Goofy Games

[David Sklansky]

In another thread I claimed that I felt I would be a favorite over Daniel, and in fact evey other famous champion player, if we played a bunch of different, made up on the spot, weird games. I used as an example, 7 stud where deuces become wild if you have three hearts in your hand. Some people dismissed that as irrelevant even if true.

However it was not necessary that I postulated games anywhere near this way out for my point to hold. I need only to have stuck to games that are played evey day in people's homes. Criss cross, Baseball, Hi Lo Declare, Five Stud with a replace etc. etc. Those were the games that originally taught me poker. And the only reasons they are not played in casinos is because they are hard to deal and susceptible to collusion. If you could eliminate those problems they would become very popular in public cardrooms. And that would be the best players worst nightmare.

You see the games in question put a higher premium on thought and analysis as opposed to instinct. If they were spread routinely it would be wonderful for many mid level players but not for most of the "first tier" players. Most would lose their lofty status and soon be forced to play in the "second tier" and below.

The best players would mainly be comprised of champion bridge, backgammon and possibly chess players. Plus ultra intelligent people who at the moment might not be playing at all. Most of the 4000-8000 players (in my opinion of course) would lose to the likes of Mark Weitzman, Jason Lester, Howard Lederer, Jay Heimowitz, Mickey Appleman, myself, Allen Cunningham, Andy Bloch, Chris Ferguson etc.

In other words it is somewhat of a fluke that many (not all) of the poker stars have achieved that status. Because they are not playing all the forms of poker that are played by the general population. If they were there would be different stars.

To me of course, there is the secondary issue of which of the two categories I would rather be in if I could only choose one. If fame and fortune were equal it wouldn't be close, as expertise in category two means a greater ability to analyse almost any subject. In fact that is so important to me that even without the fame and fortune I would choose category two, especially if I could remain in the top 100 in Category 1.

[hotdog da 2rd]

you're bored aren't you.....i know a good strip club in LA.

[Glenn]

No one is denying that in a fantasy world created to your specifications, you would be the alpha-male. I have personally found it better to concentrate on the real world, however. Unfortunately, we live in one collective reality. If you want respect, you have to accomplish things within that reality. In our current reality, you are a successfull high limit poker player and author. You are not a world class mathematician/game theory expert, Nobel Prize winner, or the biggest winner in poker. If we could make our own rules, ugly people would be models, the tone deaf would be rock stars, and I would be the unified Middleweight Champion of the World.

Most successful people have big egos. So do a lot of unsuccessful people. The successful people say I did A, B, and C, therefore, I am great. The unsuccessful say I could do D, E, and F, if it weren't for X. While you are actually a member of the first group, you are acting like a member of the second.

[Gramps]

(Edited to add: Hmmmm....wonder how many responses this thread is going to get.... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

Ugh. You're written a lot of great poker books. People really do think you're very smart. Be secure. Have a Coke. Smile. Belitting those who are accomplished players in the top cash games (however egotistical/insecure they are in their own right) doesn't make you look any better. A 6th grade teacher would admonsih you for putting down others unnecessarily to such a degree (this isn't the first time it's happened).

(1) Being a top player in the $4k/8k game isn't a measure of one's ability to learn a new game quickly.

(2) "Instinct" is a word that intelligent, but insecure people often use when referring to other people that are more accomplished than them at something (whether that intelligent but insecure person has tried to match their accomplishment or not). Maybe some of the top players in the $4k/8k can be egotistical about their accomplishments (and a couple may very well be running hot and not be the long-term big winners that they think they are)

Maybe they inaccurately articulate on poker theory, but the ability to accurately measure all the variables at play (based on prior play, betting patterns, psychology, logic, how one is perceived and what adjustments might be made to that, etc.) at the table is something a lot of theorticians lack (e.g. AJ hand posted from "#1 most intelligent poker player as named by David Sklansky"). That's not instinct, it's intelligence, something the Phil Ivey's and other "less theorotical" players are absolute Einstein's in. Maybe you give Ivey's some fixed variables, ask him to espouse on his theoretical analysis of the situation, and he comes up a little short of being correct. Well...

...Even if you're the best theoritician in the world working with fixed, defined variables - if you can't use your intelligence to accurately decipher what the variables in play actually are at the given moment that you're making your decisions, you're going to have your arse handed to you on a regular basis by the $4k/8k players. If you make wrong assumptions, it costs you dearly, no matter how brilliant your analysis is once working with those assumptions.

While the other games may place a "higher premium on thought and anlysis," the flux of variables in the play of opponents and the whole table dynamics, etc. would still be there and that's what most of these top players are Einstein's at (whether or not they can articulate in clearly and precisely, or whether they even care to put any effort into that at all).

[Jordan Olsommer]

Now that's a good idea, although personally I would amend it to a challenge where two players or a group of players play a game that's pretty much unknown or as close to made-up on the spot as possible (just in case someone has an disproportionate amount of experience at quadruple-draw deuces wild or whatever). But then again, if you chose the right game an event like this could technically be billed as "The World Series of Baseball".

[ QUOTE ]

In other words it is somewhat of a fluke that many (not all) of the poker stars have achieved that status. Because they are not playing all the forms of poker that are played by the general population. If they were there would be different stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I disagree with. I think that for the most part the poker celebrities would be the same no matter what, because they go where the popular cardroom games are - I think that if everybody played deuce-to-the-seven and relatively nobody wanted to play holdem, people like Phil Hellmuth would be deuce-to-the-seven specialists instead of holdem specialists (much in the same way that many backgammon/gin rummy pros are learning how to play holdem because of the greater profitability there). But whatever game is the Flavor of the Week, that's what the people who want the money and/or fame will concentrate on, I think. I don't think that it's a case where there are a group of holdem pros, a group of stud pros, a group of omaha pros, and a group of lowball pros and the public decides which group to make into poker celebrities and the rest are all left to relative obscurity, no matter how great their skills or their desire for fame and fortune.

[csuf_gambler]

david needs to man up and play daniel

[cwsiggy]

Both Annie Duke and Howard Lederer have been working on their high stakes Battleship and Trouble games of late.

[riverdance]

ds needs to see the dermatologist (sp) for his thinning skin

[David Sklansky]

The post wasn't really about me. It was about those players who Barry Greensein feels don't get enough respect compared to the famous tournament players. But as you said, that is the real world. Interestingly another group who gets short shrift are side game no limit experts. They would beat both the tournament champs and the 4K-8K mixed game players playing big stack no limit. Since the public adores the no limit champs it is ironic that most of the real champs are completely unknown to them.

Anyway my point was analogous to what a 5' 10" great athlete and very good basketball player who didn't quite make the NBA might say. Namely that almost all of the players over 6'7" are where they are today because the specific rules of the game happen to work to their advantage; and to his disadvantage in spite of lessor all around skills.

To those who say that bringing in New York Style home games into the poker mix would not reshuffle things at the top, I say you are simply wrong. The mega game champs would become excellent at the new games to be sure. But almost all would fall into Barry's dreaded second tier or below.

[Dynasty]

David,

Consider yourself invited to my next home game. You can call all these games when it's your turn to deal.