Brunson ' quote about Sklansky

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Brunson says : " How can you say , for instance , that I am better player than David Sklansky or Mike Caro ? I think that obviously I am

That 's come from " championship tables at the WSOP 1970-2002 on page 50 .

So , Brunson think he is OBVIOUSLY a better player than David Sklansky .



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have the book so I don't know how accurately you quoted it, but I read that quote a little differently. I don't think anybody would disagree that Doyle's one of the greatest players ever. He says "I think..." Any great champion probably brings that attitude to the table. When he sits down at the table he thinks he's better than the other players no matter who they are. He has to. It's part of his make-up, part of his psychology, part of his edge. I think any of the greatest competitors in sports and games, whether they say it or not, when they face off against their competitors have both a tremendous drive to prevail and supreme confidence in their own abilities.

So it doesn't sound to me like he's saying something along t he lines of: "gee, it's obvious, anybody can see I'm better. " It's more along the lines of: obviously I think I'm the better player.

Now he really didn't need to go on to dis the guys, saying they freeze up....but maybe that's just part of the territory. I've always heard that Michael Jordan, for example, was a world class trash talker.

Addressing a couple of matters down below. Some folks have said, objectively, Brunson must be better because he makes more per hour. Um...really? Over what period of time? Where is that stat coming from? (I might argue that BB's per hour is a better measure but even granting the assumption that its sheer dollars per hour---how much then do they respectively make per hour eh?)

I would point out that Doyle has said that "I recall getting broke more times than I can count." Poker Wisdom of a Champion p43. And he wasn't talking about losing his buy in in a particular game, he was talking about his bankroll, even his entire liquidity: "When you're down near the bottom of your bankroll, never play in a game where [the stakes make] you feel uncomfortable....sadly I've violated that advice a hundred times in my life." id. at p 45 (italics ommitted).

Ok, some folks say Doyle would do better if he and sklansky played a particular game, other's say Sklansky would be prevail at such and such a game. Not only is that unknowable, but if they do sit down at a game together, how do you measure the better player? Who has a better night in a session? I believe you'd need hundreds maybe thousands of hours to draw a conclusion, to the extent you even could.

And of course, how do we define better? Undoubtedly, Sklansky is one of (if not the) greatest poker theorists in the world. And those who play with him seem willing to testify he's a great practitioner, one of the best in the world. Doyle is universally hailed as one of the all-time greatest players. I would suggest there are several different ways to measure greatness in poker. (For instance, I haven't heard anybody suggest that in a nine handed game, the test might not be how much they win or lose to each other, but how much they fleece from the fish at the table...) And I would suggest that its impossible to conceive of any test--including them playing at the same table some number of times--that would be conclusive on the question.

--Zetack

[Cyrus]

"In my opinion, Hold 'em Poker has been far more influential than Super/System, did more to bring poker out of the dark ages (even though both books did a lot in this area), and did more to bring the everyday person into our game."

I have no scientific (or "scientific") evidence to back up my claim but I will submit that the "everyday person" is always attracted less to robustly put together mathematical texts and more to texts that include in their math lotsa anecdotes, glamor, stardust, exaggeration, humor, and ..a bit of moonshine. Brunson's book IMHO was all what you're saying AND the one that caught the eye of the "everyday person", more than the no-nonsense (and somewhat no-fun) text of Sklansky's.

The bluesmen and the rock and rollers were all out there when a white boy that could sing with a black man's soul came along. Brunson's book was to poker what Elvis's records were to music.

[Saborion]

What happened to those games?

[Ace-Korea]

I doubt that he will ever win another WSOP no-limit hold 'em tournament. I don't think he would even come close to making the final table.

His style, as described in Super System, is very aggressive. Usually, he's willing to take chances and gamble.

Even though this approach worked well in the past, it just won't work today because there are so many players like him, mostly amateurs. Doyle might beat most of these players, but if he loses to just one of them, then he's out the tournament.

Not just for Doyle, but it's becoming harder and harder for other pros to win the WSOP since so many amateurs are willing to gamble with them thesedays. It really is becoming a crap shoot-out. IMO, cautious (yet bold) players like Lederer and Ivy have the best chance of winning it all.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Not just for Doyle, but it's becoming harder and harder for other pros to win the WSOP since so many amateurs are willing to gamble with them thesedays. It really is becoming a crap shoot-out. IMO, cautious (yet bold) players like Lederer and Ivy have the best chance of winning it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its really not so much the fact that there are some amateurs willing to gamble as much as there are soooo many amatures looking to gamble. For each big time name pro that is looking to win, there are a couple lesser pros and 8-10 Chris Moneymakers or Robert Varkoni's that are gonna do what they can to win as well.

Its like playing one-on-one against Michael Jordan in a game to 21, except he spots you 19 points. Obviously he's the better player, but he has so much to overcome as well.

[MrOmaha]

<font color="green"> </font> First let me say that having read Super System and a number of text from the 2 + 2 authors I have a great amount of respect for both David Sklansky and Doyle Brunson. With regard to who is the better poker player I would say that depends on the type of game. For a number of reasons a limit ring game involves more skill than a No Limit Hold Em Tournament. The short term luck factor in a tournament is a huge advantage for a less skilled player. I do not believe for a minute that Chris Moneymaker could even hope to hold his own in a ring game vs. the players that he busted out in the WSOP. I can think of two examples where he made terrible plays and was bailed out by two outers to bust pros. Not to mention the fact that moving from one table to another in a tournament makes it less likely to pick up on a tell. I believe that both players are great in thier chosen preferance of game. Just my thoughts on the matter!!!!!

[2DAXTRM (Jeff)]

There are a few reasons why Doyle might never win a world series of poker bracelet again, and I stress the word 'might'.

1) There are a LOT more players nowadays, thus his odds are slightly worse than they were back then. Furthermore there are a LOT MORE better players. I'm not saying players are better today necessarily (although they probably are), but there are just so MANY good players now. There might be a hundred B+ players. I'd rather play in a tournament with 5 A+ players, than 100s of B+ players. But in realtiy, I think there are more B+ and A+ players than back then. I think however it is still +EV for him to play in such an event and if he could give it 10 more shots, he might come out better financially.

2) He wrote a book, and everyone knows his aggressive style now. And I mean EVERYONE. A lot of dead money players who would have folded in the past to his strong moves, might decide to take a gamble and get a chance to knock out the Godfather, knowing that Doyle might be bluffing. The thrill of knocking out a pro is what many of the dead money amateurs play for, and they see Doyle as a good one to go for. Even if Doyle is not bluffing, he'll get called more, and drawn out on, etc.

3) He's much older than he was back when he won the World Series. It helps to be in your prime. Right now he's in a wheel chair, and frankly he doesn't have the endurance he once had.

4) He doesn't practice as much as he used to. In his prime he probably played at least 80 hours a week. He was known for going on 3 days straight without sleep. That's a lot of practice. Sure, this might not really mean much in tournaments, but it can't hurt to be playing all the time.

I think he is a better player than Sklansky and the other authors. When I say he is a better player, I am saying he produces better results. I.E., he is making a better hourly rate. Joe Lunchbox might be the best .10/.25 cent player in Las Veges because he makes the most per month on it and he has the art of penny poker down to a science, but it doesn't mean he's in the same class as Johnny Chan. Doyle Brunson outclasses these other players because he can win in a much higher limit than them, winning against much better players. Also, these other authors aren't famous for being great players, but being great teachers. Even Sklansky has admitted in many of his books that there are many better players than him in the subjects he writes about, but he feels he is the best at teaching his ideas.

[William Wilson]

I, of course, have plenty of respect and admiration for both Brunson and Sklansy, although I have many issues with the arrogance of both.

But I find Sklansky's comments here particularly annoying:

[ QUOTE ]
What is for the bracelets , I am not a tournement ' specialist and I play less than half a dozen of tournement a year because I think that my skills are more usefull in a cash game "

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why the tournament book? If you're not a tournament specialist, why do you claim to have written the only adequate text on the subject while trashing every other author's attempt?

No disrespect, but I feel it's a fair question.

[Lion-O]

[George Rice]

If that's the case, then there are a few other players I wish were eligible. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] David is not among them. Let's hope he's not eligible for a long time to come. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]