Goofy Games

[IndieMatty]

David,

I challenge you to a heads up night-baseball freeze out.

Best,

Matt

[Voltron87]

So you're angry that all the mathematical focused games which are unwieldy aren't played? So you're the best at some form of poker nobody plays anymore? What's your point?


This is like a 5'11" basketball player saying "Well if the rim was 6 feet higher and Shaq and Duncan couldn't dunk then I would be the best basketball player in the world".

[David Sklansky]

"This is like a 5'11" basketball player saying "Well if the rim was 6 feet higher and Shaq and Duncan couldn't dunk then I would be the best basketball player in the world".

I agree with that completely. The thing is that if the basketball player was right about that statement he can feel better knowing that most basketball fans realize it. Most poker fans don't.

[jackdaniels]

David,

You have thousands of registered members on this site and countless others buying your books. We all vote with our wallet and our decision on how to spend our time. We do it here because you provided us with some great knowledge "those others" couldn't or wouldn't.

Just so you know, I am one of your fans. You put money in my pocket every day by writing your books and keeping 2+2 alive. I really can't think of anything the big game/big tourney pros could do for me that would warrant me being a fan of theirs.

Keep doing what you are doing.

[Voltron87]

Ok, I understand that there are poker games which favor instinct, pyschological pressure, all that, and games which are more mathematical. You and the other players you listed are stronger relatively at the math games, and barry g/ chip reese/ ivey/ etc (the top 4k 8k players right now) would not match up as well.

So you just want everyone to know that there is a type of poker which you are the elite at? ok.

Fair enough, most casual poker readers don't realize this. But you need to know how to phrase it to say "The best 4K 8K players are the best at the games popular right now (more instinct), but if the games were these (list yours here) more mathematically focused players would have the edge and be considered the cream of the crop." Find a way to say that without being arrogant or self absorbed. You don't have to hit people over the head with your statements, subtlety can be effective.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

So you just want everyone to know that there is a type of poker which you are the elite at? ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he wants to assert that.

It's possible (and possibly likely, though I don't really know) that in these weirdo games you would be a favorite in the early going. But all this talk about how in the more conventional games good players can get by on instinct and intuition seems kind of silly to me. Where does this instinct and intuition come from? We're not talking about spiders spinning webs here, they've learned this at some point. I see two roads that one could go down to acquire this instinct:

1) Mathematical analysis
2) Considerable playing time

Presumably if the "big game" players were skilled enough at developing useful instincts through option 2) to be successful at the more conventional games, they could figure to be as well in the new games. Option 1) should give you a head start, but I don't think it is a self-evident truth that the top players wouldn't be able to work their way back to the top.

[flair1239]

These post's of David's used to make me angry, but now I look forward to them.

I had a vision in my head of the WPT $10,000 final table "BaseBall 3s and 9s are wild" showdown.

[MMMMMM]

I hated having to learn casino-style poker compared to those games, and sort of wish I never had to. Actually the games you list were among the more mundane of the wide mix we played. Especially interesting, I thought, were the hi-lo stud variants with replaces and sometimes common board card(s).

One game that threw me for a real loop when I ventured into new territory was: high-low stud with a VERBAL declare. This game had some variations as above but it was the verbal declare in rotation which was so new for a coin-declare player like myself. Plus there was a round of betting after the declare. So jockeying for position and/or knockout raises approaching the declare could become quite tricky.

If I recall, the rules mandated that the last person to take aggressive action had to declare first though I might be wrong on that. Also, the bets were in incremental tiers e.g. 20-40-60-80 on successive streets and there might have been no checking allowed. The betting round after the declare added quite a bit of oomph to the game and represented a substantial threat, and required advance planning. So my head was spinning the first couple of times I played it;-) circa late 80's.

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]

You see the games in question put a higher premium on thought and analysis as opposed to instinct. If they were spread routinely it would be wonderful for many mid level players but not for most of the "first tier" players. Most would lose their lofty status and soon be forced to play in the "second tier" and below.

The best players would mainly be comprised of champion bridge, backgammon and possibly chess players. Plus ultra intelligent people who at the moment might not be playing at all. Most of the 4000-8000 players (in my opinion of course) would lose to the likes of Mark Weitzman, Jason Lester, Howard Lederer, Jay Heimowitz, Mickey Appleman, myself, Allen Cunningham, Andy Bloch, Chris Ferguson etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

They play the most popular games. There is at least one 2+2 book written on most of those games. Now you are saying that you don't like their choice of games? How many games do you want them to play? Do you want to take the instinct, timing, people skills, and gamble out of poker and just have a math competition for high stakes?

I don't think anyone is saying that Brunson, Ivey, and Greenstein are the smartest people in the world. I think you are just trying to point out the fact that people are smarter than them.. maybe even you. We are interested in poker. Otherwise, we would be on a math forum right now instead of 2+2.

[David Sklansky]

"

Presumably if the "big game" players were skilled enough at developing useful instincts through option 2) to be successful at the more conventional games, they could figure to be as well in the new games. Option 1) should give you a head start, but I don't think it is a self-evident truth that the top players wouldn't be able to work their way back to the top."

Common sense says you are wrong. Whether you are talking poker or almost any endeavor where the top few practioners have hundreds just a tiny bit below them. If you change the rules (say it took 15 yards to make a first down or 3 point baskets became 4) there would inevitably be shuffling in favor of those previously almost as good if the rule changes were to their benefit.

Of course in the subject at hand I am not talking about changing rules that would help those with just any old talent. I am talking about changing rules to help those who can think well. Sort of like designing a basketball court with three different baskets, each with a different diameter and different points awarded for them. Would the Americans even win a Bronze Medal in such a game?