RIP DAVID SKLANSKY
Always enjoyed the thought-provoking threads that he started on here, even though some of them went over my head. And of course the epic Theory of Poker. And he added terms like "Sklansky Bucks" forever to my vocabulary.Obviously a really smart guy who made a tremendous contribution to the thinking man side of poker and gambling in general. RIP.
skalnskys best addition, for me,
This shows a very fundamental misunderstanding of poker. Yes, there is math involved in poker. Actually very easy math. However the math in poker is a far distant 3rd in importance.
It is very true that if everyone understood the math, two blind deepstack games would never happen. However this misses the fact that people play poker for other reasons than to play it mathematically, optimally correct.
At it's most fundamental level poker is a social game. Period. Full stop.
Also, if everyone understood the math, almost every casino gambling game would not exist. Yet somehow the casinks still do exist and they just keep getting bigger and bigger.
Fact is, people like the thrill of gambling regardless of the math. Sure it isn't smart. Neither is putting a toxin (alcohol) in your body. Neither is doing drugs. Yet people continue to do all three. Maybe there is some benefit to them beyond the logical math.
There is far more to poker than math.
That is coming from a person who understands the math and respects the math behind poker.
Because you either make or repeat statements that aren't true, and these are things you seem to know nothing about.As for my books where I'm the only author, the total number sold is about 55,000. In addition, I've given away perhaps a couple of thousand of these. plus a bunch have been read through through Amazon's kindle reading program (and I don't have a good estimate of th
Maybe this isn't the right place to defend your books when the thread was about your deceased colleague?
That matched my limited observation. He did not seem mentally resilient and was easy to read. You could just see what he was thinking. The fact that he was thinking put him ahead of lots of people, but still...
Barry Greenstein has an anecdote in his excellent poker book. He sat on the right of the maniac (limit hold'em)and would complete the small blind only to fold when it came back to him facing reraises. Barry wrote something like I was surprised the player, a famous poker author and supposedly a winning player, had so little table feel. It's been said that author was Sklansky.
Barry Greenstein has an anecdote in his excellent poker book. He sat on the right of the maniac (limit hold'em)and would complete the small blind only to fold when it came back to him facing reraises. Barry wrote something like I was surprised the player, a famous poker author and supposedly a winning player, had so little table feel. It's been said that author was Sklansky.
Sklansky was the little blind or big blind?
He may have meant the SB in a limped pot. Maybe there were a significant number of limped pots. It doesn't make sense that the maniac would be limp/reraising every hand UTG. Also, after putting in 2 bets, the BB would clearly have pot odds to put in a 3rd bet. Folding at that point in a 3! pot would be insane.
Seems weird, as calling a 1/2 bet in the SB is almost the same as calling a raise after putting in one bet in limit.
Can't believe there has been nearly 140 posts and no one has linked to the funniest post made about David - https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
Your father was a genius at poker, but your words show you to be a genius of humanity.Just with that one post you deserve all of the best. I am very sorry for your loss. I am friends with someone whose father was a famous mixed bag of massive intelligence and, uh, dysfunction all at the same time. That was his public persona, but to my friend he was just "dad".I am sorry you lo
You are smart man and to be feared! Highly respect what you posted!
I remember using my new fangled cell phone camera and taking a photo of this dude at Greektown casino in Detroit reading TOP between hands.
Ahh potato quality
Barry Greenstein has an anecdote in his excellent poker book. He sat on the right of the maniac (limit hold'em)and would complete the small blind only to fold when it came back to him facing reraises. Barry wrote something like I was surprised the player, a famous poker author and supposedly a winning player, had so little table feel. It's been said that author was Sklansky.
I remember one stud hi hand with Dave where I was on the steal with an A door, picked up a 4-flush (2 buried) on 5th, random split low pair on 6th and made trips on the river. He'd put in the raise on 5th and I of course popped him back on the river. I flipped the hand without shuffling the hole cards intentionally, and it was like something in his brain just snapped. You could see it. I asked the poker gods to kindly give me split aces on the next hand, because I knew he'd pay off anything. The gods obliged, and so did Dave.
The funny thing is I absolutely learned what a semi-bluff and implied odds are from him...
I remember one stud hi hand with Dave where I was on the steal with an A door, picked up a 4-flush (2 buried) on 5th, random split low pair on 6th and made trips on the river. He'd put in the raise on 5th and I of course popped him back on the river. I flipped the hand without shuffling the hole cards intentionally, and it was like something in his brain just snapped. You co
So David also tilted? He had his faults also in poker. Remember him telling stud wasn't his game because he didn't have photographic memory.
Yeah, but sort of my brain's broke tilt not the classic steaming.
For that matter he likely should have checked behind the river assuming he had 2 pair below aces up. No sense betting into a likely draw/garbage. Deny me the extra 2 big bets of implied odds.
IMO any sort of photographic/eidetic memory is overrated for stud.
Barry Greenstein has an anecdote in his excellent poker book. He sat on the right of the maniac (limit hold'em)and would complete the small blind only to fold when it came back to him facing reraises. Barry wrote something like I was surprised the player, a famous poker author and supposedly a winning player, had so little table feel. It's been said that author was Sklansky.
I've always wondered that. I mean, there weren't a lot of "well-known poker authors" in 2005.
Small blind. The player on his left was raising every single time it was his action, so other players at the table started limping strong hands so they could 3-bet once they were raised and try to knock out dead money.
Seven orbits in a row the SB completed, the BB made his usual raise, a limper 3-bet, and the SB folded.
And Barry's story in the book was wondering how someone who was "a well-known author and supposedly winning player" could just give away 3.5 big blinds that way because he somehow wasn't aware that this dynamic was going on, and didn't figure it out for the seven orbits it went on.
Barry Greenstein has an anecdote in his excellent poker book. He sat on the right of the maniac (limit hold'em)and would complete the small blind only to fold when it came back to him facing reraises. Barry wrote something like I was surprised the player, a famous poker author and supposedly a winning player, had so little table feel. It's been said that author was Sklansky.
I no longer have Barry’s book and I don’t recall that anecdote, but it’s certainly peculiar considering it was LHE at least 20-40 or higher over twenty years ago.
And yeah “a famous poker author & supposedly a winning player” has maybe ever fit three people at most: Sklansky, Mason, and Caro. Even with 2-3 blinds it’s bizarre.
"Supposedly a winning player" sounds more like McEvoy, Mason or Gary Carson. I don't think Sklansky would be described that way in 2005. I also don't think Sklansky would miss something like that. He was really good at exploits. Also, Sklansky played more mixed rather than limit holdem.
"Supposedly a winning player" sounds more like McEvoy, Mason or Gary Carson. I don't think Sklansky would be described that way in 2005. I also don't think Sklansky would miss something like that. He was really good at exploits. Also, Sklansky played more mixed rather than limit holdem.
In a $400-$800 Limit Hold'em game, I sat to the right of a player who was a well-known poker author and supposedly a winning player. On his left was a 'maniac' who was raising almost every hand. The author was in the small blind. Time after time, he would complete the small blind, the maniac would raise, and a player who had limped would then three-bet. The author would then fold his hand. He did this seven times in one hour. He was literally throwing away half a bet every time. I was amazed that someone who had written so much about the game didn't have the table feel to realize what was happening right in front of him.
no dog in this fight, have no idea who it is nor does a single anecdote, an anonymous one at that, mean anything
but i do want to say that "supposedly a winning player" isn't the mocking tone deuceblocker interprets it to be - this wouldn't have even registered to greenstein as anything unusual if he otherwise didn't think that this guy knew a lot, hence why it was so confusing to him and stuck with him enough to be included in his book
no dog in this fight, have no idea who it is nor does a single anecdote, an anonymous one at that, mean anything but i do want to say that "supposedly a winning player" isn't the mocking tone deuceblocker interprets it to be - this wouldn't have even registered to greenstein as anything unusual if he otherwise didn't think that this guy knew a lot, hence why it was so confusing
Without knowing for sure, this sounds like Caro to me. He would sometimes sit down in these very big games and he was known to make odd plays. Ray Zee also played in these very large games (for the time period) but I highly doubt he would play as described, plus he was highly respected as a successful player at these stakes and wouldn’t be described as a book author.
I am surprised Caro would do that, given he wrote a book on tells, so should be aware of what was going on. His chapter on 5 card draw in Super System was also exploit oriented.
Not sure Sklansky played quite that high. The authors I mentioned were all midstakes limit holdem players who wouldn't be in a game like that.
Who would have guessed his final major public appearance would be ****ing pawn stars
no dog in this fight, have no idea who it is nor does a single anecdote, an anonymous one at that, mean anything but i do want to say that "supposedly a winning player" isn't the mocking tone deuceblocker interprets it to be - this wouldn't have even registered to greenstein as anything unusual if he otherwise didn't think that this guy knew a lot, hence why it was so confusing
I played a lot of golf with barry and heard him talk about poker and even poker books/authors. I seriously doubt he was taking about sklansky here. This also doesnt match the way Ive ever seen sklansky play limit holdem which was insanely/overly tight and aggressive. He would have never thought twice about folding those small blinds all day and he would have picked up on limp rr himself very quickly.
I played a lot of golf with barry and heard him talk about poker and even poker books/authors. I seriously doubt he was taking about sklansky here. This also doesnt match the way Ive ever seen sklansky play limit holdem which was insanely/overly tight and aggressive. He would have never thought twice about folding those small blinds all day and he would have picked up on limp r
Don't forget the possibility that Barry was misremembering, exaggerating, or simply making up the entire story for his book.
no dog in this fight, have no idea who it is nor does a single anecdote, an anonymous one at that, mean anything but i do want to say that "supposedly a winning player" isn't the mocking tone deuceblocker interprets it to be - this wouldn't have even registered to greenstein as anything unusual if he otherwise didn't think that this guy knew a lot, hence why it was so confusing
Where'd you get the version of the story you quoted? In my copy of Barry's book, it was a 75/150 LHE game (and the text from yours doesn't match the book either).
Also, Barry said this was in 1992.
Where'd you get the version of the story you quoted? In my copy of Barry's book, it was a 75/150 LHE game (and the text from yours doesn't match the book either).
Also, Barry said this was in 1992.
oh wow, i googled "barry greenstein's ace on the river passage about a well known poker author folding in the sb" and gemini gave me that passage as the top result
i didn't bother checking to see if it were hallucinated or not because i hadn't fed it any details about about the play but it seemingly nailed those and thus i thought it got it accurately
just tried again by re-opening it from browser history and got this
just for funsies tried again and got a very obviously hallucinated one
either way, i'm very sorry for having posted an ai hallucination, the specifics felt so accurate in relation to the discussion that i assumed it was a faithful quote - i work with ai in my job, i should have known better
