Barry Greenstein Critiques Top Players in the World - Page 3

emil3000 · #21 12-15-2004, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I am surprised it showed PI's tilt factor or whatever it was called as a 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine the competition is pretty tough when it comes to tilt control.

I wonder if Gus Hansen will become a winner in the big game or go bankrupt. He got a 6, the other regulars got 7 or better, unless I'm missing something. Gus is pretty young and inexperienced, relatively speaking, so he has lots of room to improve. I hope he will, I like him. It's always a blast to see him get involved in all in preflop pots at the PSI with like 9 high.

Hack · #22 12-15-2004, 06:19 PM

I don't understand these rankings.

Let's say someone has a looseness score of 7: how does that translate on the 1-10 scale? Is a 7 good or would something like 3-4 be better?

uuDevil · #23 12-15-2004, 06:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would love to get a hold of his book. However, he does not have a publisher from what I've heard - I think because he told a publisher that it is for very high stakes players which is a very limited market.

[/ QUOTE ]
For those interested, the book is discussed in this thread, with interesting comments from Barry G. and Mason M.:

link

drewjustdrew · #24 12-15-2004, 06:22 PM

Higher the number, higher the tendency or ability. Not a measure of good or bad except for Tournament or Cash.

Hack · #25 12-15-2004, 06:26 PM

I don't mean it as an insult, but ranking himself higher than Doyle Brunson in some categories is an insult to Doyle. When Barry wins 9 bracelets and 2 main event titles he can compare himself to Doyle.

emil3000 · #26 12-15-2004, 06:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean it as an insult, but ranking himself higher than Doyle Brunson in some categories is an insult to Doyle. When Barry wins 9 bracelets and 2 main event titles he can compare himself to Doyle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that Barry is in a position where he can compare himself to Doyle. He's played against him for like a decade, which is a lot of poker hands. Not that I know whether his rankings are accurate or not, but he certainly has enough data available to make them.

MMMMMM · #27 12-15-2004, 06:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean it as an insult, but ranking himself higher than Doyle Brunson in some categories is an insult to Doyle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, do you think Doyle is necessarily better than Barry in every category listed?

Hack · #28 12-15-2004, 06:47 PM

I do.

I believe that Doyle is the best cash games/tournament player of the past 30 years. He may not be the best tournament ANd the best cash games player, but he is the best poker player overall, in my opinion.

Look how far Doyle has made it in the main event each year over the past 25 years, for example, and then compare that to Greenstein's success in it. Doyle admits that he plays better against strong players than amateurs but he has fantastic hand reading skills and a sixth sense of knowing when he is beat.

His skills cannot be understated.

I am not dismissing Barry's skills, because I believe that he is a fantastic cash games and tournament player, but Barry was not one of the 10 invited to the TOC, yet Doyle was. One could make an argument that Barry should have been invited instead of, say, Annie Duke, but he wasn't. I can almost guarantee you that the first person the TOC organizers thought of inviting when they created this freeroll tourney idea was Doyle Brunson.

Save for Annie Duke and Raymer, I think that the other 8 players invited were definitely the top 8 players in the world.

And again, don't take this the wrong way, because I'm not dissing any of these people. Duke, Raymer, and Greenstein are all much, MUCH better players than I am, but I'm just trying to give an objective opinion of these rankings.

Hack.

AngryCola · #29 12-15-2004, 06:52 PM

You do not have enough information to be making these judgements, but Barry does.

It's fine if you want to say Doyle is a better tournament player because of his WSOP bracelets, but very few people can accurately determine the play in the big cash game.
I'm pretty sure you haven't played in it, or had extensive talks with Doyle about his strategy in said game.

I have no idea which one of them is better in cash games. The point is, neither do you.

Hack · #30 12-15-2004, 06:52 PM

I would rate Sklansky as one of the best poker theorists of all time, if not the best.

He is a fantastic limit player from what I have heard, and could probably play a lot higher limits than he does comfortably, but I think he is happy where he is.

I don't know enough about Malmuth to comment on him.