A Special One Time Offer!!!

It doesn't take much to scare off the chickenhawks Mason and David. Those guys like to talk about Noble prizes and such, but when it comes to actually putting some real money on the line they are nowhere to be found.

[pipes]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't take much to scare off the chickenhawks Mason and David. Those guys like to talk about Noble prizes and such, but when it comes to actually putting some real money on the line they are nowhere to be found.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running scared on their own forum. Its a shame.

[memphis_aces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't take much to scare off the chickenhawks Mason and David. Those guys like to talk about Noble prizes and such, but when it comes to actually putting some real money on the line they are nowhere to be found.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running scared on their own forum. Its a shame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly... Next thing you know Sklansky will want to risk 25 to win 50, and it's got to be in his basement with the blinds drawn.

Sad sad sad

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you can actually come up with the 48-53% figures from the above paragraph. He is just stating what he thinks his odds are. Maybe?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure he was saying that the one thing logically implied the other. It's a simple conversion, too. I don't know what's wrong with what I did. I hope someone will point it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't really matter if he will win 48 times out of a hundred or whatever, all he has to do is beat him one time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you familiar with the term, EV? It doesn't appear so.

[David Sklansky]

"Those guys like to talk about Noble prizes and such, but when it comes to actually putting some real money on the line they are nowhere to be found."

Show me a Nobel prize winnier who Daniel wouldn't gladly lay 1.25 against.

[David Sklansky]

Goad me all you want but keep in mind that the only things that matter to me regarding Daniel or other champion player are:

1. Am I close to him headup depite my lack of experience?

My "counter offer" proves I believe I am.

2. Am I as good or better in a game that I actually have more experience?

His turning me down playing Hi Lo Regualar would indicate that.

3. Could I beat him in weird versions of poker that neither of us ever played where the rules were not told to us until right before we started? Games like threes become wild if you have four hearts in your hand.

I'd play a match like that where the games constantly changed and were made up by an unbiased third party. And to me, being the best at that is more important than being number one in games after much practice.

4. Suppose we both took four randomly chosen mid high IQ people who never played poker and gave them one hundred hours of lessons. After which they played a ring game at any of the eight games Daniel mentioned. That game lasted a month. I'd lay an easy 2-1 my four beat his four. This is another attribute I would prefer having as opposed to being the best headup player.

I could list other things but I think that would be counter productive. This is just to explain why the fact that I need a little price to play one of the best headup players in the world, isn't going to bruise my ego or have any relevance on the integrity of my writings.

[Zygote]

How well do you know his (DN) quality of play?

[yoshi_yoshi]

[ QUOTE ]

thread


[/ QUOTE ]

I just read through that thread - suitedBullets sounds really familiar...

[Dawk]

In the far flung chance, that option #4 ever really goes down?

Put me on that student list!

I've been playing a few months, but can still play & act like I know absolutely nothing about poker? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

I'm going to be in Vegas a few months this summer too, it sounds like a really good solution to this to me! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Could I beat him in weird versions of poker that neither of us ever played where the rules were not told to us until right before we started?

4. ... I'd lay an easy 2-1 my four beat his four.

[/ QUOTE ]

People are going to find these two things really odd and claim they're unrelated / meaningless. They're clearly not.

David's ego is primarily banked in two areas -- his belief that he has a better theoretical understanding of poker than anyone on the planet (well, nearly anyone), and his position as a "poker guru" or "mentor" to other players. The made up games would require a deep theoretical knowledge to quickly adapt to the new strange rules, creating an optimal strategy on the spot. As for David's challenge as a teacher, well, I honestly hope Negreanu wouldn't dispute that DS is a better teacher.

Of course, as Negreanu's last blog following the Mimi Tran match indicates, he supposedly isn't doing these to prove he's the best -- he just wants to "gamboool." A statement I find a bit disingenuous, given his calling out of DS and MM. His OP in this thread reeks of ego and macho BS, and I cannot imagine why he would call anyone specifically out (and lay them odds, no less) if he just wants to gambool.

Further, calling out someone like DS to gambool seems kind of ridiculous, because clearly someone like DS requires either an edge or odds before he'd play -- not because he is or is not a dog in the match, but because he's not going to take a bet he thinks might be -EV (add in what DS's time is worth and it takes a pretty lopsided bet for this to make sense for him).

One final thing -- David, I'm curious why you so explicitly relish this role as "mentor" or "guru" that you've developed over the last 20-30 years. It seems -EV to be sharing your wealth of knowledge, and opens you up to attacks like this. Seems like something worth posting about in Psychology (as opposed to the massive amounts of religion posts [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]).