Brunson ' quote about Sklansky

[PiquetteAces]

Brunson says : " How can you say , for instance , that I am better player than David Sklansky or Mike Caro ? I think that obviously I am a , but the two of them are the foremost authorities on poker . They know everything , the situations , what you're suppose to do , WHEN IT COMES TIME TO PERFORM THEM , THEY CANT DO IT . They chill up or something happen .

That 's come from " championship tables at the WSOP 1970-2002 on page 50 .

So , Brunson think he is OBVIOUSLY a better player than David Sklansky .

Brunson might think : " I play 2000-4000 & higher when while David Sklansky play almost only HE30-60 . I have 9 wsop'bracelets and DS has only 1 ."

Sklansky might think : " 2000-4000 & higher is to big for my bankroll , and even if it was ,a lineup with Doyle Brunson , Johnny Chan , Daniel Negranue , Chip Reese , Annie Duke , etc make me only a very small favorite & in the long run I will have an higher hourly rate playing 30-60HE with some tourists and a lot less pressure .What is for the bracelets , I am not a tournement ' specialist and I play less than half a dozen of tournement a year because I think that my skills are more usefull in a cash game "

For me , I think that Brunson is wrong when he says that they dont perform ; I dont think that Caro & Sklansky ( or Mason Malmuth, or Ray Zee ) need to sell books to support some poker ' loses .

any comments would appreciated , and comments from David Sklansky would be a lot appreciated .

-jpp

[stripsqueez]

i wouldn't presume to know who is a better player - but in my view there is plenty of logic behind Brunson's reason as to why he is better

what i have read from Sklansky (being only "The Theory Of Poker" and what i see on this forum) indicates to me that he has a near complete grasp of the scientific and strategic concepts that aid an understanding of the game - that means very little when considering how good he would be at a table filled with other good players - i havent read anything he has written that indicates to me that he has a more profound understanding of the game

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[kingstalker]

Doyle RULES!!!!!

[TylerD]

Shouldn't that be O'Doyle rules, oh wait this isn't that Adam Sandler film.

[phish]

I think to the extent that Brunson has a higher hourly rate than Sklansky, that is as objective a measurement of 'better' as you're going to get. Now of course, Brunson plays much higher, but I consider that as all part of being a 'better' poker player. Poker involves more than just knowing the theory and concepts. In that department, the 2+2 writers along w/ Mike Caro are probably unequalled. But great poker at the highest levels also involves heart, people skills, hand reading, image, etc. Brunson may not be anywhere near the theorist that Sklansky or Malmuth are, but his other qualities more than make up for it.

And let's say you have two players, one who plays 30/60 and is technically the better player. But the other one plays 80/160 and, though technically a weaker player, makes more money per hour. Who's the better player? I'd say the guy playing 80/160, because he obvously has the heart to play at the bigger limits and make more money.

[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.

[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.

[Dov]

I think you are mistaken here.

The score in poker is kept in dollars. That makes dollars a very reasonable measure of overall performance.

[sweetjazz]

So if Doyle Brunson couldn't find anyone to play in a game above 10/20 limits because people were scared to play him, then he would become just a mediocre player?

And he would also be a mediocre player if he decided (for whatever reason) that he would rather school people in 10/20 instead of playing 4000/8000 or whatever limits he plays.

I agree that money is a major factor in determining how well a poker player plays, but it's not the only factor. Football success is measured in wins, but just because a high school team goes undefeated does not make them a better team than the New York Giants.

And unless Doyle Brunson and David Sklansky have played in a statistically significant number of similar games (identical limits, equal quality of opposition, equal bankrolls), then their poker playing is incomparable. And thus any opinion as to who is better would have to rely on subjective opinions (such as "the more money a player makes, the better he is" or "the one who knows more theory and understands why he is winning better is the better player").

You are certainly welcome to judge a poker player by how much money he makes. It's an objective criterion. Your decision to apply that criterion (which precisely answers the question "Who makes more money?") to a different question (namely "Who is the better player?") is subjective.

[Ilovephysics]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are mistaken here.
The score in poker is kept in dollars. That makes dollars a very reasonable measure of overall performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tough call. It's like comparing Montana to Jerry Rice... or Pedro Martinez to A-Rod.

They may play the same sport, but one stat clearly isn't a fair way to assess anything if they really don't play the same game/position/etc. A-Rod may be 3 for 26 against Pedro since 1999, but that doesn't mean I want Pedro on my fantasy team before A-Rod... but if I had to choose whether I thought A-Rod would go 1 for 3 against Pedro any given game (knowing Pedro could walk A-Rod and bail himself out of a tough spot), I'd go with Pedro limiting A-Rod to 0 for 2, etc...

Such as with this choice. I believe the sound player wins more over the long run. But, just like in Super Bowls, there is that 'it' factor that sometimes you can't put down on paper...