Brunson ' quote about Sklansky

[PiquetteAces]

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 a , but the two of them are the foremost authorities on poker . They know everything , the situations , what you're suppose to do , WHEN IT COMES TIME TO PERFORM THEM , THEY CANT DO IT . They chill up or something happen .

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 .

Brunson might think : " I play 2000-4000 & higher when while David Sklansky play almost only HE30-60 . I have 9 wsop'bracelets and DS has only 1 ."

Sklansky might think : " 2000-4000 & higher is to big for my bankroll , and even if it was ,a lineup with Doyle Brunson , Johnny Chan , Daniel Negranue , Chip Reese , Annie Duke , etc make me only a very small favorite & in the long run I will have an higher hourly rate playing 30-60HE with some tourists and a lot less pressure .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 "

For me , I think that Brunson is wrong when he says that they dont perform ; I dont think that Caro & Sklansky ( or Mason Malmuth, or Ray Zee ) need to sell books to support some poker ' loses .

any comments would appreciated , and comments from David Sklansky would be a lot appreciated .

-jpp

[stripsqueez]

i wouldn't presume to know who is a better player - but in my view there is plenty of logic behind Brunson's reason as to why he is better

what i have read from Sklansky (being only "The Theory Of Poker" and what i see on this forum) indicates to me that he has a near complete grasp of the scientific and strategic concepts that aid an understanding of the game - that means very little when considering how good he would be at a table filled with other good players - i havent read anything he has written that indicates to me that he has a more profound understanding of the game

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[phish]

I think to the extent that Brunson has a higher hourly rate than Sklansky, that is as objective a measurement of 'better' as you're going to get. Now of course, Brunson plays much higher, but I consider that as all part of being a 'better' poker player. Poker involves more than just knowing the theory and concepts. In that department, the 2+2 writers along w/ Mike Caro are probably unequalled. But great poker at the highest levels also involves heart, people skills, hand reading, image, etc. Brunson may not be anywhere near the theorist that Sklansky or Malmuth are, but his other qualities more than make up for it.

And let's say you have two players, one who plays 30/60 and is technically the better player. But the other one plays 80/160 and, though technically a weaker player, makes more money per hour. Who's the better player? I'd say the guy playing 80/160, because he obvously has the heart to play at the bigger limits and make more money.

[Iceman]

I doubt anyone could beat David Sklansky in a mixed game involving many different forms of poker. David's knowledge of poker theory is unparalleled, and contrary to the comment, he is very able to apply that theory to the games. If he doesn't have the bankroll for 2000-4000 that doesn't mean he's a lesser player - even if he did, why play that if he could earn more in 30-60 and 80-160? Brunson may be better than Sklansky specifically at shorthanded high-ante games and deep money no-limit, where reading opponents counts for a lot more, and theoretical knowledge is relatively less important.

[Acesover8s]

[ 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 a , but the two of them are the foremost authorities on poker . They know everything , the situations , what you're suppose to do , WHEN IT COMES TIME TO PERFORM THEM , THEY CANT DO IT . They chill up or something happen .

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to hear this crap all the time. Mid-limit players I would play with would say that they played with Sklansky and that he could talk the talk but not walk the walk.

This is obviously quite silly, as poker is not a physical sport like basketball, or require fine dexterity like brain surgery. Obviously if he writes to raise limpers preflop with AKs, there is nothing preventing him from doing it in a live game.

[Jeremy'sSpoken]

Who cares who the better player is? I doubt David does. They are both better than me (for now) and that is all I care about.

What's next a post on whose Dad can beat who up?

[WarmonkEd]

there's a part in brunson's no limit hold'em where he states that he believes in "rushes," and all the "scientists" (he puts scientists in quotes) who say otherwise are wrong. That statement BLEW MY MIND. How he can be a professional gambler and NOT understand statistics boggles my mind.

Anyway, if you read his nolimit holdem section, all he does is play LAG, which, I guess works in no-limit.

[1800GAMBLER]

I don't have the book here in front of me but i read that section a lot differently. He says he's going to play the next hand but he's doing this because of the image of a rush. I'm sure somewhere earlier he explains how one event is random after another when talking about streaks. If you are still confused Al made an article about the paragraph on cardplayer.

[Jedi Poker]

In his prime, Brunson was regarded as the best big stack live game no-limit holdem player in the world. In that game, you can use personal charisma to create rushes by making 'em fold fold fold fold fold, trap 'em, then make them fold fold fold and fold some more until they give up. It is very difficult to accomplish this if you didn't have heart, if you didn't have very high acuity in "feeling" player weakness, and didn't believe in rushes - at least, the psychological momentum kind.

[krazyace5]

all he does is play LAG

What is LAG?