Winning $100,000 and Writing About How to To It

[CrackerZack]

Dan was 3rd, Sam Farha finished 2nd.

I love the game, but also seem to really like the security of an income not based on a game with a large element of chance.

[andyfox]

"It says that people talented enough to make six figures playing poker can usually make a lot more money doing something else."

Accept for the word "usually," I would agree. Although I suppose it would depend on the definition of the word "can." They may have the brains to do so in other fields, but maybe not the know-how. Or they may be lazy or inarticulate or antisocial.

But I would agree that for all but a few, the big bucks ain't in the playing.

[M.B.E.]

I'm wondering what the purpose of the disguise is. Is he going to pretend to be some tourist just learning how to play?

I would have thought that the advantages of being known as a poker authority would outweigh the disadvantages in terms of EV in a mid-limit game.

[Ray Zee]

writing a book is work but playing occasionally is fun. as for those guys i have been playing with carl and bobby for over thirty years and steve and dan for twenty.

[MMMMMM]

I'll say one thing which I think is pretty applicable. When you play poker you want your opponents to not be taking the game too seriously. Sure it's nice if you can push someone out of a pot when you need to if they fear you. But David's problem (and I think he said this once) is that people try very hard against him because of who he is. I've noticed a similar effect in tournaments. Even the guys who usually give their money away are trying to win. That might not make them all play like Brunsons but it sure can make them tougher to beat. Even a poor player can suddenly decide to tighten up and stop giving action for a while and play only the premium hands if for some reason he is trying very hard.

[andyfox]

See David's post in the Sklansky Slammers thread. He says people tighten up against him so as not to embarrass themselves and that, on balance, this hurts him in a ring game.

[skp]

Malmuth has written that a wild image is not the right inage to have in hold 'em. This is because in general, you want people to fold against you as the play develops on most hands. Admittedly, I am oversimplifying Mason's rationale but in any event, I agree with his statement.

Sklansky's disguise comment appears to state the opposite.

So, I agree with you...I don't get the disguise bit.

[Bill Murphy]

..until you guys agree to write the goddam thing. Ya'll are getting up there; could go at any time. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Shame if all that knowledge were lost forever; no way to get it back.

Besides, as Scotty said(in a different context): "It's good for the game." [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]


Sklansky's disguise comment appears to state the opposite.

So, I agree with you...I don't get the disguise bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was pretty clear that he felt he would lose EV immediately if you recognized him rather than taking quite some time to learn how well he played. This has nothing to do with a wild image at all.

[skp]

[ QUOTE ]
4. Players will often tighten up against {me] so as not to embarrass themselves. {I} can exploit this somewhat but in a ring game it hurts more than it helps.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's what David said. I think that it does state (or at least imply) the opposite of what Mason has said.
In fact, what you have said implies the opposite of what Mason has said.

Let me put it this way:

Mason says that it's not good to have a wild image in hold 'em. I think that this implies that in hold 'em, you want people to play tight against you and fold a lot.

David says that when he sits at the table, people recognize him and immediately play tight against him and fold a lot. But he cites this as a disadvantage.

Thus, to me, David's stement is not in concert with Mason's hypothesis.