Brunson ' quote about Sklansky

[bygmesterf]

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

Thanks,

twomarks

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.pokerpages.com/pokerinfo/...nners1980s.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]

>>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 [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[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.