old but intriguing quote

When Devil Fish was asked how he became a profitable poker player, he said: "I stopped reading Sklansky."

That sounds like heresy. Isn't Sklansky supposed to be God? So I'm very intrigued by what he means.

If there are online resources where he explains himself, or someone else backs up his viewpoint, can you let me know what they are?

And if you have any insight into this apparent theoretical dispute, please pipe up.

buttgirl

I can only guess... many poker players refer to sklansky's "The Theory Of Poker" as one of the top oldschool books and as one that influenced their game. I think Ulliot on the one hand sais ironically the opposite of many other players and on the other hand it sounds to me like stopping to read other people's ideas and find new and own ways and styles. It can be unhealthy for the game if you try to imitate a style that's not fitting to yours and it's always bad for the game if you just follow a path you read like a step-by-step turtorial, 'cause you won't gain much experience and intuition by doing that.

i think no matter how useful the theory is,you can only refrr,you can not do it by step by step,the theory is also created by other people,so what influenced their game is not the theory ,it is how use the theoy.

This is coming from a guy that has only one WSOP bracelet.

Only one! What a donk!

Well, if Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu said it, I can see the shock.

I can see the point t1riel is making. One WSOP bracelet has very little meaning. To make final table several times is sign of a superior poker player, but any lucky donk can win the WSOP once and then disappear under the waves.

That being said, Ulliott doesn't seem to be a lucky donk. Isn't he well respected on the pro poker circuit?

I would still love to know what he has against Sklansky's approach to poker and what he thinks is better or at least suits him better. Does anyone have any references?

buttgirl

i might sound dumb here but having never read sklansky's books he seems to be very mathematical. he was on the poker after dark week with the other math guys. could be devilfish is not a math guy, a profile i read of him was that he is more bite than bark and his background is much different than sklansky's. that's what i've come to after doing some googling

I saw devilfish call out a guys cards once, He folded a vnh, I wouldnt want to play him. I suspect he meant he started playin outside the box, if you play a wide range of hands, its hard to put u on one.

Not long after I started playing, the Harrington books came out, I immediately started playing a game to counter this.

I think Devilfish is saying if he playing players that use the slanksky methods, he plays the opposite.

I've watched Devilfish for years and he perfected the smallball poker before it became famous.

I'm not sure what Devilfish mean's but he probably means learn your own style to fit your own game.

Ding ........ this is right and correct; thus the best answer.

While that's true, Sklansky "only" has three himself and all of them were from the early 80s in events with buy-ins of $1K or less. Ulliott's is from a $2K PLHE event in 1997 which definitely would've had a bigger field. He's also won a WPT event, whereas Sklansky hasn't. And just for the sake of comparison:

David Ulliott: $5,691,075 in career tournament earnings, 39th on the all time money list
David Sklansky: $1,309,072 in career tournament earnings, 440th on the all time money list

Obviously tournament winnings aren't everything, and Sklansy has always claimed to be more of a cash game player than a tournament player. Ulliott is hardly a tournament-only player either though.

As to why he said what he said? Who knows: he's never been averse to saying or doing things just for the controversy though.

You can read all the poker books in the world, but you must obtain skills that allow you to separate yourself from others. There is no winning system for poker. There is no formula for success. You have to have the technical knowledge, but you have to be able to detect BS when someone is full of it, and you have to be able to disguise your own BS so that it isn't detectable. I'm not saying that you won't be a slight winner over time playing technically correct poker, but to be a big winner, you have to have the "X" factor. The true greats all have it. So I think this may have been what Devilfish was referring to. I'm also sure that Sklansky already knows this and possesses his share of this immeasurable ability.