Negreanu says....

[Vincent Lepore]

Daniel in his latest Card Player article politely disagrees with Howard Lederers assesment of the way Ted Forest played a hand against Daniel. It seems that the latter two were involved in a hand in which another player was all in. It was the final table of a tournament. Daniel held A,Q and Forest held A,A. The board on the river was A,6,8,6,6. Daniel checked the river after betting the turn. Ted checked behind him. Howard claimed that Ted didn't bet because he thought that it was 50/50 that Daniel had the case 6 or case A. Daniel did not like this assessment. He referred to Howard as a "math type" ---ooh---yuck! He said that Howard like that Sklansky fellow and other "math types" oooh--yuck--take math much too seriously when it comes to poker.

Daniel chided "math types"....oooh--yuck--- especially Howard for using "static probability" when making a decision instead of using Daniel's tried and proven use of "conditional probability" as a decision making tool. We, the in between's, the guys that use math only as a tool to tie our shoe laces with must listen to the boy wonder. Daniel after all is a poker genius and Lederer, Sklansky and other math types--oooh ---yuck-- may be geniuseseses but only in math. pffff! So since I thought Daniel was very perceptive and cute to say the least I pose this question to you "math types" oooh-- yuck-- Do you feel enlightened?

How about you David, you self procalimed king of "static" probability? Are you going to let that little Agassi look alike talk to you like that? I'll tell you how I feel. I know not what probability others may use but as for me give me "conditional probablity" or give me death!

Vince