MediaBLITZ
Legend
Silver Level
That could be true if the proof of you being a moron was based on that isolated hypothesis of yours - but alas, it is not.
That could be true if the proof of you being a moron was based on that isolated hypothesis of yours - but alas, it is not.
4thandinches
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Actually, my hypothesis was very well explained, whereas your idolatry of certain players like Ivey have blinded your ability to think rationally. Otherwise, you would have brought up a good counterpoint to my point that poker players are not guaranteed a paycheck when sitting at a table, regardless of their skill level and past successes.
For future reference, when you make the mistake of calling someone a moron, don't offer a weak, ignorant argument that instead makes you the fool.
MediaBLITZ
Legend
Silver Level
Actually, my hypothesis was very well explained, whereas your idolatry of certain players like Ivey have blinded your ability to think rationally. Otherwise, you would have brought up a good counterpoint to my point that poker players are not guaranteed a paycheck when sitting at a table, regardless of their skill level and past successes.
For future reference, when you make the mistake of calling someone a moron, don't offer a weak, ignorant argument that instead makes you the fool.
Come on man, let's drop the B.S. and get back on topic ...
#1 - Where did you conclude I was an Ivey fan? Not even close.
#2 - Counterpoint that there is no guaranteed paycheck? Why? That's a no-brainer - it's not even arguable. At no time did I even hint I had a problem with that statement. In fact it's even worse than you state because of all the costs they have to incur in the pursuit of a payday.
#3 - What you have failed at is your insinuation that poker players like Phil Ivey (we'll use him since you are so wrapped into bringing him down off that pedestal) cannot sustain a living without outside endeavors. What proof do you have that his $15,000,000.00 in winnings is unable keep him fed and sheltered (sarcasm) and that he "NEEDS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME?"
#4 - Here's why the moron statement (just so we are clear):
"...once someone learns basic math, chip count, position, etc., they know as much about the game as almost anyone else.
Think about it: if one's math knowledge guaranteed success long-term at the Hold Em tables, David Sklansky would be regularly seen at final tables. Instead, you rarely even see him even playing the game."
This makes it very clear your experience with the game and the people involved in it are very limited.
M
Machidon7
Rock Star
Silver Level
I would say Phil Ivey is the best living poker player( he is the toughest opponent anyone can have and the best all-around poker player),but the best all time in my opinion was Stu Ungar :icon_salu ; he may not have the longevity or number of tournament victories that others players have , but in his prime, he was unstoppable.He had no true nemeses, aside from himself.
4thandinches
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Fair enough. I understand your postion, even though I still disagree with it. But good job at least explaining your side of the argument. Also, in using Sklansky as an example, should he not be dominant at the game? Or are mathematics and pot odds overrated, which could very well be the case.
B
Big_Rudy
Legend
Silver Level
This is an interesting hypothesis, imo. I've often considered the same thing. Not to say that the best players don't all have a certain degree of poker math ability; they obviously do. But, the guys who are generally considered the real "math guys" of the poker world, while obviously very good players, are seldom at the absolute pinnacle of the game.
Imo, this is likely because poker takes a wide variety of skills to be ultra-successful at. Math ability, specifically poker math ability, while certianly a very important skill, is just one factor of the wider skill set necessary to reach the true pinnacle of the game. So while I definately wouldn't say that math ability is over-rated; I similarly don't think incredible math ability, by itself, is enough to propel one to the absolute top of the game.
MediaBLITZ
Legend
Silver Level
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy (and I mean that in the Notre Dame chant vein - lol) -
You hit the nail in the ass here.
You just cannot over rate math in poker UNLESS you make it the only tool you use. Even though you can get pretty far (profit wise) by always making the mathematically correct play, you are missing out on other opportunities to profit by honing other tools at your disposal.
Now concerning Sklansky and others. No where does Sklansky advocate a purely mathematical approach to the game. His background as an actuary in business and experience with risk assessment is certainly takes up a huge section of his toolbox. His background is primarily business (attending the prestigious Wharton Business School before going to poker).
He has THREE wsop bracelets in 23 ITM finishes and a WPT Invitational Championship - that is not too shabby. Author of over a dozen books. So is he a poker player or an author? Which does he enjoy more? Sure spends an awful lot of time writing, it seems.
To question his "record" is a bit ludicrous He is the epitome of a guy whose life is poker - without the stress of having to grind or win tournaments. I think that is by choice if not just how it worked out for him. He doesn't have to win to insure his place. He really doesn't have to work on his game. Esfandiari, Hellmuth and Negreanu all have worked extra on their game the last couple of years - trying to learn new tricks. At least two of them incorporated outside coaching.
Now let's look at another guy - Mike Caro (who is not shy about considering himself the best poker player on the planet). He also has a few books out there and is revered by the poker community as an "expert". Why don't we see Caro crushing the competition in these televised tourneys (which face it, is 95% of the poker TV we see)? Because Caro HATES tournaments. He thinks they are a suckers bet - a lottery (especially Main Event). Oh yeah he'll show up for Main Event, but like Doyle, is only there for camera time, goodwill and PR. Both of them would just as soon be doing something else with that time (and have said so).
So before you call someone out you better understand their place in life and whether or not the things you think should be important to them are even in their top ten. I don't really think Sklansky gives a rats ass about dominating the game, though the benefit of winning a tournament next week sure would not hurt his book sales. But he's pretty well set.
Here's another - I got to have lunch with Greg Raymer. He talked about how winning another main event would go way beyond the prize money in payoff because of how he could capitalize on it business wise. It was not about winning the prize money (though he's not going to hand it back) but how he could pretty much put it on cruise control from there on out (my words, not his).
So a players paradigm and the way he thinks is the key - just like the NFL, NBA, etc. Most guys are happy to have just made it in the money - very few attain to the height's of Jerry Rice, Calvin Johnson, Joe Montana, Aaron Rodgers, Emmit Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, Michael Jordan, or LeBron James.
I personally know a guy who won over $100,000 winning a small tourney. Also has a few WSOP cashes. He is a poker pro, but he continues to focus on online cash and coaching cash for his income. Myself, I would be like, "Hey, I can do this - I'm going to go after more tournament gold." But he doesn't think like me - he has his life where he wants it and is going from there.
Esfandiari - great example. Won a WPT years ago and went into "I'm a professional poker player - time to party!" mode. He woke up a couple years ago and was, "WTF? Have I peaked already?". The answer was no way, so he put aside the partying and started working on his game. I'd say it paid off. A few more years of this and people will start giving him credibility.
B
Big_Rudy
Legend
Silver Level
Wow, thanks for expanding on my admittedly rudimentary response here, MB. Couldn't have said it better myself
Just to kind-of wrap thinks up..... I agree with pretty-much all your post above. I really don't think think you can over-rate just how important math is to a serious poker player. However, I think 4th's comment that (paraphrasing here, obv) once you have learned the basic math to the game, you know as much about the game as anyone is ludicrous.
Just to kind-of wrap thinks up..... I agree with pretty-much all your post above. I really don't think think you can over-rate just how important math is to a serious poker player. However, I think 4th's comment that (paraphrasing here, obv) once you have learned the basic math to the game, you know as much about the game as anyone is ludicrous.
MediaBLITZ
Legend
Silver Level
Wow, thanks for expanding on my admittedly rudimentary response here, MB. Couldn't have said it better myself
Not sure if this was directed at me, tbh, but I certainly wasn't calling Sklansky out in any way/shape/form. The guy is obviously far, far more successful at poker than I'll ever be. If it WAS directed at me, all I was trying to say was than when the question of who is the best and/or greatest poker player, the Sklansky's, Ferguson's, Block's, Chen's, et al. generally are not at the top of most people's lists.
Just to kind-of wrap thinks up..... I agree with pretty-much all your post above. I really don't think think you can over-rate just how important math is to a serious poker player. However, I think 4th's comment that (paraphrasing here, obv) once you have learned the basic math to the game, you know as much about the game as anyone is ludicrous.
Hey we're good Rudy - I don't believe you ever mentioned Sklansky, did you? And you hit it again - very difficult to call a guy out based on high variance, televised tournament results. They talk about all the young guys all the time and factor in endurance and all that - but I've never heard anyone talk about how older guys usually have lives (obligations) and just can't devote the time it takes to be that good.
B
Big_Rudy
Legend
Silver Level
Few words....Disagree, imo. Ivey greatest LIVING, imo. Steuy Ungar, GOAT, again, imo. (Obviously half the fun of discussions like this is the debate they encourage). Damn, even THIS is getting "wordy"
.No, I never called Sklansky out. Wouldn't dream of such a thing. That was more-or-less 4th who did that. I was just saying it's funny how those who are regarded as "pure math" guys are rarely at the top of anyone's list for GOAT, greatest living, etc. (Incorrectly, or correctly, I find that this is often the case).
I think you are entirely correct about age being a factor in that as you age you just naturally acquire more responsibilities in life, which tends to pull you away from poker. That's why if you take-up the game at an older age, it's far, far tougher to become an "over-night sensation" (whatever THAT is). There are just so many other demands on your time that you can't afford to have that single-minded focus that is required to quickly climb the ladder of poker success. That's my theory anyway, and I'm sticking with it as I slowly, slowly, sloooowly climb towards poker competance as "an old guy"
.
MediaBLITZ
Legend
Silver Level
That's why I have such an incredible respect for Dennis Phillips who put back to back top 50 performances at the ME - post Moneymaker. His autographed 8x10 watches over me. great guy too - got to spend a couple hours with him well over a year ago and am still going - Ahaaaa - that's what he meant by that.
But he had to do something with his time when he became over 50 and single - beats swimming laps at the Y - HA!
A2345Razz
Legend
Silver Level
The best what, NLH tournament play, ya...maybe...definitely top 5.
Best POKER player, ROFLMFAO, not even close.
Ivey survived in the biggest mixed games in history for close to a decade mostly in his 20s. He is a worldclass stud/razz/SHL player. He might be the world's best live LHE player....he is a worldclass big bet player...probably top 5 at any given time....he is easily the best OVERALL tournament player on earth and no one is really close.....
I could keep going, but there is really no point.
D
djrose
Rising Star
Silver Level
this is one of my favorite clips. Ivey isn't an "exciting" player, but I love watching his eyes. It's like he's replaying every hand played in the tourny to detect the strengths weaknesses and habits of Jackson. End result... he read it right.
