Brunson vs. Sklansky--Let's get ready to rumble!

tek · #1 10-25-2004, 01:32 PM

Mr. Sklansky recently (in a different thread) stated that math is important in NL.

Mr. Brunson has been well-known for claiming he could bust most players with out even looking at his hole cards. He may be exagerating, but his point is he plays the people, not the cards. Therefore, he is implying thta math is not a big factor in NL.

Which of these poker Superstars is right? Post your thoughts and

Let's Get Ready to Rumble!

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

SnakeRat · #2 10-25-2004, 02:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Brunson has been well-known for claiming he could bust most players with out even looking at his hole cards. He may be exagerating, but his point is he plays the people, not the cards. Therefore, he is implying thta math is not a big factor in NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

He isn't implying anything like that.

If he were he would be wrong.

David Sklansky · #3 10-25-2004, 03:24 PM

Math isn't as big a factor in NL ring games as in limit ring games. It becomes big in tournaments however, when preflop all in moves frequently occur or are contemplated.

RydenStoompala · #4 10-25-2004, 03:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Sklansky recently (in a different thread) stated that math is important in NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is.

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Brunson has been well-known for claiming he could bust most players with out even looking at his hole cards

[/ QUOTE ]

He can. He has.

Still..it would be a good TV event.

TomCollins · #5 10-25-2004, 03:44 PM

If I knew Doyle wasn't looking at his cards, I guarantee I could win at least 75% of the time.

BigBaitsim (milo) · #6 10-25-2004, 04:00 PM

If I looked and Doyle did not, even I could bust him up. Of course, that depends on me KNOWING he wasn't looking. On the other hand, I suspect he could beat me with one card tied behind his back (that is, seeing only one hole card).

West · #7 10-25-2004, 04:57 PM

I think you must be referring to him talking about the importance of position in Super System. He says something to the effect that, if he always had position, then he could beat an opponent's brains in without ever looking at his cards. I'd be curious to hear this statement debated...but I doubt very seriously he ever said anything about busting most people under normal circumstances without ever looking at his cards.

Noo Yawk · #8 10-25-2004, 06:19 PM

I was browsing through Borders book store the other day and in Phil Helmuths new book Doyle Brunson writes about the hand he remembers most. It was against David Sklansky in a high low event in the WSOP back in the early 70's. I don't recall exactly what was stated, but Doyle beat David on the hand and believed he played it perfectly. Until he read an article by David Sklansky involving that particular hand and David's reasoning why Doyle misplayed it. He proved mathmatically that his hand (David's) would beat Doyles hand most of the time.

Doyle states: " it was at that moment I realized the importance of math in poker."

For all of you that believe your reads and feel for poker are beyond ever having to learn the mathmatics of the game, even Doyle in all his years of playing gives David credit for making him realize there is more to learn. When one of the best tries to teach, listen.

tek · #9 10-25-2004, 07:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Math isn't as big a factor in NL ring games as in limit ring games. It becomes big in tournaments however, when preflop all in moves frequently occur or are contemplated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are there not all-in moves pre-flop in NL ring games?

Leo99 · #10 10-25-2004, 08:12 PM

I've read SS several times. Of course Doyle knows the math. Maybe not as well as David but he knows all the pot odds to make his hands. The point you're missing is one that David clearly states in his books. The probability you'll hit your hand plus the probability that your opponent will fold is part of the equation. Doyle plays aggressive and tries to increase the probability that his opponent will fold. If you give Doyle position and show weakness, he's going to come after you figuring he has a better than 50% chance playing his random cards against your weak cards.

How many times have you watched a table and seen the weakness in the blinds and limpers and sensed that if the button raised they'd all fold to him? How come I can never read players like that when I'm actually sitting in the table?