Brunson ' quote about Sklansky

[harboral]

I'm confused about the real goal of this post. There are only about a dozen true high-limit (NL) players that stood the test of time from the late 1950's into the 1980's - how can anybody dispute his claim that he is the best? Sklansky is NOT (as you said) a high limit player, and if you read Super System, you see that Brunson believes that the NUMBER ONE GAME is NL - that certainly leaves the two he mentions in the WSOP Final Tables book OUT. As far as David responding, I doubt that will happen - he has already admitted there is no point in him playing in games where he is not a big favorite - and his reasoning is sound - he does not need to prove anything and why go into a game with limited EV? As for rushes, you sound like somebody that hasn't played much. Rushes DO HAPPEN - nothing strange about that, again - David (or any math expert) would state that winning hands are going to get clumped together occasionally, AND, a strong player that picks-up a couple pots can then bully the game for another hand or two (especially at NL) - and sometimes those junk hands you bully with wind-up making the nuts................As for Brunson saying they don't perform well - well IMHO - you count your winnings and the guys with the most $ at the end of the year are the ones that performed best - that leaves David and Caro OUT of the short list of great players.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Warmonk,

Actually, both statistics and strategy do bear out the notion of "rushes."

Yes, each hand dealt is random, but that does not mean good hands are evenly spaced. You'll get AA once in 221 hands -- on average -- but that's not the same as saying you can expect AA every 221st hand. Given that, statistics predict that you can expect some "clumping" effect. When that is for the good, it's a "rush." When it goes the other way, it's a "cold wave." Both will happen.

But while the cards dealt are independent, random events with no memory of the prior hand dealt, there is much more to winning NLH than good cards. Players DO remember prior hands, and they DO notice when someone goes on a streak of big pots. When a player is running like that, the smart strategy is to stay out of the way unless you have a strong hand. With 9 players at a table, the odds of anyone having a big enough hand to challenge a "rusher" are less than 50%, so he can often run off a few pots before anyone catches a monster.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi Piquette,

Okay, so let's settle it. Who's better: Barry Bonds or Tiger Woods?

Answer: they play different games. Ask Barry Bonds to hit the green from 245 yards with a 3-wood from the rough with a tree in the way, and he has no chance. Ask Tiger Woods to hit a major league curve ball, and he'll whiff.

Doyle Brunson and David Sklansky play entirely different games. Sklansky is a mid-limit Hold'Em player, and a very good one. Brunson is a high-stakes No Limit Hold'Em player, and one of the best ever. Sit Brunson down at a 30/60 table with Sklansky, and Sklansky will probably walk away with the cash. Sit Sklansky down at a 100/200 No-Limit table with Brunson, and Brunson will pick his pockets.

They're entirely different games.

Cris

[PiquetteAces]

Your right all the way .

But I never ask " who is the best ? "

I'ts just that I think that " Doyle Brunson is wrong when says that he is OBVIOUSLY a better player than Sklansky because , like you say , they dont play the same game and we cant compare . Equally I think DB is wrong when he says that Sklansky & Caro dont perform , when its time to "

- jpp

[1800GAMBLER]

Loose-aggressive player. I don't think the book shows he plays loose at all, he's hugely tight in EP and only looser than average in LP, which is very good for NL were position has more effect on the EV of a hand. His book is as good as a perfect formula for beating NL of the kind he plays. Finding those games now though is near impossible.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
I have 9 wsop'bracelets and DS has only 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

DS actually has 3 WSOP bracelets.

[mickblueeyes]

I disagree with the Tiger Woods/Barry Bonds analogy. This would be more like challenging the world's best 9-ball player to face off with the world's best 8-ball or snooker player. I am sure Sklansky is capable of playing Brunson's game, and probably at a very high level, beating most regular and good players, though he might find Brunson challenging. I think Caro might fare better in high level No limit against him. However, putting Brunson in 30-60 or 100-200 with Sklansky might prove very different. Though Brunson is very capable at this level, Sklansky might have the advantage.

[Ray Zee]

i have played alot with both of them over the course of 35 years or so. they both are the best in their fields. david concentrates on limit and doyle no limit. but either would be a favorite in most any game played. they are both truely two of the best poker players in history and not likely will anyone be able to top each ones accomplishments.

[AJo Go All In]

i'm confused. isn't doyle's regular game a mixed high-LIMIT game at the bellagio with hansen, chan, ivey, etc?

[DrPhysic]

I think your post makes more sense than anything else in this entire string.

Which poster in the string, other than RZ, thinks he can sit down with DS and DB at either a mid limit LHE table or a high limit NLHE table and expect to come in second?

All we're doing here is cheering for our favorite sports hero, and mine is Tim Duncan. So What?

At the same time, if we recognize that each is an expert in their respective fields, there is a huge amount we can learn from each one.

Respectfully,

Doc