Answering Daniel And Other Critics

[detroitplayer]

I've read most of your books, as well as most of your posts here. I would bet my net worth (smallish, in the mid six figures) that i would absolutely destroy you heads up.

You're well spoke and have good grammar, but I would seriously tear you up.

[Shilly]

[ QUOTE ]
You're well spoke and have good grammar, but I would seriously tear you up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must not have read "A note about the English."

[Ianco15]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read most of your books, as well as most of your posts here. I would bet my net worth (smallish, in the mid six figures) that i would absolutely destroy you heads up.

You're well spoke and have good grammar, but I would seriously tear you up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you miss the part about how David uses game theory to beat opponents? Even if your were superior in talent (which I sincerely doubt you are), I don't think you can back up this statment.

[Michael Davis]

Good post.

-Michael

[SoftcoreRevolt]

Fantastic read, I had been hoping to read your response to Daniel's comments, and knew it'd be a well reasoned one, but didn't expect the level of depth and concession in certain areas of your ability.

And forget a Note about the English, the Two Plus Two books are always very well written for non fiction. They may lack the beautiful prose of Hunter S Thompson, but David's posts and writings are amazingly clear, especially considering the complexity of the topics he covers.

[trying2learn]

i want to echo that last post. i'm half through theory of poker for the first time, and i have to admit...there's so much information (much of which seems like stuff i already knew but didn't 'know' if that makes sense), that anyone nit-picking about english would be doing just that.

[Shilly]

Don't get me wrong, I think the books are well written and presented in a manner that is more clear than any other poker books that I own. I was just making a joke about how the poster was complementing his writing skills (which are clearly unimportant to DS in comparison to the concepts that they present).

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a secret. Those who watch the TV show carefully may notice that I did not always fully look at my cards. It is the best way to implement a quasi game theory strategy because you have no tells. Math is more than just numbers and probability. Throw in game theory and it takes away opponents edge in many people skills as well. That's a scary thought to some but the fact remains it is true. But some people don't want to deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting... I remember reading a section in ToP dealing with Game Theory and I can see how well this can truly apply in tournaments against some truly tough players.

Long, but good post Mr. S.

Lawrence

[West]

I'm trying to think about when you would be using some kind of a game theory approach in your heads up match preflop, where it wouldn't say, do Phil Ivey any good to make a read that you have a random hand.

[David Sklansky]

I didn't say I had a random hand. I said I sometimes looked at only parts of one card (and all of the other usually). Enough to know that there was a good chance I had a good hand.