David's Ability to think....

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]
exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
"the fact of the matter is, the definition of one's poker "skill" is not a function of their bankroll. if david doesn't want to play for $500,000 like some other so-called high rollers, it doesn't mean that he's not as good as they are "

This is what people say all the time but IMO it is completely untrue. People naturally move up to the stakes they should be at and make that their "poker home."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

it is true that there is some correlation between skill and bankroll, but this correlation begins to subside at a specific "inflection point".

for each person there is a level with which they don't desire playing poker at due to their risk-aversion. this doesn't make them less skilled, just uncomfortable with the impact on their regular life.

if i was david i would have already hit that inflection point.

[sirtimo]

[/ QUOTE ]
People naturally move up to the stakes they should be at and make that their "poker home."

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorta like a "Peter Principal" for poker?

As an aside... where does it stop for a poker player? An evolving species will develop up to the limit of its adaptive competence. Does a poker player (in general)continue to evolve even if he dosn't change limits or is that the only real measure?


regards,
Tim

[David Sklansky]

People naturally move up to the stakes they should be at and make that their "poker home.



Sorta like a "Peter Principal" for poker?

Actually the two are the opposite. The Peter Principle says that people move up one level PAST where they should be. And for 90% of poker players it applies quite well.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
The Peter Principle says that people move up one level PAST where they should be. And for 90% of poker players it applies quite well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the name for this %90, "losers"? Oh, David, I saw Eddie last night. We talked for quite a while. He said hello!

Vince

[Matt Flynn]

Not true sir. There is more than skill at work here.

[Voltron87]

My take on this:

Daniel wants the match to go off, and will change his terms. If Sklansky wanted the match to go off, it would have already. He obviously doesn't, or else this would have been played already.

If Sklansky really thought he was better than David this would have happend.



Or maybe DS doesn't have the $$ around, (that's not an insult, he just might not be willing to risk 100K, reasonable) or maybe DS just doesn't care about everyone says Daniel is better than him and he is a wimp. But I find that unlikely having read many of DS's posts.

[chuddo]

you would think the world's premiere poker theorist would be playing at higher stakes.

granted beating the 300-600 is nice. but beating it for 1.5 BB/hr or whatever stat you wish to use is only 900/hr.

whereas if you are beating the 2000-4000 game for even 1/6th that rate (.25 bb/hr) it would be more profitable at 1000/hr.

for someone who says that there are thousands of players "just below" the best in the world, why do you think your edge would drop to such a degree.

something just doesn't add up there david. so i suppose we should just apply occam's razor to the question of "why isn't david sklansky playing and beating the big game?"

and of course the answer would be: he can't.

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
you would think the world's premiere poker theorist would be playing at higher stakes.

granted beating the 300-600 is nice. but beating it for 1.5 BB/hr or whatever stat you wish to use is only 900/hr.

whereas if you are beating the 2000-4000 game for even 1/6th that rate (.25 bb/hr) it would be more profitable at 1000/hr.

for someone who says that there are thousands of players "just below" the best in the world, why do you think your edge would drop to such a degree.

something just doesn't add up there david. so i suppose we should just apply occam's razor to the question of "why isn't david sklansky playing and beating the big game?"

and of course the answer would be: he can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[JasonP530]

actually the answer to occam's razor is: he isnt playing it. The answer of "he can't" would be appropriate if he were playing and breaking even or losing.

[midget23]

[ QUOTE ]
actually the answer to occam's razor is: he isnt playing it. The answer of "he can't" would be appropriate if he were playing and breaking even or losing.

[/ QUOTE ]

my thoughts exactly. the only thing you need to know when asking is david beating the game would be is he playing the game. the answer is no, no reason to search further if you want to apply occam's razor to the situation.