Answering Daniel And Other Critics

[toots]

Let's see... who to trust?

Someone who's "written the book on poker" (several of them for that matter), or someone who spends his time trash talking other players on the internet.

Hmm..

Tough choice there.

Seriously, my estimation of Daniel N backslid with that notorious post of his about Annie Duke some years back. This only reinforces my dim view of him. Yeah, he could probably whoop me at poker, but he's really not acquitting himself well in the public eye.

[Dead]

Where's the post you mention? I remember the old arguments from RGP with Sklansky and Caro and Negreanu, but not the post you reference.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's see... who to trust?

Someone who's "written the book on poker" (several of them for that matter), or someone who spends his time trash talking other players on the internet.

Hmm..

Tough choice there.

Seriously, my estimation of Daniel N backslid with that notorious post of his about Annie Duke some years back. This only reinforces my dim view of him. Yeah, he could probably whoop me at poker, but he's really not acquitting himself well in the public eye.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair to Negreanu, he has really been gracious in his retraction/apology about the entire Annie Duke fiasco, going so far as to say that he was immature, hadn't found Jesus yet, etc.

Negreanu has made some gaffes over the years, but I think it is safe to say that he is much more of a class act now than even two years ago.

Even his comments about David weren't mean-spirited or vitriolic; he was just making (inaccurate, ill-conceived, etc.) statements.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
One and two thousand dollar blinds. He was on the button with 25K and made it 5500 to go. 3500 to me. I called with JT, one of the many hands of that nature he could have knocked out (instead of giving me good odds and implied odds to call) and when the flop came JJ7 I checked, he bet 6K and called my all in check raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a prohibitively big mistake to me, and one that I'm surprised to hear that Ivey would make.

Without getting too far into the hand (wrong forum), am I correct in my assessment, or was it much closer?

[MaxPower]

[ 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 ]

I think that must be true based on this post

[callicles]

"On the other hand I did win four out of ten soon to be televised sit n gos against top players, and got a bad beat or it would have been five."
When and Where will these be televised?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I think that must be true based on this post

[/ QUOTE ]

Pwned.

[Daliman]

Love ya man, but this comment seems WAY off base to me;

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand I did win four out of ten soon to be televised sit n gos against top players, and got a bad beat or it would have been five. That IS getting to statistical signifigance. And while the three for three headup victories are not statistically significant, they WOULD be if you were testing the hypothesis that I was a 2-1 dog in these matches. See why?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, #1 you are saying winning 4 of ten is a good result, even though you say with the structure given for the NHUPC you are no likely less than 48% versus PI or JC(inferred)?

#2 I can't believe I'm disputing statistical significance with David Freakin' Sklansky, but here goes.. How can a result over only ten trials that is easily within 1 standard deviation and is a likely result probably over 50% of the time(guessing here, I don't know how to figure this) be considered getting to statistical significance? I play SNG's for a living and I know full well that even though I cash 38% of the time that a run of 500 SNG's where I only cash 31% is not statistically significant, and I win about 48% of the time I get heads up(with 43% of the average chips in a trial I ran, which is probably close), but have had runs where I have lost 17 of 20 and won 18 of 20 times I got to heads up. I've also won 7 Ten man SNG's in a row, which from my win % at the time was about a 1 in 3.8 million occurance. When I used to Play a lot of HU SNG's, I had a win rate of 57% at the +$100 level, yet once won 13 in a row. Now, I suppose you could sayy that I couldn't likely do any of those things if I were not a winning player, but saying ten HU matches, ESPECIALLY with a pretty banal result given your stated theoretical win % approaches statistical significance seems ludicrous to me.

#3 I can't see how winning three of three as a 2-1 underdog tests the hypothesis. I've had hundreds times in my life where i've lost 3 straight hands where I was a 2-1 favorite or more. You're saying something that is a given to happen 1 in every twelve trails tests significance? You're going to have to explain that to me, given that as far as I know you are the "sample size is too small" pioneer.

#4 As far as only you, Ferguson, and a few others not knowing proper strategy when the blinds are this high in comparison to stack size, I doubt many people in poker have as much experience with this situation as 10 man SNG pros do. Now, there are a lot out there that have more experience than I do in these, as I only play about 300-400 of these a month, but I have over 1500 HU matches within my results, and I'd venture that while you're intelligance and grasp of math easily far outstrips mine, you haven't been in as many of these situations as I have unless you happen to play a lot of online SNG's too. I have a feeling that many top SNG pros have a lot better grasp of these #'s than you might think. The internet has completely changed the experience level of the average player, and situations that were once foreign and disparate are now commonplace. How many top 30-60 shorthanded,(4 or less players) guys were there 10 years ago?
I'm sure this # has increased a ton since then simply for the fact that now the opportunity exists, where ten years ago it was an anomaly. Not that it makes them better, but there are hundreds of people out there who play more hands of poker in a year now than Johnny Moss played in his lifetime.

Please be gentle...

[chucksim]

Good post, David, and congratulations on doing so well in televised events lately. This may get you the wide-ranging respect you so richly deserve.

[Joboo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand I did win four out of ten soon to be televised sit n gos against top players, and got a bad beat or it would have been five. That IS getting to statistical signifigance. And while the three for three headup victories are not statistically significant, they WOULD be if you were testing the hypothesis that I was a 2-1 dog in these matches. See why?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, #1 you are saying winning 4 of ten is a good result, even though you say with the structure given for the NHUPC you are no likely less than 48% versus PI or JC(inferred)?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Sit N Gos were part of a different TV show, thus making him a much longer shot to win 4 or 5 of ten, and also making it a bit more statistically significant, though I'd probably agree that it's still way too small to be significant in any way.