Daniel Negreanu's comments on Sklansky's abilities

mrwatson23 · #1 03-06-2005, 06:15 PM

Phil Ivey should dominate Sklansky. It's funny that this match was mentioned here as most exciting, when the players in the room were thinking that it was likely the biggest mismatch on the board.

Phil is close to a 2-1 favorite to win this match.

_________________
Take care,
Daniel Negreanu

I think if you asked the players in the event, not one of the 64- INCLUDING Sklansky would pick him to win. I agree that 2-1 is too much for anyone but that's why I said "close to."

This is how the match will go: Phil will chop away at him for the first couple or rounds. By the time the blinds get higher, Phil will have like a 26K to 14K lead. At that point, Sklansky will start to play pre-flop poker and hope to get lucky.

_________________
Take care,
Daniel Negreanu

I don't mean to bash Sklansky, I really don't. It's just that first of all no limit hold'em might just be his WORST game and he is playing one of the best players in the world.

His philisophical approach to the game is fare inferior to Ivey's approach. Sklansky's only chance is to stay as close as possible till the blinds go up and then gamble like a mad man. Ivey has better fundaments, better hand reading skills, and more experience playing heads up.

This isn't a suprise to anyone "in the know" I promise you. Nobody is underestimating Sklansky at all, I know he is a sharp guy and will realize that he is a big underdog and will play accordingly.

_________________
Take care,
Daniel Negreanu

There is not a form of poker known to man where Sklansky would be a favorite over Ivey. Ivey is a true natural and has great instincts. While Sklansky is a great theorist he simply isn't as good at reading people as Ivey is.

I hate to beat a dead horse buddy but Sklansky is an excellent teacher, that doesn't neccessarily equate to being a great player. Otherwise, Buth Harmon would be the best golfer in the world.

_________________
Take care,
Daniel Negreanu

wrto4556 wrote:

He's good in theory and writing about it...so he's probably good puting it into practice.

That's the problem- no he's not. Sklansky doesn't execute very well at all because one of the keys to applying theory is having a feel for what your opponent has. That's a major weakness of his and one of Ivey's biggest strength

wrto4556 wrote:

What has he done to say he's at the same level? He's the top theorist on poker. Name a pro that hasn't read his book.

Just one? Chau Giang, Eli Elezra, Ming Ly, Lee Salem, Johnny Chan... shall I continue?

--Daniel Negreanu

lighterjobs · #2 03-06-2005, 06:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
wrto4556 wrote:

What has he done to say he's at the same level? He's the top theorist on poker. Name a pro that hasn't read his book.

Just one? Chau Giang, Eli Elezra, Ming Ly, Lee Salem, Johnny Chan... shall I continue?

--Daniel Negreanu

[/ QUOTE ]

i doubt that.

InfernoLL · #3 03-06-2005, 07:35 PM

I wouldn't doubt that many of the top pros havent read TOP. Most of the stuff in there can either be undertood intuitionally or be self discovered, especially when you've played the game for decades. Also, a large part of the game at the highest levels involves skills that can't be taught in a book. The biggest reason most have probably read it is that it's so well known, not that it's so necessary.

OrangeKing · #4 03-06-2005, 08:17 PM

Wasn't Daniel basically right though? It seems like Sklansky got very lucky to win based on the reports on CardPlayer.com - although to be fair, I didn't look back much at the round 1 action, just at his second match with Chan. According to them, he was saved a couple times when the board chopped the pot as he was about to be eliminated. I'm sure David would agree that he was a definite underdog to both of his first two opponents.

That said, go Sklansky go. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

TheBob · #5 03-06-2005, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wrto4556 wrote:

What has he done to say he's at the same level? He's the top theorist on poker. Name a pro that hasn't read his book.

Just one? Chau Giang, Eli Elezra, Ming Ly, Lee Salem, Johnny Chan... shall I continue?

--Daniel Negreanu

[/ QUOTE ]

i doubt that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I spoke to Phil Ivey yesterday and he said he doesn't read poker books either.

yellowjack · #6 03-06-2005, 08:29 PM

What was the point of the post? If you had some comment to add it would make it less useless.

He stated the opinions of most of the players on the outcome of the match and it ended up being different.

tylerdurden · #7 03-06-2005, 11:01 PM

Daniel sure spends a lot of time badmouthing Sklansky. Is he pissed because Sklansky published "the system"? He wrote that long embarassing article about how it ruined the game even though it was clear that he was whining about having a new development that he would have to work to adjust to.

Hold'me · #8 03-06-2005, 11:06 PM

I'm also a bit befuddled by the intentions of the original poster. Is this supposed to belittle Daniel Negreanu? He was just stating that he along with other professionals picked Ivey as a greater than 2-1 favorite against Sklansky.

Ivey is arguably the most dominant poker player today and he makes valid points about Sklansky. No-Limit is not his top game, and the best teachers are not always the best players. I'm sure Daniel was very surprised when David came out victorious as was all of 2+2. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

LuckyStrike · #9 03-06-2005, 11:07 PM

He badmouths poker texts in general whenever he gets the chance it seems. He really, really seems to have something against them, moreso than most big name pros who don't rely on poker books for strategy either. If I recall correctly, there'll be an episode of the WPT that he wins where he flashed 74s to the crowd after winning a pot and declaring that he didn't learn how to play that in a book. I think it's good for you and I though; more fish who think the way to go is to play "creatively" and "not by the book."

Hold'me · #10 03-06-2005, 11:10 PM

LuckyStrike, I think it's good to start off by reading poker texts just to learn strategy with +EV. But once you get more experienced, you learn what your own strengths are and go against the book. I love 2+2 books, as they have provided me with a great foundation but to be at the pinnacle of poker, you have to do serious analysis on your own. That's one of the keys.