next set of numbers, you hit AA on deal #2. The aces have clumped. This can happen in reverse, too (getting AA on deal #2 in set one, and deal #218 on set two).

Either way, you have to realize that what I've done, you can't even count on, because you're supposed to look at the numbers 50 years down the road, as you finally put down poker for the rest of your life and look back to count the total number of hands (if you can remember them all) against the times you had specific starting hands.

Even simpler, if hand clumping didn't happen, I wouldn't have been dealt KTo four times in a row tonight on Pokerroom.com.

[WarmonkEd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Warmonk had this to say about a world without Robocop:

ok, I don't believe in this clumping effect. That's like saying "because red has been hit 10 times in a roulette game, the next one will be red." I think we all know that's simply NOT true.

[/ QUOTE ]The clumping effect happens. Its opposite also happens. Think about it like this.

If you're playing tight (solid) poker, especially when just starting out and playing ABC hand groupings only, you're only going to see between 15% and 23% of all flops dealt if you stick strictly without fail to those hand groups (not counting unraised BB checks).

Now that 15% to 20% of all flops is an OVERALL figure. We'll use 1000 hands as an example. If you're seeing 20% of flops over the course of 1000 hands, that's 200 starting hands that you get, you see the flop, or one in every five flops. However, that doesn't mean every five flops, you got dealt one of the big hands.

More than likely, that 1000 hands was spread over three or four sessions at the table. Let's say out of those 200 hands you played, 98 of them came in your first 250 hand session. That means you only have 112 good starting hands left to go, but 750 hands left to play.

Unfortunately for you, all those good hands clumped into your first 250 hand session.

If clumping didn't happen, I wouldn't have sessions where I pick up pocket rockets three or four times in a night. I'd only pick them up specifically every 220 hands.

Using the one in 220 rules, think about this in this little set of numbers. AA will represent which hand out of a set of 220 that you were dealt aces.

[1,2,3,4...215,216,217,AA,219,220]

So on deal #218, you picked up the Aces. Now let's put it next to another set that starts at #1. Again, AA represents which hand out of 1-220 you get the Aces.

[1,2,3,4...215,216,217,AA,219,220][1,AA,2,3...215,216,217,218,219,220]

Notice on the next set of numbers, you hit AA on deal #2. The aces have clumped. This can happen in reverse, too (getting AA on deal #2 in set one, and deal #218 on set two).

Either way, you have to realize that what I've done, you can't even count on, because you're supposed to look at the numbers 50 years down the road, as you finally put down poker for the rest of your life and look back to count the total number of hands (if you can remember them all) against the times you had specific starting hands.

Even simpler, if hand clumping didn't happen, I wouldn't have been dealt KTo four times in a row tonight on Pokerroom.com.

[/ QUOTE ]

...
so do you believe that if 10 reds hit at a roulette table, the next spin will MORE likely be a red than a black?

Just to be clear on this, I'm not saying that all your hands will always be evenly distributed. What I DO believe is that past hands have NO EFFECT on future hands. The fact that you hit KTo four times MEANS NOTHING.

[Louie Landale]

Brunson has great intuition. You do NOT need to know "correct" calling frequencies if you can tell when he's bluffing and when he's not. In fact, you don't even need to know ABOUT correct calling frequencies.

If you read carefully the no-limit section, he plays LAG because his judgment is ..err.. was so great. Yes, play LAG when you know you won't get into trouble later in the hand. That's great advise for the real good "feel" players but pretty bad advise for the rest of us.

Great intuitive players don't make good authors, since their playing style depends on their intuition. Just because it works for them doesn't mean it works.

- Louie

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
The effect of this is that, again in my opinion, Hold 'em Poker has been far more influential than Super/System, did more to bring poker out of the dark ages (even though both books did a lot in this area), and did more to bring the everyday person into our game.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. But more to the point, I think that David has done more for poker than any other individual, up to this point. The WPT may do more for the total number of players if it hasn't already done so. But David has certainly contributed more to the theory aspect than any other individual--and is responsible for more good players.

I make this point because I wonder why he isn't in the "Poker Hall of Fame." He certainly should be--regardless of the stated criteria.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Louie,

[ QUOTE ]
If you read carefully the no-limit section, he plays LAG because his judgment is ..err.. was so great. Yes, play LAG when you know you won't get into trouble later in the hand. That's great advise for the real good "feel" players but pretty bad advise for the rest of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doyle admitted that he had to stop playing so aggressively after he wrote SUPER SYSTEMS, because his opponents started calling him down, so he had to show down hands. And since then, obviously, he lost his huge edge.

I spoke with Phil Hellmuth about this phenomenon and he said it is easier for a newcomer to win the WSOP or another big event because no one knows how the newcomer plays. He too played very aggressively early in his career, and was extremely successful. Then he had to modify his play in the same way: bluffing less, showing down more winners.

All of the top pros scout each other, Phil says, and quickly learn each other's strengths, weaknesses, and habits. After that, the newcomers have to start adjusting their games, and over time they tend to homogenize toward what might be called "standard" play.

Cris

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Brunson says : " How can you say , for instance , that I am better player than David Sklansky or Mike Caro ? I think that obviously I am

That 's come from " championship tables at the WSOP 1970-2002 on page 50 .

So , Brunson think he is OBVIOUSLY a better player than David Sklansky .



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have the book so I don't know how accurately you quoted it, but I read that quote a little differently. I don't think anybody would disagree that Doyle's one of the greatest players ever. He says "I think..." Any great champion probably brings that attitude to the table. When he sits down at the table he thinks he's better than the other players no matter who they are. He has to. It's part of his make-up, part of his psychology, part of his edge. I think any of the greatest competitors in sports and games, whether they say it or not, when they face off against their competitors have both a tremendous drive to prevail and supreme confidence in their own abilities.

So it doesn't sound to me like he's saying something along t he lines of: "gee, it's obvious, anybody can see I'm better. " It's more along the lines of: obviously I think I'm the better player.

Now he really didn't need to go on to dis the guys, saying they freeze up....but maybe that's just part of the territory. I've always heard that Michael Jordan, for example, was a world class trash talker.

Addressing a couple of matters down below. Some folks have said, objectively, Brunson must be better because he makes more per hour. Um...really? Over what period of time? Where is that stat coming from? (I might argue that BB's per hour is a better measure but even granting the assumption that its sheer dollars per hour---how much then do they respectively make per hour eh?)

I would point out that Doyle has said that "I recall getting broke more times than I can count." Poker Wisdom of a Champion p43. And he wasn't talking about losing his buy in in a particular game, he was talking about his bankroll, even his entire liquidity: "When you're down near the bottom of your bankroll, never play in a game where [the stakes make] you feel uncomfortable....sadly I've violated that advice a hundred times in my life." id. at p 45 (italics ommitted).

Ok, some folks say Doyle would do better if he and sklansky played a particular game, other's say Sklansky would be prevail at such and such a game. Not only is that unknowable, but if they do sit down at a game together, how do you measure the better player? Who has a better night in a session? I believe you'd need hundreds maybe thousands of hours to draw a conclusion, to the extent you even could.

And of course, how do we define better? Undoubtedly, Sklansky is one of (if not the) greatest poker theorists in the world. And those who play with him seem willing to testify he's a great practitioner, one of the best in the world. Doyle is universally hailed as one of the all-time greatest players. I would suggest there are several different ways to measure greatness in poker. (For instance, I haven't heard anybody suggest that in a nine handed game, the test might not be how much they win or lose to each other, but how much they fleece from the fish at the table...) And I would suggest that its impossible to conceive of any test--including them playing at the same table some number of times--that would be conclusive on the question.

--Zetack

[Cyrus]

"In my opinion, Hold 'em Poker has been far more influential than Super/System, did more to bring poker out of the dark ages (even though both books did a lot in this area), and did more to bring the everyday person into our game."

I have no scientific (or "scientific") evidence to back up my claim but I will submit that the "everyday person" is always attracted less to robustly put together mathematical texts and more to texts that include in their math lotsa anecdotes, glamor, stardust, exaggeration, humor, and ..a bit of moonshine. Brunson's book IMHO was all what you're saying AND the one that caught the eye of the "everyday person", more than the no-nonsense (and somewhat no-fun) text of Sklansky's.

The bluesmen and the rock and rollers were all out there when a white boy that could sing with a black man's soul came along. Brunson's book was to poker what Elvis's records were to music.

[Saborion]

What happened to those games?

[Ace-Korea]

I doubt that he will ever win another WSOP no-limit hold 'em tournament. I don't think he would even come close to making the final table.

His style, as described in Super System, is very aggressive. Usually, he's willing to take chances and gamble.

Even though this approach worked well in the past, it just won't work today because there are so many players like him, mostly amateurs. Doyle might beat most of these players, but if he loses to just one of them, then he's out the tournament.

Not just for Doyle, but it's becoming harder and harder for other pros to win the WSOP since so many amateurs are willing to gamble with them thesedays. It really is becoming a crap shoot-out. IMO, cautious (yet bold) players like Lederer and Ivy have the best chance of winning it all.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Not just for Doyle, but it's becoming harder and harder for other pros to win the WSOP since so many amateurs are willing to gamble with them thesedays. It really is becoming a crap shoot-out. IMO, cautious (yet bold) players like Lederer and Ivy have the best chance of winning it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its really not so much the fact that there are some amateurs willing to gamble as much as there are soooo many amatures looking to gamble. For each big time name pro that is looking to win, there are a couple lesser pros and 8-10 Chris Moneymakers or Robert Varkoni's that are gonna do what they can to win as well.

Its like playing one-on-one against Michael Jordan in a game to 21, except he spots you 19 points. Obviously he's the better player, but he has so much to overcome as well.

[MrOmaha]

<font color="green"> </font> First let me say that having read Super System and a number of text from the 2 + 2 authors I have a great amount of respect for both David Sklansky and Doyle Brunson. With regard to who is the better poker player I would say that depends on the type of game. For a number of reasons a limit ring game involves more skill than a No Limit Hold Em Tournament. The short term luck factor in a tournament is a huge advantage for a less skilled player. I do not believe for a minute that Chris Moneymaker could even hope to hold his own in a ring game vs. the players that he busted out in the WSOP. I can think of two examples where he made terrible plays and was bailed out by two outers to bust pros. Not to mention the fact that moving from one table to another in a tournament makes it less likely to pick up on a tell. I believe that both players are great in thier chosen preferance of game. Just my thoughts on the matter!!!!!

[2DAXTRM (Jeff)]

There are a few reasons why Doyle might never win a world series of poker bracelet again, and I stress the word 'might'.

1) There are a LOT more players nowadays, thus his odds are slightly worse than they were back then. Furthermore there are a LOT MORE better players. I'm not saying players are better today necessarily (although they probably are), but there are just so MANY good players now. There might be a hundred B+ players. I'd rather play in a tournament with 5 A+ players, than 100s of B+ players. But in realtiy, I think there are more B+ and A+ players than back then. I think however it is still +EV for him to play in such an event and if he could give it 10 more shots, he might come out better financially.

2) He wrote a book, and everyone knows his aggressive style now. And I mean EVERYONE. A lot of dead money players who would have folded in the past to his strong moves, might decide to take a gamble and get a chance to knock out the Godfather, knowing that Doyle might be bluffing. The thrill of knocking out a pro is what many of the dead money amateurs play for, and they see Doyle as a good one to go for. Even if Doyle is not bluffing, he'll get called more, and drawn out on, etc.

3) He's much older than he was back when he won the World Series. It helps to be in your prime. Right now he's in a wheel chair, and frankly he doesn't have the endurance he once had.

4) He doesn't practice as much as he used to. In his prime he probably played at least 80 hours a week. He was known for going on 3 days straight without sleep. That's a lot of practice. Sure, this might not really mean much in tournaments, but it can't hurt to be playing all the time.

I think he is a better player than Sklansky and the other authors. When I say he is a better player, I am saying he produces better results. I.E., he is making a better hourly rate. Joe Lunchbox might be the best .10/.25 cent player in Las Veges because he makes the most per month on it and he has the art of penny poker down to a science, but it doesn't mean he's in the same class as Johnny Chan. Doyle Brunson outclasses these other players because he can win in a much higher limit than them, winning against much better players. Also, these other authors aren't famous for being great players, but being great teachers. Even Sklansky has admitted in many of his books that there are many better players than him in the subjects he writes about, but he feels he is the best at teaching his ideas.

[William Wilson]

I, of course, have plenty of respect and admiration for both Brunson and Sklansy, although I have many issues with the arrogance of both.

But I find Sklansky's comments here particularly annoying:

[ QUOTE ]
What is for the bracelets , I am not a tournement ' specialist and I play less than half a dozen of tournement a year because I think that my skills are more usefull in a cash game "

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why the tournament book? If you're not a tournament specialist, why do you claim to have written the only adequate text on the subject while trashing every other author's attempt?

No disrespect, but I feel it's a fair question.

[Lion-O]

[George Rice]

If that's the case, then there are a few other players I wish were eligible. /images/graemlins/wink.gif David is not among them. Let's hope he's not eligible for a long time to come. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't know Mr. Sklansky had 3 WSOP bracelets. What are they for?

Thanks,

twomarks

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.pokerpages.com/pokerinfo/wsop/winners1980s.htm

WSOP Bracelets for Hi Draw(1982), and One for "Mixed Doubles."(1982), and Limit Hi Omaha in 1986.

Those Draw title's were probably filled with pretty tough competition, given that only Draw and Lowball were legal, in California.

[bukkrukk]

Winning is winning.

[J.R.]

No, Lyle Berman was inducted in 2002 or 2003 and he's still kicking.

[glen]

So you would eqaute winning the main event with the 35 entry $5,000 triple draw bracelet?

[dirty_dan]

You mean again after the one he won last year?

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the book shows he plays loose at all

[/ QUOTE ]

In his book he says he considers himself to be a pretty loose player. Of course, compared to online players, he was probably a rock...

danny

[Aragorn]

&gt;&gt;If he held them in so much contempt, why the heck were they asked (By Doyle personally) to write sections of his Super/System book?

I don't see his comment as "contempt" as much as ego.

Also, Doyle didn't really put the first edition of the book together. Mike Caro did. They set it up as though it was Doyle because he was a MUCH bigger name at the time.

[Benman]

I think Phish's comments are the only one's that make perfect sense in this entire thread. All that matters in judging poker players is who makes the most money. Not BB/Hr, but rather $$/Hr. Money is everything in poker. Period. Forget who knows the most theory, who wrote the best book, etc., etc. All that matters is money. Now, I travel to Vegas a few times a year. I've frequently seen both Brunson and Sklansky playing in side games, though I've never played with either. I've seen Brunson play huge limits, sometimes 4000/8000 limit mixed games. I've never seen Sklansky play anywhere near that high. If we assume Doyle is a winning player, then I guarantee he'll make more at a 4000/8000 game than Sklansky ever would or could at a 50/100 or whatever he plays. Sure the bigger limits might be tougher (and it's no sure thing that they are, compared to a tough medium game), but not so tough that it would equalize the win rate between those two games. You don't have to have a very big bb/hr rate to make serious cash at a 4000/8000 game. Look at it this way, lets assume that Sklansky can beat a 50/100 game for 3BB/hr. That would be an awesome win rate. Still, it's only $300 an hour. How can a bona fide winning player at 4000/8000 not win more than $300/hour? That's just 0.0375 BB/hr. No way the game is so much tougher that a winning player couldn't exceed that margin by a long shot. All it takes is one fish to inject decent money into a big game, and I hear that the truly big games often have such fish, just like any game does.
If someone says, well I don't have the bankroll to play 4000/8000, I would ask that player why not? Life is long. If you were objectively the best player in the world there would have been plenty of time to accumulate a bankroll sufficient to play 4000/8000. The fact that you haven't, and you play at a far smaller limit for a lower hourly rate is proof that you aren't as good a player. Why? Because money won is all that matters. Frankly I doubt that Doyle is the best player these days in terms of total $$ brought in year after year. I'd bet he makes more than Sklansky, though. I have nothing against Sklansky, mind you, I'm sure he's a lot better than I am or most of us are. But I get fed up with all the silly hero worship on these threads over things that don't make any difference, like books written and mathematical knowledge, etc. If you haven't translated it into actual results at the truly big games where some people have made fortunes, then you aren't one of the best players in the world. How can this not be obvious. Sorry for the rant, but come on guys. More money won = better player. Jeez.

[jlope]

i think it can be broken down far easier that all these discussions. who's better? it all depends on the hand you are playing and how you are playing it at that given moment. the one that drags the pot is better.

jamie /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[sweetjazz]

Does that mean Anna Kournikova is a great tennis player?
Is Chan Ho Park a great pitcher?
Is St. John's a better college basketball team than Gonzaga this year because they have beaten more "top tier" teams?

There are flaws with all of these analogies, but the point is that you are confusing "better" with "more profitable" (or better, "earning more"). Who makes more money is something that can be objectively measured (as is who gets more pocket aces, who hits more royal flushes, etc.), but the fact that it is an objective criterion does not mean that it is the criterion on which to judge who is "better". As I see it, "better" is a much more subjective term, and I don't think there is a really good way to determine whether some players are better than others.

In fancy words, "better" is only partially ordered as a relation. That means that people can figure out that Doyle Brunson and David Sklansky are both (much) better than me, but that it's just too difficult to compare Doyle with David because they both play at high skill levels and play different variants of poker.

[Dov]

You can't measure poker skill in one hand.

[Dov]

I think you are mistaken here.

The score in poker is kept in dollars. That makes dollars a very reasonable measure of overall performance.

[sweetjazz]

So if Doyle Brunson couldn't find anyone to play in a game above 10/20 limits because people were scared to play him, then he would become just a mediocre player?

And he would also be a mediocre player if he decided (for whatever reason) that he would rather school people in 10/20 instead of playing 4000/8000 or whatever limits he plays.

I agree that money is a major factor in determining how well a poker player plays, but it's not the only factor. Football success is measured in wins, but just because a high school team goes undefeated does not make them a better team than the New York Giants.

And unless Doyle Brunson and David Sklansky have played in a statistically significant number of similar games (identical limits, equal quality of opposition, equal bankrolls), then their poker playing is incomparable. And thus any opinion as to who is better would have to rely on subjective opinions (such as "the more money a player makes, the better he is" or "the one who knows more theory and understands why he is winning better is the better player").

You are certainly welcome to judge a poker player by how much money he makes. It's an objective criterion. Your decision to apply that criterion (which precisely answers the question "Who makes more money?") to a different question (namely "Who is the better player?") is subjective.

[Ilovephysics]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are mistaken here.
The score in poker is kept in dollars. That makes dollars a very reasonable measure of overall performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tough call. It's like comparing Montana to Jerry Rice... or Pedro Martinez to A-Rod.

They may play the same sport, but one stat clearly isn't a fair way to assess anything if they really don't play the same game/position/etc. A-Rod may be 3 for 26 against Pedro since 1999, but that doesn't mean I want Pedro on my fantasy team before A-Rod... but if I had to choose whether I thought A-Rod would go 1 for 3 against Pedro any given game (knowing Pedro could walk A-Rod and bail himself out of a tough spot), I'd go with Pedro limiting A-Rod to 0 for 2, etc...

Such as with this choice. I believe the sound player wins more over the long run. But, just like in Super Bowls, there is that 'it' factor that sometimes you can't put down on paper...