Mr. Sklansky, Please Read

[Roland19]

This isn't very relevant to this specific Forum, but I can't think of a better way to get David's attention.

Hi David. You're a very smart guy. While it is highly entertaining to read all of the posts you've made in this forum, I can't help but think we are wasting a great resource in you. I think it would be very helpful and informative if you could make strategy/theory related posts in the Hold Em forums here. There are quite a few interesting threads there, as well as some good thinkers. If you spent a little bit of time in the Hold Em forums every once and awhile, it would add a lot to the character of those forums, and it would be interesting and insightful to all of us.

We have all read your books and have a general understanding of your take on poker theory and concepts, however, it would also be very beneficial to us all to get your take on specific hands. Helping all of us understand exactly how and why we are butchering different hands in low limit hold em, mid limit hold em, etc., would be probably the coolest thing ever in the history of the world.

I understand if you don't want to, but it would be incredibly awesome. Thanks for listening. Peace.

[bluewilde]

Don't think the hold 'em forums give him much room for new ideas; he seems to have poker pretty much figured out. So I say more power to him if he pursues topics on this forum, which, for him, tap into different aspects of intelligence and more dynamic thought-processes. In poker forums he's forced to be more of a teacher/lecturer, which (I'd assume) can be incredibly dull. If you've spent your life mastering a subject, you probably reach a point where you want (need) to talk about what else is on your mind.

Certainly, his occaisonal insights in the forums are extremely interesting, but if they were continuous, it would most likely stifle the creative energy at the heart of this community (no offense to Mr. Sklansky). I think the collective learning atmosphere is actually more powerful than if there were a more classroom-type feel. There's more innovation, and you can see how you've "butchered" your hand from four points of view [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. You get more out of evaluating different suggestions than just trying to incorporate a "correct" line into your game.

So I'm not sure we're missing out on an incredible resource; I think his level of participation in actual poker forums is very appropriate and intentional.

From the tone of your post though, you are probably fully aware of this; I just thought it needed to be said. In hindisght, maybe not, but whatever. Sorry to ramble, and I agreee, it'd be sweet if he checked in a bit more often.

Blue

[drudman]

Also I need you to come and take a photo with me at the Grand Canyon.

[Roland19]

[ QUOTE ]
Also I need you to come and take a photo with me at the Grand Canyon.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really what I was getting at the whole time.

Certainly a post or two a week in the Hold Em forums wouldn't stifle the creativity that he gets to exercise in this forum. I agree that he is more of a teacher/lecturer when it comes to Hold Em, but he could definitely be creative when responding in those forums. Only a post or two a week about poker, whether it be regarding poker theory or just responding to a specific interesting hand, would be very informative and a lot of fun.

P.S. Will you sign my copy of SSHE?

(Just kidding.)

[bluewilde]

Yeah...agreed. I was really tired when I read/responded and missed the humor in your post. I had just read this article in Sports Illustrated "Online and Obsessed" where they feature Jason Strasser and mention Sklasky and 2+2. They seemed to describe the forum posters like followers ("acolytes," was the term the article used), and I disagreed with that description. So my reaction to the article spilled over into a sort of toolish reply to your post. My bad,

Blue

[David Sklansky]

This could all be solved very simply. All it would take would be for the posters on this forum to a acknowledge and state, "David I now realize that the existence of any kind of personal God is highly unlikely. And if he does exist, he is most likely you".

That should happen soon enough and we can all get back to holdem strategy.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
This could all be solved very simply. All it would take would be for the posters on this forum to a acknowledge and state, "David I now realize that the existence of any kind of personal God is highly unlikely. And if he does exist, he is most likely you".



That should happen soon enough and we can all get back to holdem strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without a doubt, your best post yet.

Made my Day.

-Zeno

[Roland19]

David I now realize that the existence of any kind of personal God is highly unlikely. And if he does exist, he is most likely you.

Back to hold em! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[JackThree]

David I now realize that the existence of any kind of personal God is highly unlikely. And if he does exist, he is most likely you.

[Ezcheeze]

David I now realize that the existence of any kind of personal God is highly unlikely. And if he does exist, he is most likely me.