Sklansky thread
why was it closed?
what mod closed it and why ?
2+2 protecting women beaters and suspected nonce cases
Polanski's different than other child rapists because, ... well I don't know why he's different.
Yep. I have played $1/$3 at the Wynn with him a couple of times (I assume when it was he was researching his semi-recent book). He could obviously beat that game, but he wasn't really good at it. Games like $1/$3 are ripe for maximum exploitation. He made some very basic exploitative plays and otherwise nitted it up so he probably won, but I saw numerous opportunities where he could have won more and that is not even mentioning that he played far too tight and therefore likely missed lots of other opportunities for exploitation.
If he was at a $2/$5 table of regs, he would have a very hard time winning.
Yep. I have played $1/$3 at the Wynn with him a couple of times (I assume when it was he was researching his semi-recent book). He could obviously beat that game, but he wasn't really good at it. Games like $1/$3 are ripe for maximum exploitation. He made some very basic exploitative plays and otherwise nitted it up so he probably won, but I saw numerous opportunities where he could have won more and that is not even mentioning that he played far too tight and therefore likely missed lots of other opportunities for exploitation.
If he was at a $2/$5 table of regs, he would have a very hard time winning.
Yep. I have played $1/$3 at the Wynn with him a couple of times (I assume when it was he was researching his semi-recent book). He could obviously beat that game, but he wasn't really good at it. Games like $1/$3 are ripe for maximum exploitation. He made some very basic exploitative plays and otherwise nitted it up so he probably won, but I saw numerous opportunities where he could have won more and that is not even mentioning that he played far too tight and therefore likely missed lots of other opportunities for exploitation.
If he was at a $2/$5 table of regs, he would have a very hard time winning.
2-5 still has a decent number of bad players. You don’t have to be that good to win at that level.
He seems to have played 1/3 to research for his low stakes book and 2/5 to research for his latest book. His advice in the low stakes book made it look like he was missing a lot of value, but had some good exploits. He probably beats 2/5 to some degree.
Not sure he got that good at NLHE. At the time of Brandi, he was playing like 80/160 mixed. He was definitely a mid stakes limit player. Not sure how much he was winning at that though. There are still mixed and limit games and not sure why he doesn't concentrate on those.
People who write books are often not making that much by playing. It is impossible to really determine how big a winning player he ever was.
Mason was not happy when I essentially said the same thing in the thread about their new book.
That's cause Mason loves to spam his books, and whenever someone is critical of him doing it, he thinks it's an affront on the book itself rather than him spamming a link every 5 posts.
But considering they coauthored 4 books (at least according to Slanksky's Wikipedia page) this should be completely unsurprising.
That's cause Mason loves to spam his books, and whenever someone is critical of him doing it, he thinks it's an affront on the book itself rather than him spamming a link every 5 posts.
But considering they coauthored 4 books (at least according to Slanksky's Wikipedia page) this should be completely unsurprising.
I assume that when we have given away lots of free books, and many people on this website took advantage of this, you object to that too.
Link to the free books bro?
I've received several free books over the years, there's no need for him to post a link.
I also am upset that Mason continually promotes his books on the website he literally created to promote his books. At any rate, this sounds liker a good discussion for a 2+2 party line.
party lines used to also be called confs (conference calls) back in my hacking/AOL days. they were always free of charge (so i assume 1800-numbers) and really awkward for the most part.
It’s a hard pill to swallow when they used to be top of the food chain and now even drunk college bros and MAWGs are running them over
It's a hard pill to swallow when they used to be top of the food chain and now even drunk college bros and MAWGs are running them over
Mason was never a professional player. Sklansky won bracelets way way back. 15-20 years ago, he was a mid stakes mixed games player. He wasn't a top player like Johnny Chan or whatever.
To be precise, I'm a mathematician who always worked in the field of mathematical statistics who got interested in poker/gambling and began writing about it in the early1980s. This led to self-publishing in 1987 which led to our publishing company (that included this website in 1997).
To be precise, I'm a mathematician who always worked in the field of mathematical statistics who got interested in poker/gambling and began writing about it in the early1980s. This led to self-publishing in 1987 which led to our publishing company (that included this website in 1997).
Yes, that is consistent with your not being a professional player.
"Professional player" in this context does not mean a lot. In other endeavors where teaching/coaching/training is common, there is not necessarily any required qualification for a teacher to be a "professional player". Golf, for example. Many, if not most of the best golf teachers out there have never been "professional players". Sean McVay, arguably the best NFL coach at present, has never been a "professional player".
One could argue that there exist other qualities required to become a professional golfer or football player that don't exist in poker. That is, any good poker teacher/trainer/coach should be qualified as a "professional player". I'm not going to argue that but there seem to be several situations where that would not necessarily be the case.
Additionally, "professional player" means different things to different people. An individual who plays poker profitably does not necessarily qualify them to be a "professional player".
I have no idea if Mason considers himself to be a "professional player". In the big picture I don't believe it adds much to what he writes as being helpful or not. Either his books have merit or they do not.
It wasn't about his books. Someone said they could no longer beat certain games. I don't think Mason ever tried to beat midstakes.
