Why Daniel May Have Been a Big Favorite.

[mmbt0ne]

You're right. No more hand analysis unless you play at those limits. That should help the boards along nicely.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly thing she didn't understand the game she way playing?

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like David is questioning Barry Greenstein's preparation of Mimi for this match.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barry would have had to consider her a dog anyways (from his own website ratings):

Mimi:

Aggressiveness: 8
Looseness: 4
Short-handed: 7
Limit: 7
No-limit: 6
Tournaments: 7
Side games: 7
Steam control: 3
Against weak players: 7
Against strong players: 6



Daniel:
Aggressiveness: 7
Looseness: 7
Short-handed: 8
Limit: 8
No-limit: 8
Tournaments: 9
Side games: 7
Steam control: 7
Against weak players: 8
Against strong players: 7

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Because Daniel, you can be sure, has thought a lot along these lines. He like to downplay math in his writings but I have talked to him and know better. He also is now associated with The University of Alberta's excellent head up holdem computer program so who knows how much he has learned from that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I suspected all that crap he says about "throw away your books and give me a 5-3 offsuit any day of the week!" was just image. Funny how for a guy who's so savvy when it comes to promotion (not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying he's very good at it), I hadn't heard a single word about his association with the U of Alberta until your post.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
a full analysis of those situations is needed to handle them right. If Mimi didn't do this analysis but merely tried to transfer her skills as a shorthanded player

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that this is the heart of the matter. Not many, if any, would go through the type of anlaysis Sklansky is alluding too. I bet she didn't either. If she is a short handed expert and not a heads up expert she would have had to start doing this type of analysis quite a bit in advance to fully grasp the math side of Heads-up play. Since Daniel just recently made this challenege I doubt she had time or even the inclination to study headsup play. That said I must admit that I do not know Mimi and am not sure that she didn't bone up before playing. Just a guess.

Vince

[the shadow]

DS is referring to Poker Academy by Darse Billings and his crew from U. of Alberta. IMHO, the "pro" version is worth it. YMMV.

[Paradigm]

Who cares if Wynn is staking DN? What's the big deal? In the end, wouldn't the more important issue be the victor? We're not on Fossilman' case for being staked in the WSOP -- I highly doubt that if DN is staked, it can tend his play so that he might be more of a dog.

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a full analysis of those situations is needed to handle them right. If Mimi didn't do this analysis but merely tried to transfer her skills as a shorthanded player

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that this is the heart of the matter. Not many, if any, would go through the type of anlaysis Sklansky is alluding too. I bet she didn't either. If she is a short handed expert and not a heads up expert she would have had to start doing this type of analysis quite a bit in advance to fully grasp the math side of Heads-up play. Since Daniel just recently made this challenege I doubt she had time or even the inclination to study headsup play. That said I must admit that I do not know Mimi and am not sure that she didn't bone up before playing. Just a guess.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok,

So Barry Greenstein (who probably staked Mimi heavily) and Mimi herself, risked a half million against Negreanu without understanding some of the fundamentals of heads-up play? I don't believe it, either that or Barry isn't as bright as many here (or he himself) thinks.

And yes, I agree with the posters who point out that Sklansky's pointificating on a contest that he himself declined to enter (even at a fraction of the stake Barry/Mimi put up), sounds a bit like the Wizard of Oz.

Frank

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]
DS is referring to Poker Academy by Darse Billings and his crew from U. of Alberta. IMHO, the "pro" version is worth it. YMMV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, ty. I've seen that before, had no idea DN was associated with it though.

Barycentric, you could learn a thing or two about posting from the shadow.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
David-

For lack of a better expression, duh.

Yes, that is heads up poker. Anyone with even a remedial understand of nature of heads up poker understands these basic concepts. I can't imagine Mimi Tran went into a game of heads up limit poker with absolutely no idea of the fundementals of the game.

The reality is heads up is far different from ultra short and you need to push small edges and draws hard. While I know nothing of Mimi Tran, I do know she plays regularly online heads up and short handed.

If she honestly play as "a big blind who always need something to continue on" then she would be giving the game away. I can't imagine that someone who is even moderately intelligent wouldn't recognize this. Clearly she is going to reraise liberally from the BB, play unimproved A-x hard, and make all the other necessary adjustments for heads up limit holdem.

Your comment seems tantamount to saying, "maybe she didn't understand the game she was playing." Because the items you've pointed out are as basic as they come in heads up limit holdem.

Do you honestly thing she didn't understand the game she way playing?

-srw

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you ever consider that there are some people who read this forum who do not know these thing? Why would Sklansky address his post to those who already know these concepts?

I don't think his point was that Tran doesn't understand the basic of heads-up poker. It was simply that Daniel could know the mathematics involved in some of the post-flop situations somewhat better than her.

[theBruiser500]

dan slansky, you should post some sample hands where you are playing HU and go into some of the math of hte situation would be very interesting