IQ/Poker/David Sklansky

[phifediggy]

i can attest to that... i got stuck at 2000 for a couple years. when i chatted with lederer on full tilt he actually said his highest rating was around 2100, so he definitely wasn't far off.

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
i can attest to that... i got stuck at 2000 for a couple years. when i chatted with lederer on full tilt he actually said his highest rating was around 2100, so he definitely wasn't far off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just going by what I could find on the USCF website. I worked there for a while though, so I know their record keeping - especially before 1990 - isn't quite what it could be. So he definitely could have been higher, then dropped off as he started playing poker more seriously.

[VBM]

[ QUOTE ]
"but he is several levels below a first-rate talent such as Chris Ferguson."

Chris Ferguson wrote in a recent issue of ALL IN magazine that it was NEVER correct to bet head up on the river with a hand that can never get a worse hand to call or a better hand to fold. He got his Phd from UCLA.

If you batted 700 in Little League and a teammate batted 460 and then when on to be a major league allstar, you would be presumptious to think you could have done even better just because of your teenage stats. But if he only became a utility infielder in double A ball, that 240 batting average difference even way back when, is more than likely to mean you could still outhit him had you pursued your baseball career.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok...slowly guys, i'm obviously not in the mensa-strata as some of our distinguished posters here...

DS = 700 hitter
CF = 460 hitter

CF's UCLA PhD = .240 in AA-ball?

Also, if you've read this far, the only reason I can think of that you bet a hand that a worse hand will never call and a better hand will never fold, is to not give away information or to get information by reverse-engineering your opponent's betting patterns or to send out some sort of false information about which hands you showdown...?

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
That's incredibly funny.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agreed. Hysterical.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[BarronVangorToth]

Chess, like many games (my own included) run on the ELO ranking system. The difference between 2000 and 2200 is lightyears beyond 1800 and 2000. You can have a 2000 rating, go 10-1, and lose points, depending on your competition.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if you've read this far, the only reason I can think of that you bet a hand that a worse hand will never call and a better hand will never fold, is to not give away information or to get information by reverse-engineering your opponent's betting patterns or to send out some sort of false information about which hands you showdown...?

[/ QUOTE ]

This one's been talked about before here...the reason you might bet the river (in NL) when you will never be called by a worse hand, and will never cause a better hand to fold, is if you feel your opponent and the situation is such that a check will frequently induce a bluff bet of sufficient size that you will not wish to call, BUT, you feel that a smaller bet by you, instead of a check, will drastically reduce, if not eliminate, the prospect of your opponent bluffing you (reraising you). In this scenario, you are judging that all the times you are called and lose to be better for you EV wise than all the times you check and are then bluffed from the pot.

[JaBlue]

The hardest transition for a chess player to make is that from A to master. Its possible for any player with hard work to become a master. However, if Howard Lederer's consistent rating is 1950, he's way behind.

PS My current rating is somewhere from 2300-2400 so I do know what I'm talking about.

[VBM]

perfect explanation...thank you!

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
ok...slowly guys, i'm obviously not in the mensa-strata as some of our distinguished posters here...

DS = 700 hitter
CF = 460 hitter

CF's UCLA PhD = .240 in AA-ball?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, heheh, I gotta believe that's what he means by that analogy. (Course he probably meant to have said high school, rather than little league - I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the difference between hitting .700 and .460 in little league isn't a real meaningful predictor of success in AA ball, but I digress.) Except, to be precise, he didn't say he was a .240 hitter, the .240 was the difference in their little league batting averages (although .240 is probably about what you'd expect a utility infielder to hit - I digress) But I also got to wonder - what do the .700 and .460 little league averages equate to? Not SAT scores again? Does David know what "Chris hit in little league"??

Did David essentially just say, "If brains were baseball, Chris Ferguson would be a utility infielder for a AA team."?? Not that it's not tough to even make it that far, by the way, but still.

Course this doesn't exactly make sense, since David just named him #5 on his Ten Smartest Poker Players list.

I don't know why the original poster felt compelled to tell David that in terms of smarts, "he is several levels below a first-rate talent such as Chris Ferguson", or if he even believes it, but David, do you really need to try and debate who is "smarter"? We KNOW you're a smart S.O.B., and we probably know Chris Ferguson is too. I would think you'd just laugh off a comment like that.

By the way, it's just my opinion, but regarding that quote from ALL IN magazine - I would be willing to bet that Chris Ferguson intuitively recognizes situations in practice where a bet might be proper to stop a bluff, even when it's only going to be called by a hand that beats it, and when it's not going to cause a better hand to fold. And still mistakenly make such a quote to a magazine. I would think you would agree....I just don't think being wrong about that in a statement to a magazine (in this particular instance) means much....

Finally, there's an interesting short story I'd like to recommend, if you haven't read it: it's called Desertion, by Clifford D. Simak.

[Jingleheimer]

Now this is sort of silly.

He was Kleinrock's student at UCLA. Kleinrock is a very smart guy. (If you don't believe it, he went to MIT [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]) I think that saying a degree from UCLA is equivalent to .240 in AA ball is going a bit too far. UCLA has Nobel Laureates, and MIT has slouchy professors. I can accept that, on average, MIT has better people. Don't tar all people with the same brush, for good or for ill. You just can't extrapolate that to an individual.

Ridiculous.




[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"but he is several levels below a first-rate talent such as Chris Ferguson."

Chris Ferguson wrote in a recent issue of ALL IN magazine that it was NEVER correct to bet head up on the river with a hand that can never get a worse hand to call or a better hand to fold. He got his Phd from UCLA.

If you batted 700 in Little League and a teammate batted 460 and then when on to be a major league allstar, you would be presumptious to think you could have done even better just because of your teenage stats. But if he only became a utility infielder in double A ball, that 240 batting average difference even way back when, is more than likely to mean you could still outhit him had you pursued your baseball career.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok...slowly guys, i'm obviously not in the mensa-strata as some of our distinguished posters here...

DS = 700 hitter
CF = 460 hitter

CF's UCLA PhD = .240 in AA-ball?



[/ QUOTE ]