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

[PokerProdigy]

Have you ever heard Sklansky talk about intuitively good card players? And he also talks about how with alot of practice, hand analysis, etc... anyone can become a great poker player?

I have always wondered what he considers himself?

Does anybody know? Did he become a great poker player overnight? Work very hard for years? Or is he a deadly combination of the two? Like was he already a good/great poker player and then worked extremely hard and then became the Poker God?

P.S. Sklansky if you are out there I would love to here your opinion on this topic. LOL [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Oh yeah, and I have this same question about Malmuth? (And once again, if you're out there Malmuth feel free to comment, LOL.)

[olavfo]

I would think it's the same with poker as with music. You need to have some talent but your achievements come mostly from hard work.

olavfo

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
I would think it's the same with poker as with music. You need to have some talent but your achievements come mostly from hard work.

olavfo

[/ QUOTE ]

There is such a thing as extreme natural talent. look at Marat Safin the number 2 ranked tennis player in the world. Most pro's train twice a day but Safin trains twice a week. When quizzed on this point by a reporter as to why he spends so little time training he simply replied
"I dont like tennis that much"

[Leonardo]

Im not quite sure why you think Sklansky is a poker genius. He doesnt play in the biggest cash games with the best players, he doesnt have a great tournament record, so on what basis is he a poker genius? His books are good, although I think you must agree that the talk in very broad strokes, and the theory of poker? A theory generally is backed up with a proof. He is a smart guy , but you (and he) greatly overestimate his intelligence, poker ability and his books.

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
He doesnt play in the biggest cash games with the best players...

[/ QUOTE ]

I make no comment on the central argument of your post, but I would like to point out that you don't have to be a genius to know that it's a good idea to avoid a game in which the best players in the world are sitting.

[PokerProdigy]

I think that you may underestimate his poker abilities because he does NOT have a great tournament record and show up on TV that often. Yet, I don't neccessarily think that matters becauses maybe he's NOT one of the best tournament players. I also think that some poker players are judged too much by their tournament records. For example, I don't know that Greg Raymer, Chris Moneymaker, and some of the other big tournament winners are really "great" poker players. Now don't get me wrong, I would rather NOT play with these guys, but I still think that they are way overrated due to big tournament wins. Now, are you sure that Sklansky does NOT play in some big live/cash games, because I just figured he did?

[PokrLikeItsProse]

I believe I have read David Sklansky say that some players come up to him and say that his books don't change how they play, they just explain why they play that way.

He began playing in business school and was still a relatively young man when he contributed to Doyle Brunson's Super/System, while he claims to have never gone broke, so it didn't take him years to become good.

Sklansky claims that his success is a result of being a mathematical genius. If Sklansky believes that poker can be reduced to pure math, then he probably believes that he inherently going to succeed at poker, so long as he put forth a reasonable effort. Sklansky is known to have a large ego. He may believe that his math abilities allow him to understand deeply poker concepts that other players can only absorb if someone teaches, but cannot readily figure out themselves.

[Leonardo]

Sklansky has done NOTHING that would allow him to claim being a mathematical genius. Good at math? Certainly. The word genius is thrown around too much. While I can't prove that he isnt one, he has done nothing to prove that he is, and using probability one must come to the conclusion that if someone hasn't proved they are, then they probably aren't.

[Verdi]

You know. Real mathematics is about 1000x more complicated than Texas Hold'em. In Hold'em the math is all about simple odds and probability. You need to be quick counting this in your head but for sure you don't need to be a genius.

[Leonardo]

Precisely. Actually, no I would say real math is infinite times harder. That is why I think anyone stating that Sklansky is a math genius is doing so without any justification.