Is Sklansky A Natural Poker Genius? A Learned Poker Genius? Or Both?)

[popniklas]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />

Sklansky is a poker genius because he has made a nice living from gambling and gambling writing and has never gone broke. someone who can own him a cash game, but then blows the money on hookers and coke and ends up broke is not a poker genius. Their ability to be a winner in any one game is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree on two things here.

1: Just because you beat poker consistently doesn't make you a genius. You are a good player, sure, but genius? It takes a lot more than that.

2: Just because you lose all the money you win at poker doen't mean that you are not a genius. Stu Ungar was a poker genius, if there ever has been one.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
Well thats a little over the top, but if you had said it more politely, I would agree. Sklansky has not revolutionized the game using statistical methods. He makes a bunch of broad generalisations with no mathematical backup. Where is the math/stats behind his grouping of hands?? Where is there ANY math in his poker books, besides a few simple things like pot odds? All of his writing is backed up by NOTHING. A lot of it is good, Ill agree, but if you want to be technically correct, math is required. And as for going to UPENN, its a second rate school for undergrads. The MBA program is widely regarded as one of the best in the world and most competitive to get into, but as for undergrads (which Sklansky was when he went) , its a second tier school for second tier students.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my post I wasn't really deriding Sklansky but targeting all the posters who go nuts about him. I have a lot of respect for Sklansky.

As for your post... no mathematical backup? Any examples?

As for Upenn... you've got to be kidding. It is a top tier school in the top ten, any big law school/wall street employer who recruits from the ivies looks well on a penn undergrad degree. I can tell you're an idiot from what you know about college degrees. Do you even have one?

[johnc]

I believe the true point of this thread's discussion was lost - that is "Is he a poker genius", it's a mute point to consider him a math genius I sure even he doesn't believe that. Besides math is not the ultimate tool to poker success - I'd be doing alot better if that were true. It's just a means for which to assist one at arriving at the plethora of decisions required at a table. Online poker has stripped down the game to it's bare essentials with the resulting misconception of math being the end-all be-all solution to all poker decisions. It's not. Sklansky's books and articles clearly point that out. He teaches the advantages of using math as a tool to analyze situations but only in combination with a mulitude of other key bits of info.

[ksuns]

Funny that you say that. I don't think Raymer is that good (comparatively). Last weekend, I saw him raise heavily in last position to attempt a blind steal and when the girl to his right reraised, he went all in. Guess what he had? 8 9 unsuited. She had 10's or something pretty good and he looked like an idiot. I also think those snake glasses are irratating and make people focus more on beating him.