Negreanu says.... - Page 3

SNOWBALL138 · #21 10-08-2005, 08:57 AM

Hi Mason,

You should read Daniel's article. You won't learn anything new, but you will realize that your comments don't apply here. Vincent is wrong. Daniel's article is excellent.

Vincent Lepore · #22 10-08-2005, 03:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel's article is excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Daniel's article is designed to show how much better at Poker decsions Daniel is than the so called "math type's" like Howard Lederrer. He's challenged the epitome of "math types", David Sklansky, to a poker dual on many occaisons to prove his superiority. This article is just another example of his disdain for math guys. He's wrong, he uses the term conditional probability (wrongly as Mason points out) as if the "math types" don't understand what is involved in hand analysis. Howard Lederer probably, just an assumption on my part, is much better at determining the EV of a situation than Daniel will ever be. Daniel, whom I like and believe is good for poker, does have a big ego. But that's ok, he's had a lot of tournament success to fuel it. But the article, though cute in some ways, in my opinion is of no value to a poker player, novice or pro. I started this thread because I thought Daniel was serious and I thought that was humorous. I appreciate Mason's response but I really wanted to get on Sklansky but he wouldn't bite. Damn it!

Vince

SNOWBALL138 · #23 10-08-2005, 03:58 PM

Hi Vincent,

Why don't you do us the courtesy of telling us whats wrong with the content of Daniel's article? Imputing hostile motives to the author does nothing to further this thread.

BTW, for those of you that don't know, at least 1/4 of Vincent's posts are dedicated towards giving Daniel a bad name.

Vincent Lepore · #24 10-08-2005, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Even if I hit a 6-5 of clubs, for example, I couldn’t get paid off, since Ted would know that it would be silly for me to bluff in this situation."

[/ QUOTE ]

O.K here goes some more controversy. Daniel wrote this after the fact. Self serving? But if getting paid off were his primary consideration then why would Daniel expect to get paid off if he hit his A,Q? Did he think that Ted Forest wouldn't notice there was an A or Q on the board? Of course you can use the arguement that A,Q might be the best hand at show down but that is about it. But even with all of that it'ss not the point of this post. The point of the post was ...well who cares, forget it.

Vince

Vincent Lepore · #25 10-08-2005, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, for those of you that don't know, at least 1/4 of Vincent's posts are dedicated towards giving Daniel a bad name.

[/ QUOTE ]

For those of you that don't know "Snowball138 is a BALD FACED LIAR! Ask him to show you one post that I have made about Daniel beside's this one. Go ahead liar! I want you, that read this, to see that guys like this are the ones that start the bull flowing by writing lies and not sticking to the issue at hand. He had his feelings hurt because I pointed out flaws in his thinking about Daniels article so he decided to attack me with bodacious lies. Typical small minded approach.

Vince

Mason Malmuth · #26 10-08-2005, 05:10 PM

I've read Negreanu's article. I agree with what he says about poker. I disagree with his comments about math and how a mathematical type approaches poker.

MM

Mason Malmuth · #27 10-08-2005, 05:14 PM

I have already explained the problem with Negreanu's article. Why don't you read what I stated instead of just blindly defending him.

MM

Mason Malmuth · #28 10-08-2005, 05:15 PM

Hi Vince:

Will you calm down.

Give Snowball a chance to answer the issue.

Best wishes,
Mason

SNOWBALL138 · #29 10-08-2005, 05:18 PM

Hi Vincent,

I might have confused you with smoothcall. I thought I remembered you going out of your way on the WPT forum to say rude things about Daniel. If thats not the case, then I apologize.

SNOWBALL138 · #30 10-08-2005, 05:42 PM

Hi Mason,

I just read this webpage about conditional probability, so now I understand Daniel's mistake.

I still think Daniel's article is good overall, and that Howard and Ted are incorrect here. Probably, Ted felt that Daniel was trying to induce a big bet by making the comment that he did, and so felt that the six might be in Daniel's hand.

If the stuff about pot odds and the misuse of the term conditional probability weren't used, the article would be much better. As it stands though, I think that many players will benefit from it. So, yeah, like you said Mason, the math stuff was bad but the poker stuff was good.