Phil Ivey say Math not as important!

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
No problem, so what you are talking about is estimation, based on logic. It is not mathematically correct though. You may think that being about right is fine, and without ever going through the whole process you will never know how close your estimates are. If you are doing well in the long run, they are probably good. But I think that going through the process is very valuable, and can only help with estimations at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

The long mathematical calculations 2+2ers post when analyzing a range of hands are great, but it is more: 'I spent a half hour on this to impress my friends,' not anything you would normally do over the table. I found it interesting that on the WPT 'Poker By the Book' episode, Sklansky himself wasn't always that accurate when asked to give the odds.

I think it is a given that math is an important part of poker, but it is also a given that mathematical exactitude isn't going to make any player great. The variables are not determinable enough.

I think Lisandro did have the better full house, and it wasn't ESPN trickier that got him to fold to Ivey's all in. Just Ivey's willingness to put him to the test in that spot for a lot of his chips. No amount of math can give you the stones to do that [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Frank