Sklansky and Malmuth
Jim Geary
someone else) wrote:
> For years David stood virtually alone on the poker writers pedestal.
> He seems unable or unwilling to now share that pedestal with other
> deserving writers. Shame on him.
On 23 Sep 2000, Dsklansky wrote:
> "there are
> about 1000 people who could do a very good job of writng about
> poker but less than ten actually do write. The other writers
> do not come from this 1000 and thus their stuff should be read
> with caution (although everyone of course has a right to write.)"
<what I might say here is left as an exercise for the reader.>
Jim Geary
jimgeary.com - something to bore everyone
Pokerkat1
years. They freely state that no other poker writer has anything much
worthwhile to say unless it is them or someone writing for 2 plus 2. It has
been their constant attacks on writers often taking things out of context that
leads me to believe that their own "fuzzy thinking" blinds them.
Other writers, myself included, give them credit where credit is due. I often
recommend their books to others. This is a concept that seems completely
foreign to them. I have now come to the inescapable conclusion that they do
virtually nothing out of conviction. I have known David for over 20 years and
have seen him deteriorate to an unprincipled egomaniac who thinks he is never
EVER wrong. He obsesses about things that go back more years than I can
remember. I have also known Mason for a number of years. To list the number
of ridiculous things he has stated, just in the last year, would take too much
space for this post. I think that Mason is genuinely unbalanced. I believe
they are both almost totally self-serving.
For years David stood virtually alone on the poker writers pedestal. He seems
unable or unwilling to now share that pedestal with other deserving writers.
Shame on him.
Tom McEvoy
Tom McE...@Bigplanet.com
Gary Carson
very top poker players (whatever that might mean) should be giving advise
about poker.
If that's true, doesn't it follow that, at least, only the competent writers
should be allowed to write?
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Jim Geary wrote in message ...
>On 26 Sep 2000, Pokerkat1(Tom McEvoy -- funny, I thought it was
>someone else) wrote:
>
>> For years David stood virtually alone on the poker writers pedestal.
>> He seems unable or unwilling to now share that pedestal with other
>> deserving writers. Shame on him.
>
Gerson Mosbacher
then either of the other two....i've read every book out and only after
reading your books, especially tournament poker which you co-authored
with tj...did my game really improve....i've played in over 70
tourns[lots of 20,000 ones] this year and made final table 30% of
time....years ago i read all of davids stuff but i never "got it" I
feel like i owe you $$$$$.PS...i'm the fellow who jumped on your case
about religion in a poker card player article.....gerson in
phoenix....Casino Az. perm building opened tonight....nicest casino i'v
ever been in including Bellagio...come visit...
JP Massar
>Sklansky & Malmuth have considered themselves poker's foremost theorists for
>years. They freely state that no other poker writer has anything much
>worthwhile to say unless it is them or someone writing for 2 plus 2.
This last statement is contradicted by Malmuth's own writing, pp.
280-295 of 'Gambling Theory and Other Topics'.
On a scale of 1-10, Malmuth rates some non 2+2 books a 10, and others
a 9. These include
Super System
Caro's Book of Tells
Caro's Fundamental Secrets of Poker
Nesmith's Poker Strategy, Winning with Game Theory
I believe he has also given what would be a 9 or 10 on this scale
to Ciaffone's & Rubin's No Limit book (had it existed at the time
these reviews were written)
It may be true that they believe that most poker writers have nothing
worthwile to say; that is left as a judgement call to the reader.
But what you said is definitely not supported by their own writings.
Dsklansky
>years. They freely state that no other poker writer has anything much
>worthwhile to say unless it is them or someone writing for 2 plus 2.
Everyone knows that that is an exaggeration. We have virtually no problem with
Roy Cooke's excellent writings. We have only occasional problems with Mike
Caro's and Bob Ciaffone's stuff and almost always recommend it. Furthermore
among names like Huck Seed, Mark Weitzman, Bobby Hoff, Jay Heimowitz, Chip
Reese, Tom Weideman, Dan Hanson, Jim Geary, Tom Hood, David Hayden, David Grey,
and about 50 others, there are at least 10 who we know could write stuff that
rivals what we have written.
> It has
>been their constant attacks on writers often taking things out of context
>that
>leads me to believe that their own "fuzzy thinking" blinds them.
We do not purposely take things out of context to make other writer's errors
look worse than are. Occasionally that may be the inadvertant result. However
the books we criticize have plenty of irrefutable errors in any context.
>Other writers, myself included, give them credit where credit is due. I
>often
>recommend their books to others. This is a concept that seems completely
>foreign to them.
But we do give credit where we think it is due. I already mentioned that above.
The problem is that we genuinely believe that most other writers are well below
the competence that people would expect of someone who writes about a difficult
field. The reason is because this is one of those few fields where the vast
majority of the best thinkers and practitioners of the subject (eg those named
above) do not have the inclination to write about it. (Options trading may be
another example).
That leaves the field somewhat open for second stringers and worse. Now what I
just said may be wrong. But it is what we genuinely believe.
As for the credit you give us, I think it is basically only as
mathmeticians. You have specifically referred to us in you books, sometimes by
name and sometimes not as being far too mathematically oriented. Your book
called our play with T9 "sheer folly". Ok You have a right to your opinion and
a right to write about it. So do we.
> I have now come to the inescapable conclusion that they do
>virtually nothing out of conviction.
This is simply untrue. You believe this because you find it hard to believe
that we really could think our stuff is that much better (or that some other
writer's stuff is really that bad.) But for reasons I won't go into here, we
really do.
>I have known David for over 20 years and
>have seen him deteriorate to an unprincipled egomaniac who thinks he is never
>EVER wrong.
I make careless errors. When I offer something as merely opinion I am sometimes
wrong. However when I say something about poker with certainty, you better
believe that it is virtually never wrong. There are two reasons. Firstly I
understand this stuff better than anybody. Ask Chip Reese, David Hayden or
Bobby Hoff if you don't believe me. Just as important is the fact that if I am
not sure I am correct about an important conceptual poker situation, I won't
write it. (I'm not talking about things like JT vs KT.)
>He obsesses about things that go back more years than I can
>remember.
I assume you are talking about your tacky actions to beat me out of $200 on
that tournament bet. You never apologized. But that only allowed me to not feel
bad about exposing the errors in your book. I believe people on this and our
forum have a right to know about them. In fact they were originally brought up
and discussed by others first.
>For years David stood virtually alone on the poker writers pedestal. He
>seems
>unable or unwilling to now share that pedestal with other deserving writers.
>Shame on him.
Look, almost all other writers are horribly prone to irrefutable logical or
mathematical errors or ommissions when they discuss specific poker situations.
If you can read players well you can overcome thes flaws when playing but not
when teaching. Readers have a rifght to expect that those who they count on
fully understand probability and syllogisms. Those who think they should join
me on that pedestal or knock me off of it need to be willing to debate me about
poker situations in a non vague way (eg "it depends").
Gary Carson
that to what people who've actually read it have said about it.
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
JP Massar wrote in message <39d03d06...@news.mindspring.com>...
Sundance1
which he wrote a very complimentary forewoard.)
It's not htat he's unwilling to share -- I think in his mind (perhaps
Correctly?) he's picky about with whom he shares.
John B/Sundance1
Gary Carson
You aren't talking about things like KT v. JT. Of course not, you never
want to talk about the thing's you're just wrong about. You much prefer to
just pretend they don't exist. You're empty of intellectual content.
You're a fraud -- a bag of tricks.
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Dsklansky wrote in message <20000926022813...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...
Mason Malmuth
any way which are rated by me as an 8 or higher. (See the 1999 edition of
Gambling Theory and Other Topics.)
Super/System — A Course in Power Poker (10) by Doyle Brunson
Caro's Book of Tells (9) by Mike Caro
Caro's Advanced Strategies for Draw Poker (10) by Mike Caro
11 Days to 7-Stud Success (8) by Mike Caro
12 Days to Hold 'em Success (8) by Mike Caro
Mike Caro's Fundamental Secrets of Poker (9) by Mike Caro
Mike Caro's Guide to Doyle Brunson's Super/System — A Course in Power Poker —
(8) by Mike Caro
The Biggest Game in Town (8) by A. Alvarez
Play Poker, Quit Work, and Sleep Till Noon (9) by John Fox
Omaha Hold 'em Poker (The Action Game) (9) by Bob Ciaffone
Improve Your Poker (9) by Bob Ciaffone
Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker (10) by Stewart Reuben & Bob Ciaffone
Poker Faces — The Life and Work of Professional Card Players (9) by David Hayano
Poker Strategy, Winning With Game Theory (9) by Nesmith Ankeny
Total Poker (8) by David Spanier
Winning Poker Systems (9) by Norman Zadeh
The Education of a Poker Player (8) by Herbert O. Yardley
Texas Bill's Winning a Living, The Professional's Guide to Poker Profits (8) by
William Melms
Poker, Sex, & Dying (8) by Juel Anderson
Hold 'em's Odds Book (8) by Mike Petriv
Roy Cooke's book was written after these ratings were done. If I was to evaluate
it today it would probably receive a 9.
For reference, here are four books which received either a 1 or a 2:
Hold 'em Poker for Winners (1) by Carl Anderson
Poker: 101 Ways to Win (1) by Andy Nelson
Winner's Guide to Texas Hold 'em Poker (2) by Ken Warren
Caro's Professional Hold 'em Report (2) by Mike Caro
And finally, here are my ratings for those books that Tom McEvoy is either the
author or a co-author:
How to Win at Poker Tournaments (6) by Tom McEvoy
Championship No-Limit & Pot-Limit Hold 'em (6) by T. J. Cloutier with Tom McEvoy
Championship Stud: Seven-Card Stud; Stud 8/or Better; Razz (1 for the stud
section and 7 for everything else) by Dr. Max Stern, Linda Johnson, and Tom
McEvoy
Tournament Poker (7) by Tom McEvoy
Championship Hold 'em by Cloutier and McEvoy was published after the 1999 edition
of my Gambling Theory book, thus it does not include a review of it. However, if
I was to write that review today, I would give it either a 1 or a 2
Best wishes,
Mason Malmuth
Gary Carson
Was he paid for the forward?
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Sundance1 wrote in message <20000926030856...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
Phat Mack
importance, or do you think it has relevance to modern poker?
In article <39D049D1...@twoplustwo.com>, Mason Malmuth
<masonm...@twoplustwo.com> wrote:
Gary Carson
because it was a useful book (it didn't stat in print long), or it's
relevance to poker, or historical importance. Being "correct" is something
that gets a high rating from Mason. Being clear or being useful are not
concepts that Mason has a deep understanding off.
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Phat Mack wrote in message ...
Barbara Yoon
>>> Sklansky & Malmuth have considered themselves poker's
>>> foremost theorists for years. They freely state that no other
>>> poker writer has anything much worthwhile to say unless it is
>>> on writers... ...they do virtually nothing out of conviction.
>>> I have known David for over 20 years and have seen him
>>> deteriorate to an unprincipled egomaniac who thinks he is
>>> more years than I can remember. I have also known Mason...
>>> ...the number of ridiculous things he has stated, just in the last
>>> year... Mason is genuinely unbalanced. ...they are both almost
>>> totally self-serving.
Sundance1 (John B):
>> David in hte past has recommened both Super System and
>> Roy Cooke's book (tho which he wrote a very complimentary
>> forewoard.) It's not htat he's unwilling to share -- I think in his
>> mind (perhaps Correctly?) he's picky about with whom he shares.
Gary Carson:
> David was a contributor to Super System?
> Was he paid for the forward?
Yeah...Doyle "Texas Dolly" Brunson's book, "Super/System"
-- the table of contents lists, "David 'Einstein' Sklansky"...
And on page 264, Sklansky himself brags about some simple
little math calculation that he did, "You might be interested in
knowing that you can count on one hand the number of people
who know how to make this calculation."
John Harkness
wrote:
Ddin't Sklansky post earlier that Malmuth did most of the actual
writing.
Scary, when you've so little confidence in your ability that you hire
Mason to write for you.
John Harkness
Iceman
> Mason to write for you.
Mason had a higher verbal score.
Terrence Chan
Okay, all the SAT stuff confuses this Canadian. I know the SAT is
some sort of standardised test on math/English abilities which are
given to high school students. How much does it cost to take, and
have graded? What types of math and English proficiency are tested?
Does everyone on this NG have a perfect score or something? Do you
need a perfect score to get into the name schools in the US?
--
Terrence Chan
http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand/
"It profiteth the wise, to be deemed a fool."
-Oceanus, Aeschylus' _Prometheus Bound_
Dsklansky
>-- the table of contents lists, "David 'Einstein' Sklansky"...
>And on page 264, Sklansky himself brags about some simple
>little math calculation that he did, "You might be interested in
>knowing that you can count on one hand the number of people
>who know how to make this calculation."
>
vince_...@my-deja.com
"genuinely unbalanced", "egomaniac", "obsesses".
When are we going to see the "Tom McEvoy, Psychological Primer"?
Obviously you feel as equally at home in that field as you do in
poker. Oh, wait, you forgot "unscrupulous". Well, maybe not. After
all, you weren't describing yourself, now were you.
Vince
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
beando...@my-deja.com
terren...@telus.net (Terrence Chan) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:50:08 GMT, Iceman <drub...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Scary, when you've so little confidence in your ability that you
hire
> >> Mason to write for you.
> >
> >Mason had a higher verbal score.
>
> Okay, all the SAT stuff confuses this Canadian. I know the SAT is
> some sort of standardised test on math/English abilities which are
> given to high school students. How much does it cost to take, and
> have graded? What types of math and English proficiency are tested?
You can check out the source at http://www.collegeboard.org/
> Does everyone on this NG have a perfect score or something?
Unlikely. Particularly in the verbal portion.
> Do you need a perfect score to get into the name schools in the US?
Hardly - the max in each test (math/verbal) is 800, at least that's
what it was when I took it (1985). I got in to the Engineering school at
UC-Berkeley with a 670/650 math/verbal split...far from perfect. There
was no clause in my letter of admittance that I had "just made it" or
anything like that :)
IMHO, the SAT was more of a test of mental endurance than anything else
- consider waking up early on a Saturday morning when you're a senior in
high school...you've subjected your maturing body to too much alcohol
the night before, and now you're in a cold classroom at a local college,
trying to fill in bubbles and keep the test booklet from falling down
while sitting cross-wise in a lefty desk.
One reason I think touting one's own scores is misleading is that you
are free to retake the test if you are not satisfied with your scores. I
met several people at Cal that had done just that...it hardly mattered
then, and doesn't matter now.
MSA1213
>Okay, all the SAT stuff confuses this Canadian. I know the SAT is
>some sort of standardised test on math/English abilities which are
>given to high school students. How much does it cost to take, and
>have graded? What types of math and English proficiency are tested?
>Does everyone on this NG have a perfect score or something? Do you
>need a perfect score to get into the name schools in the US?
>
>
>--
>Terrence Chan
Terrence
The SAT is an aptitude test taken for college admission. Used to be required by
nearly all good schools.
A verbal test and a quantitative test.(Tests separate from these are used to
measure specific subject mastery (achievement).)
Each graded on a scale of 200 to 800.
In David's day, probably cost on order of magnitude of $50 to take.
Should have had an algebra course and a geometry course before taking it.
Few on this NG would have perfect scores especially on the verbal. Perfect
scores on both were a great rarity among students in a school as selective as
Harvard. I doubt that 5% of the students there had an 800 on the quantitative.
1 wrong answer out of maybe 80 could give you a lower score as it did to me (a
math major with an A- average). Books show the average figures by school, but
I'd guess no school has an average above 1350 combined unless the tests have
gotten much easier.
marc
John Harkness
Chan) wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:50:08 GMT, Iceman <drub...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Scary, when you've so little confidence in your ability that you hire
>>> Mason to write for you.
>>
>>Mason had a higher verbal score.
>
>Okay, all the SAT stuff confuses this Canadian. I know the SAT is
>some sort of standardised test on math/English abilities which are
>given to high school students. How much does it cost to take, and
>have graded? What types of math and English proficiency are tested?
>Does everyone on this NG have a perfect score or something? Do you
>need a perfect score to get into the name schools in the US?
>
>
>--
>Terrence Chan
did you write the SACUs when you were finishing high school? Same
thing.
John Harkness
Lee Munzer
"Dsklansky" ...
Do you know if that's the same Dr. Alan Goldberg who wrote Sports Slump
Busting in 1997? He's 51 years old now.
Lee
hippiechuckI
said Hi. I am glad to see you posting here, as you probably have much
valuable stuff to stay, but why bother yourself with sklansky/badmouth
bashing? There are plenty of others on this forum that do that better
then you can. My advice is to get invloved in some basic
strategy/tactics thread that the dynamic duo gets wrong,and give them a
taste of thier own medicine. I have tried that a few times, and they
rarely respond. Perhaps because you are who you are , they will respond
to you. I rarely see you anymore, since I gave up tournaments, but I
will be in Reno in Jan. and I,ll see you then
Chuck
In article <20000926004857...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
poke...@aol.com (Pokerkat1) wrote:
--
I contradict myself? very well then I contradict
myself. I am large. I contain multitudes.
from WALT WHITMANS Leaves of Grass.
Badger
> Okay, all the SAT stuff confuses this Canadian.
Count your blessings.
>I know the SAT is
> some sort of standardised test on math/English abilities which are
> given to high school students. How much does it cost to take, and
> have graded? What types of math and English proficiency are tested?
> Does everyone on this NG have a perfect score or something? Do you
> need a perfect score to get into the name schools in the US?
SAT stands for "Scholastic Aptitude Test." It's not an intelligence test
but a test that measures one's ability to perform in school. Performing in
school is largely the ability to take tests. It has very little value as a
measure of intelligence, and is worthless in comparing one close score to
another (a 720 and 690 are no different).
I took the SAT three times in high school. Since I was 19, I do not believe
I ever heard the term "SAT" used in any conversation I had in any aspect of
my life (except for movies relating to teenagers) -- until coming to this
group, where one member inexplicably thinks its a test that measures
intelligence, and that its good at that, and that how a person did on that
test could have any merit or ability whatsoever to predict one's likely
poker success.
This SAT obsession is childish. Literally, it's a test for kids.
Barbara Yoon
> SAT stands for "Scholastic Aptitude Test." It's not an intelligence
> test but a test that measures one's ability to perform in school.
> Performing in school is largely the ability to take tests. It has very
> in high school. Since I was 19, I do not believe I ever heard the
> term "SAT" used in any conversation I had in any aspect of my life
> (except for movies relating to teenagers) -- until coming to this
> group, where one member inexplicably thinks its a test that measures
> merit or ability whatsoever to predict one's likely poker success.
> This SAT obsession is childish. Literally, it's a test for kids.
Yes...on the list of standard characteristics of a college freshman is,
"someone who still remembers his SAT scores"... And so of this
unnamed "obsessed/childish group member" here, at what age did
he take those tests, and how long ago was that?!
Jim Geary
scholastic chess player, winning several national championships,
and is as an adult rated over 2400. But he scored 1060. Very odd.
Jim Geary
jimgeary.com - something to bore everyone
On 27 Sep 2000, Dsklansky wrote:
>
> >SAT stands for "Scholastic Aptitude Test." It's not an intelligence test
> >but a test that measures one's ability to perform in school.
>
> This is simply wrong. Badger may be confusing the Aptitude test with theCollege
> Board Achievement Tests. Some people who perform well in school don't do that
> well on the SAT. Conversely some kids who who don't try hard in school and thus
> don't get real good grades, score high on the SAT.
>
> There is a high correlation between IQ and the SAT. Mensa accepts a total of
> about 1350 on the SAT in lieu of IQ scores. In other words Mensa believes that
> almost no one who scores this high wouldn't achieve their minimum IQ score of
> 132 or so.
>
> Put another way, virtually no person who scores above 1500 total has an IQ
> below 145 and virtually no one (whose native language is English) who scores
> below 1100 has an IQ above 125 or so. The SAT and GRE Aptidtude test are not
> perfect measures of intelligence, I agree. But just as your hundred yard dash
> speed is a good predictor of your broad jump distance, so is the SAT or GRE
> (or LSAT for that matter) a good predictor of your thinking ability.
>
>
>
>
Gary Carson
gets wrong more than twice?
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Dsklansky wrote in message <20000926224618...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...
>> My advice is to get invloved in some basic
>>strategy/tactics thread that the dynamic duo gets wrong,and give them a
>>taste of thier own medicine. I have tried that a few times, and they
>>rarely respond. Perhaps because you are who you are , they will
>
>You bet we will. $20 says it won't happen more than once or twice, if at
all.
>As for your strategy criticisms, I don't remember ever seeing them. Repeat
them
>please and I will respond.
Gary Carson
>
>>SAT stands for "Scholastic Aptitude Test." It's not an intelligence test
>>but a test that measures one's ability to perform in school.
>
>This is simply wrong. Badger may be confusing the Aptitude test with
theCollege
>Board Achievement Tests. Some people who perform well in school don't do
that
>well on the SAT. Conversely some kids who who don't try hard in school and
thus
>don't get real good grades, score high on the SAT.
It's a predictor of success in college. In your case David, it was a bad
predictor. Statistically, it's a good enough predictor but it was never
intended to discriminate between small differences in scores in the tails.
The difference between a 680 and an 800 in terms of the expected performance
in college is nothing.
>There is a high correlation between IQ and the SAT.
So? That doesn't mean SAT measures IQ. Maybe if you'd have stayed in
college you'd have gotten a better understanding of what correlation is.
> Mensa accepts a total of
>about 1350 on the SAT in lieu of IQ scores. In other words Mensa believes
that
>almost no one who scores this high wouldn't achieve their minimum IQ score
of
>132 or so.
LOL. Mensa. LOL
Mensa falsely claims that their membership is the top 2% in intelligence.
But, they screen members by requiring a 98 percentile score on any one of
dozens of tests that correlate with IQ (some correlate much more weakly than
others). All these tests have some degree of measurement variance. So,
even if the tests all correlated strongly with IQ, the selection criteria of
MENSA would end up allowing membership to something like the top 15% in IQ,
not top 2%. But, they seem to think it's very important to claim the
exclusive 2% group anyway. Who does that remind me of?
>Put another way, virtually no person who scores above 1500 total has an IQ
>below 145 and virtually no one (whose native language is English) who
scores
>below 1100 has an IQ above 125 or so. The SAT and GRE Aptidtude test are
not
>perfect measures of intelligence, I agree. But just as your hundred yard
dash
>speed is a good predictor of your broad jump distance, so is the SAT or GRE
>(or LSAT for that matter) a good predictor of your thinking ability.
Because MENSA says so? LOL.
What a joke you've become, David.
Gary Carson
>
>
Patrick G. Bridges
dsklansky> I believe Chess players are an aberration. Their talent
dsklansky> is not exactly intelligence. Bridge players and
dsklansky> backgammon players are better examples.
So what talent *is* required for good Chess play, and play in related
games, if not intelligence?
I don't play Chess that much, but I have been working at becoming a
tolerable Go (http://www.usgo.org) player for the last 2-3 years. I'd
say that many of the skills of those two games are similar. The direct
computation of probabilities required for good Bridge and Backgammon
(and Poker) play isn't required or particularly useful for either Go
or Chess. Visualization, pattern recognition, in-depth reading and
analysis of the tactical and strategic consequences of multiple
possibilities, and positional analysis based on a large number of hard
to quantify factors are the skills at the heart of both Go and
Chess. Are you perhaps saying that these abilities have little to do
with intelligence, compared to, say, the ability to munge
probabilities in your head?
-Patrick Bridges
BTW - Found 7-card Stud for Advanced Players over the
weekend. Interesting material. I don't play poker much, being a poor
PhD student with little spare time, but looks like a useful expansion
on many of the basics that West laid down in the first 7-card book I
read.
--
*** Patrick G. Bridges bri...@cs.arizona.edu ***
*** #include <std/disclaimer.h> ***
Dsklansky
>SAT stands for "Scholastic Aptitude Test." It's not an intelligence test
>but a test that measures one's ability to perform in school.
This is simply wrong. Badger may be confusing the Aptitude test with theCollege
Board Achievement Tests. Some people who perform well in school don't do that
well on the SAT. Conversely some kids who who don't try hard in school and thus
don't get real good grades, score high on the SAT.
There is a high correlation between IQ and the SAT. Mensa accepts a total of
about 1350 on the SAT in lieu of IQ scores. In other words Mensa believes that
almost no one who scores this high wouldn't achieve their minimum IQ score of
132 or so.
Put another way, virtually no person who scores above 1500 total has an IQ
Dsklansky
Dsklansky
>scholastic chess player, winning several national championships,
>and is as an adult rated over 2400. But he scored 1060. Very odd.
I believe Chess players are an aberration. Their talent is not exactly
intelligence. Bridge players and backgammon players are better examples.
Gary Carson
require intelligence" is that Sklansky has no skills in Activity X. The
only thing you can conclude from Sklansky saying "Activity Y requires
intelligence" is that Sklansky thinks he has skills in Activity Y.
Sklansky is essentially the ultimimate sophomoric deep thinker.
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Patrick G. Bridges wrote in message ...
Phat Mack
written but seems to cover draw poker only.
In article <8qqc65$4ro$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Gary Carson"
<garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> > On 26 Sep 2000 04:48:57 GMT, poke...@aol.com (Pokerkat1) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Sklansky & Malmuth have considered themselves poker's foremost
> >> > >theorists for
> >> > >years. They freely state that no other poker writer has anything
> >> > >much
> >> > >worthwhile to say unless it is them or someone writing for 2 plus
> >> > >2.
> >> >
Badger
>
> >SAT stands for "Scholastic Aptitude Test." It's not an intelligence test
> >but a test that measures one's ability to perform in school.
>
> This is simply wrong. Badger may be confusing the Aptitude test with
theCollege
> Board Achievement Tests.
What is "wrong"? That the SAT is named the "Scholastic Aptitude Test"?
No... that can't be it. So you are saying it is an intelligence test,
rather than test of scholastic aptitude?
Even if you were right, even if they went and renamed the test to fit your
peculiar worldview, it's still a test for kids. It has zero application for
adults, except that a smart kid is more likely to be a smart adult.
Sean Duffy
<garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>David was a contributor to Super System?
>
>Was he paid for the forward?
I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but in the 15% or so chance
you're not, or anyone else cares, David wrote the section on Stud
Hi/Lo no qualifer.
-Sean
Gary Carson
that he hadn't written that Sklansky has recommened. I was just pointing
out that all that meant was that David would be glad to offer a
recommendation in return for a few bucks.
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Sean Duffy wrote in message <98h3tscffr6t9rj00...@4ax.com>...
Michael
this newsgroup is turning into the "Jerry Springer" of the internet. That
being said, I can't wait for the next catfight. Mike Minetti
roGER
I'm also in disagreement with David and some other people, as I believe there may well be a similarly rare gift for poker. I'm not saying that most great poker players aren't clever, I'm suggesting that a very small number of them may have an innate "gift" or "talent" or whatever for the game and this is a separate ability from their general intelligence (or otherwise!).
None of the above points invalidates the fact that most good and great chess players are pretty clever people - just wander into any chess club in any counrty and you'll see what I mean. I also believe that poker is game where high IQ is a great asset.
- roGER
Barbara Yoon
>> ...why bother yourself with sklansky/badmouth bashing? My advice
>> is to get invloved in some basic strategy/tactics thread that the
>> dynamic duo gets wrong,and give them a taste of thier own
>> medicine. I have tried that a few times, and they rarely respond.
Dsklansky:
> You bet we will. $20 says it won't happen more than once or twice,
> if at all. As for your strategy criticisms, I don't remember ever seeing
> them. Repeat them please and I will respond.
OK...let's start with the main S&M book for more than a decade,
on hold'em starting hands, rating 4-3-suited better than 5-3-suited,
which is, no 'ifs/ands/buts,' absolutely WRONG!!
Gary Carson
I haven't lived in a trailer park for near 15 years now. Ten years in a
trailer on it's own 7 acres of fire ants, and I've had a girlfriend with her
own double wide for five years now.
Of course, we've got a couple of guys from College Station on this
newsgroup. That's Jerry Springer territory.
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Michael wrote in message ...
Jonathan Kaplan
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Jerry Springer my ass.
> ....and I've had a girlfriend with her
> own double wide for five years now.
>
uh, Gary, is that a double wide trailer, or a double wide girlfriend?
big teasing grin.
sorry, dude, couldnt resist,
in the "springer" vein.
Jonathan
--
no matter where you go, there you are...
Eric Taylor
: So what talent *is* required for good Chess play, and play in related
: games, if not intelligence?
the skill required for good chess playing is a pure visual skill, both
good analytical visual skills and memory for visual processes.
someone with the right type of brain for chess for instance will be
able to spread out a jigsaw puzzle face up, mix it up, and then solve
the thing in his head without moving a piece. he will be able to pick
up a mixed-up rubic's cube for the very first time in his life and
solve it 2 or 3 minutes later. People like Fischer or Kasparov have
brains like this.
poker requires quite different skills, one of them the ability to read
your opponent's mind from his or her body language.
i wouldn't try to confuse any of these skills with intelligence, which
like the word "personality," is a vague word that is best used to
describe an ugly-looking homeboy you are trying to hook up with your
wife's sister.
"Well, he's a very intelligent person, I'm sure you'll like him."
--- edt
Jim Geary
> dsklansky> I believe Chess players are an aberration. Their talent
> dsklansky> is not exactly intelligence. Bridge players and
> dsklansky> backgammon players are better examples.
>
> So what talent *is* required for good Chess play, and play in related
> games, if not intelligence?
Not much. Go down to the student union and check out who
squeezed the 1990 regional college chess championship into
a busy poker schedule. ;)
A. Prock
>There is a high correlation between IQ and the SAT. Mensa accepts a total of
>about 1350 on the SAT in lieu of IQ scores. In other words Mensa believes that
>almost no one who scores this high wouldn't achieve their minimum IQ score of
>132 or so.
Mensa is an organization of poorly socialized twits who
think that test scores have something to do with intelligence.
If they realy knew anything about how tests work, they would
require multiple validations of the top 10% ranking. As it
stands, the actualy number of people in america who qualify
for Mensa is closer to 20%.
The only three people I've seen bring up Mensa as a serious
arbiter of intelligence now include:
1) Geena Davis - actress who probably thinks it means something
2) Asia Carerra - porn star who dropped out of an ivy league world
3) David Sklansky - poker player
- Andrew
Thats_hersh_foll...@tc.umn.edu
Gary Carson <garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>and I've had a girlfriend with her
>own double wide for five years now.
Gary, does "double wide" refer to her trailer or her...
Umm never mind. I'm not sure that I want to know.
Gary Carson
The hand groups are critically important to memorize, and you can't be a
winning poker player unless you have the hand rankings down pat.
But, if you don't get them right, it's okay because that's just clerical.
Or, at least that's what David said last time. Besides, the corrected that.
It only took 12 years, which is not long at all if you consider how
difficult it is to hire clerical staff in Las Vegas.
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Barbara Yoon wrote in message <8qt5kt$q5i$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>hippiechuckI:
>>> ...why bother yourself with sklansky/badmouth bashing? My advice
>>> is to get invloved in some basic strategy/tactics thread that the
>>> dynamic duo gets wrong,and give them a taste of thier own
>>> medicine. I have tried that a few times, and they rarely respond.
>>> Perhaps because you are who you are , they will respond to you.
>
>Dsklansky:
>> You bet we will. $20 says it won't happen more than once or twice,
>> if at all. As for your strategy criticisms, I don't remember ever seeing
>> them. Repeat them please and I will respond.
>
>
>
Gary Carson
went to graduate school at Cambridge, and got a Harvard Law Degree. He did
real well on standardized tests, although he flunked the Arizona Bar Exam
twice.
He joined Mensa because he thought it would be a good way to meet girls.
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
A. Prock wrote in message <8qt6p1$9...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...
>According to Dsklansky <dskl...@aol.com>:
>>There is a high correlation between IQ and the SAT. Mensa accepts a total
of
>>about 1350 on the SAT in lieu of IQ scores. In other words Mensa believes
that
>>almost no one who scores this high wouldn't achieve their minimum IQ score
of
>>132 or so.
>
Stephen Carbonara
Gary Carson wrote...
> The hand groups are critically important to memorize, and you can't be a
> winning poker player unless you have the hand rankings down pat.
Didn't you once participate in a thread and state that starting hand
charts/rankings were overrated? I think you said you only included them in
your book because players wanted them.
-Steve
Iceman
No chess is very strange in that you can occasionally get people who are only slightly above average IQ with staggering chess ability - I rember saving an article or two on this - I believe its been noted by people for at least 100 years... I'll try and dig the articles out tonight.I'm also in disagreement with David and some other people, as I believe there may well be a similarly rare gift for poker. I'm not saying that most great poker players aren't clever, I'm suggesting that a very small number of them may have an innate "gift" or "talent" or whatever for the game and this is a separate ability from their general intelligence (or otherwise!).
None of the above points invalidates the fact that most good and great chess players are pretty clever people - just wander into any chess club in any counrty and you'll see what I mean. I also believe that poker is game where high IQ is a great asset.
Someone with moderate abilities in most areas could be a world-class chess player if he had a great memory and the ability to mentally play out scenarios of several moves. Creativity, analytical skills, and abstract problem solving are worthless in chess.
Iceman
"Being a banal, joyless prick is a mistake many intermediate players
make."
-Paul Phillips
M
Iceman
<snip>
On the contrary, I believe all three of the above are quite valuable in chess, especially analytical skills and abstract problem solving.
Just by way of interest, I recall reading that Bobby Fischer's IQ was measured at 185, and Stu Ungar's was either 180 or 185.
M
"Iceman" <drub...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:39D2374A...@yahoo.com...
M
Gary Carson
But, maybe you won't consider that.
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Stephen Carbonara wrote in message <8qtarj$cn1$1...@murrow.corp.sgi.com>...
Stephen Carbonara
bite away at each other.
I'm glad my stupidity gave you an oportunity to take a bite out of me...not
that I didn't deserve it.
I am still puzzled by the "hand charts are not that valuable but, I included
them...." comment from a while back. Reading (abeit, out of context) your
post confused me even more. As if that were possible.
But, your point noted...I fold.
-Steve
Gary Carson <garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8qthlm$ib1$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Badger
news:8qt6p1$9...@spool.cs.wisc.edu...
> The only three people I've seen bring up Mensa as a serious
> arbiter of intelligence now include:
>
> 1) Geena Davis - actress who probably thinks it means something
> 2) Asia Carerra - porn star who dropped out of an ivy league world
> 3) David Sklansky - poker player
A serious dropoff in the babe quality between #2 and #3.
John Harkness
Not if you're one of the silicon based, multi-tentacled creatures from
Planet Malmuth.
John Harkness
Jaeger T. Cat
A. Prock <jeffy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>The only three people I've seen bring up Mensa as a serious
>arbiter of intelligence now include:
>
And thank god for that. That girl can _act_.
greatbrit
> ...The only three people I've seen bring up Mensa as a serious
> arbiter of intelligence now include:
>
> 1) Geena Davis - actress who probably thinks it means something
> 2) Asia Carerra - porn star who dropped out of an ivy league world
> 3) David Sklansky - poker player
Don't forget
2.1) Sharon Stone - actress with great leg crossing ability who claimed to be in
Mensa but had actually only sent off for (and not returned) the practice test.
David Frier
so it did) and went to a meeting to see if it was cool.
It wasn't.
End of MENSA adventure.
--David
"A. Prock" wrote:
> According to Dsklansky <dskl...@aol.com>:
> >There is a high correlation between IQ and the SAT. Mensa accepts a total of
> >about 1350 on the SAT in lieu of IQ scores. In other words Mensa believes that
> >almost no one who scores this high wouldn't achieve their minimum IQ score of
> >132 or so.
>
> Mensa is an organization of poorly socialized twits who
> think that test scores have something to do with intelligence.
> If they realy knew anything about how tests work, they would
> require multiple validations of the top 10% ranking. As it
> stands, the actualy number of people in america who qualify
> for Mensa is closer to 20%.
>
> The only three people I've seen bring up Mensa as a serious
> arbiter of intelligence now include:
>
> 1) Geena Davis - actress who probably thinks it means something
> 2) Asia Carerra - porn star who dropped out of an ivy league world
> 3) David Sklansky - poker player
>
> - Andrew
Lightning Roy
2-percentile." The 1350 SAT score does not correlate to IQ, it simply
indicates that you scored in the top 2%. This 2% even applies to IQ
tests. (DENSA members call themselves "2-percenters...")
There's a large variance in IQ tests, and for that reason DENSA takes the
2% position. Scoring a 140 on the CTMM, for example, qualifies you as
being in the 99th percentile (140 is also the highest score), while on
another test you might score in the high 150s and barely squeak into the
95th percentile.
I can barely balance my checkbook (well, I *really* can't), and probably
couldn't score over a 1000 aggregate on the SAT, but the *lowest* IQ score
I've ever recorded places me solidly in the 1-in-1000 bracket. I also
know people who could probably ace the SATs but would scarcely register as
"above average" in an IQ test.
---Doug (I know it's really MENSA, I just like calling it DENSA)
In article <20000926223505...@ng-bj1.aol.com>,
dskl...@aol.com (Dsklansky) wrote:
> There is a high correlation between IQ and the SAT. Mensa accepts a total of
> about 1350 on the SAT in lieu of IQ scores. In other words Mensa believes that
> almost no one who scores this high wouldn't achieve their minimum IQ score of
> 132 or so.
>
> Put another way, virtually no person who scores above 1500 total has an IQ
> below 145 and virtually no one (whose native language is English) who scores
> below 1100 has an IQ above 125 or so. The SAT and GRE Aptidtude test are not
> perfect measures of intelligence, I agree. But just as your hundred yard dash
> speed is a good predictor of your broad jump distance, so is the SAT or GRE
> (or LSAT for that matter) a good predictor of your thinking ability.
-----------------
macp...@pbsilink.com
macp...@inreach.com
Mark Boyer
Somebody has to pay for these poker losses.news:8qtah5$u31$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> A guy I know, flunked out of Texas A&M, graduated from Sam Houston State,
> went to graduate school at Cambridge, and got a Harvard Law Degree. He
did
> real well on standardized tests, although he flunked the Arizona Bar Exam
> twice.
>
> He joined Mensa because he thought it would be a good way to meet girls.
>
> --
> Gary Carson
> www.garycarson.com
>
> A. Prock wrote in message <8qt6p1$9...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...
> >According to Dsklansky <dskl...@aol.com>:
total
> of
> >>about 1350 on the SAT in lieu of IQ scores. In other words Mensa
believes
> that
> >>almost no one who scores this high wouldn't achieve their minimum IQ
score
> of
> >>132 or so.
> >
Zbigniew
joined rgp. Perfect scorers always let you know...eventually. It seems
a source of great pride and they can't keep it to themselves. People
who were put ahead a grade (or more) in school tend to suffer the same
"problem."
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:16:28 -0700, "Badger"
<stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I took the SAT three times in high school. Since I was 19, I do not believe
>I ever heard the term "SAT" used in any conversation I had in any aspect of
>my life (except for movies relating to teenagers) -- until coming to this
>group, where one member inexplicably thinks its a test that measures
>intelligence, and that its good at that, and that how a person did on that
>test could have any merit or ability whatsoever to predict one's likely
>poker success.
BJDocaz
Dear David,
Your responce to Tom's criticism was excellent.It was well thought out (as
usual )direct, and what I was most i mpressed with was its lack of antagonism.
It's easy to loose perspective when a debate becomes heated.
. I do have a question though about Mason's evaluation of TJ's and Tom's
new book. I will admit that though my poker back ground doesnt come close to
matching your's or Mason's, I do have over a year history of reviewing
medical literature. For five years I was the chairman of our medical
reacherch library (a job which must have been created in hell by Dante
himself) and I had to review much of the medical literature. In the scientific
literature (and poker like medicine is both an art and a science ) we divide
scientific texts into two catagogies practical and theoretical. For example
your work THE THEORY OF POKER would be classified as a theoretical work
While TJ's and Tom's CHAMPIONSHIP HOLDEM is almost a pure practical work . And
while TJs book might be criticized as a method book. their "method is a very
good one .And and many holdem players shall profit from it. It seems as if
there are two methods of learning and teaching, one by theorie (ie "by
calculating the ante to primary bet ratio so you can adjust your starting hand
requirements to reach the most optimal calling requiremenys"( a principle I
learned from you that has made me alot of money) and the method of learning by
playing a system ("when you call with tens and you are looking at a king and an
ace on the flop your hand is toilet paper and you should drop it--something
that TJ might say.But both tecniques are powerful tools for teaching. As you
know there are some players who find your writing confusing. Not because it is
confusing, but simply because they are unabel to convert theoretical principles
to practical situations For example one low limit player came to me and said"
Doc for some reason I can no longer beat my game , please help me".Its simple
I said they droped your ante so all you have to do is adjust your starting hand
requirements accordingly Well he looked at me like I was talking in "" Greek.
Ok I said " Just go back and only call with big pairs, live small pairs wiht an
ace or a king and big live flushes. Three hours later he came to my tabel and
said "you have made me a winner" The theoretical versus the practical. Here is
my prediction (and I am so seldom wrong) There are going to be two major works
that holdem players will depend on for the next 5 years Yours which is more
theoretical and TJ's and Toms which is more practical. And there is plenty of
room on the field for both.
I can not thank you enough for the work you have done. I have read your
holdem, stud and theory books at least ten times each and it was the knowledge
I learnd from them that let me start out my poker career as a winner and stay
one. Personal reguards to all at two plus two.
Most Sincerley Doc AZ
Dsklansky
>While TJ's and Tom's CHAMPIONSHIP HOLDEM is almost a pure practical work .
>And
>while TJs book might be criticized as a method book. their "method is a
>very
>good one .
I do not agree that their method is a good one.
BJDocaz
We are all intitled to our opinions.And for years I have respected yours.
And still do. But if your your opinion is correct. And Tom and TJs method
of play"is not a good one" But it is the method they use. How did Tom's flawed
method allow him to to be ranked 15 th on the list of top money winners. Or
how did it allow TJs to be so respected as a tournement player, and its use
allow him it to come in second at championships this year? It does make one
wonder.
On another topic I realy have enjoyed using 2plus 2s chat forum. Having a
seperate room for those players who are playing on the internet was an
excellent idea. Internet gambling is a whole new area with quique problems and
concerns and having a chat room dedicated only to that topic has brougth out
some excellent and informative discussion. Likewise the seperate discussion
groups on holdem and stud et all seem to stimulate a more focused debate.It
just makes sense that when you have 30 holdem players discussing" their game"
the discussions tend to get deeper and stay more focused. I just left the
new Casino Arirona poker room where their 50 tables have hardly had an open
seat since they opened. The popularity of our game is exploding.And that is do
in a large part to people like you who have taught the new players how to play
and enjoy the game we love.Thanks for sharing your opinion, and for all you
have done.
Personal Regards, Doc B AZ
Dsklansky
>of play"is not a good one" But it is the method they use. How did Tom's
>flawed
>method allow him to to be ranked 15 th on the list of top money
I wasn't speaking of their method of play. I was speaking of the method they
advocate in their book (a method that does much worse in side games than
tournaments).
Gary Carson
As many of us do in conversation between friends, we use hyperbole and
exaggeration to make a point. McEvoy and Cloutier do that. If you read the
book you'll see that pretty clearly.
So, what I've seen David claim the book advocates, the book simply doesn't
advocate. It's really that simple.
Maybe David is intentially misrepresenting the book. Maybe he just doesn't
really know how to read a book. I suspect that when David reads a poker
book written by someone else he simply scans the book, trying to find a
sentence that contains an "error". Using that method of reading you'll
often think you've found errors when in fact there is no error, or at least
no error that has any importance or significance.
I recently did a review of Championship Hold'em for PokerPages.com. I
expect it'll be out there soon, I'm not sure when.
Even though I never took the SAT, the one thing I can do better than
Sklansky is review a book.
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Dsklansky wrote in message <20000929082059...@ng-fz1.aol.com>...
MSA1213
>Even though I never took the SAT, the one thing I can do better than
>Sklansky is review a book.
>
Congratulations Gary. You finally acknowledge that David can do everything else
better. Now if he will concede on the book review issue, the two of you should
have no further disputes on superiority.
But he'll probably dispute on this last area too!
I wonder if he will quote this acknowledgement in all future discussions with
you on other topics?
marc
Gary Carson
"one". So, I didn't really concede anything. It was just a clerical error.
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
MSA1213 wrote in message <20000929123728...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
rmj...@my-deja.com
interesting.
I am going to wade through all 67 posts before giving my two cents
worth, but...
This had to be answered:
>Iceman <drub...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Someone with moderate abilities in most areas could be a world-class
> chess player if he had a great memory and the ability to mentally play
> out scenarios of several moves. Creativity, analytical skills, and
> abstract problem solving are worthless in chess.
>
> Iceman
Totally false. "Creativity, analytical skills, and abstract problem
solving" are largely what makes a great chess player. General and/or
broad based intelligence is much less important.
RMJ
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
rmj...@my-deja.com
dskl...@aol.com (Dsklansky) wrote:
> I believe Chess players are an aberration.<
I think the same can be said about great players of any game. Willie
Mays was a great baseball player but that did not mean he could play
hockey. Even Michael Jordon found that his huge athletic ability that
made him the greatest ever at basketball, was almost worthless when
applied to baseball.
>Their talent is not exactly intelligence.<
Agreed. But the same is certainly true of poker players.
> Bridge players and backgammon players are better examples.<
I am not sure why. You may be right, but I suspect that certain people
have great aptitude for bridge and/or backgammon, without being highly
intelligent and vice versa.
I don't think intelligence ever hurts a player, but it also never
guarantees success.
MEEHAN1952
>From: rmj...@my-deja.com
>Date: 9/29/00 12:33 PM Central Daylight Time
.....
RMJ,
*Thanx* for your post. <what's an internet smiley-face for gratitude, a sincere
question from an internet donkey>?
I have *no intention whatsoever* of wading thru all 67 posts (yeah, right
<smile> ) but this correlates to conversations I have had since college, a
*long* time ago, man ...
Specifically - assuming you agree that Bobby Fischer was arguably the greatest
chess player of all time, *and* that he obviously lacked social skills,
happiness skills (whatever *they* are) and a basic, fundamental ability to
survive "successfully" (whatever *that* is) in daily life - what correlation,
if any, do you draw from his genius at chess to IQ?
And - ah, *rare* poker content from Minneapolis Jim <sigh or smile, I'm just
not sure - yeah, ok, smile> what correlation, if any, do you draw from genius
at *POKER* to IQ?
Allegedly, at age three months in his professional-musician-violinist father's
arms, Yosh Haifetz *cried* whenever his skilled father played a
slightly-off-perfect note on the violin. Now, you tell me, is that a *learned*
genius (from poker books, yadayada) or an inherited one? *Forgeddaboudit*
<smile>
>
>Totally false. "Creativity, analytical skills, and abstract problem
>solving" are largely what makes a great chess player. General and/or
>broad based intelligence is much less important.
>
>RMJ
>
For what it's worth, which is *little* since I'm a chess Como Zoo monkey also -
altho, I'd beat 99 out of a hundred randomly-selected chess players, and I
haven't *played* for twenty-five years <smile> I'm inclined to agree with RMJ.
Generally intelligence is arguably irrelevant to genius at chess - *FOCUS* is
the thing.
Just my one-and-a-half-cents' worth ..
Minneapolis Jim the gutless Nit
(paraphrasing) Socrates: "Such skill bespeaks a misspent youth".
Iceman
> > chess player if he had a great memory and the ability to mentally play
> > out scenarios of several moves. Creativity, analytical skills, and
> > abstract problem solving are worthless in chess.
> solving" are largely what makes a great chess player. General and/or
> broad based intelligence is much less important.
With the little chess I've played, it seems like the player with the greater
number of memorized strategies has the advantage. Highly intelligent,
analytical, creative people who know the basics are dead in the water
against someone of average intelligence who has everything memorized.
Iceman, who hates the freaking game.
Mark Napolitano
week.
--
Be Lucky
Mark Napolitano
www.pokerpages.com Daily Updates
Gary Carson <garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8r25u8$krf$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Much of the book is a transcript of a conversation between the two
authors.
> As many of us do in conversation between friends, we use hyperbole and
> exaggeration to make a point. McEvoy and Cloutier do that. If you read
the
> book you'll see that pretty clearly.
>
> So, what I've seen David claim the book advocates, the book simply doesn't
> advocate. It's really that simple.
>
> Maybe David is intentially misrepresenting the book. Maybe he just
doesn't
> really know how to read a book. I suspect that when David reads a poker
> book written by someone else he simply scans the book, trying to find a
> sentence that contains an "error". Using that method of reading you'll
> often think you've found errors when in fact there is no error, or at
least
> no error that has any importance or significance.
>
> I recently did a review of Championship Hold'em for PokerPages.com. I
> expect it'll be out there soon, I'm not sure when.
>
> Even though I never took the SAT, the one thing I can do better than
> Sklansky is review a book.
>
BobA928674
> I just left the
>new Casino Arirona poker room where their 50 tables have hardly had an open
>seat since they opened
This won't last.
Rivercardrich
CHESS???The luckiest poker player in the world could NEVER beat a world class
chess player unless said chess player was either drunk or stoned or both-a
lousy poker player can get lucky and win short term-but will lose long term to
players with more "poker smarts" and SKILL
R
Dsklansky
>made him the greatest ever at basketball, was almost worthless when
>applied to baseball.
>
Almost worthless? Maybe one in 10,000 played baseball better.
kingyao
Dsklansky <dskl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000930021204...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
1 in 10,000 is worthless - how much do you think a baseball player as good
as Jordan could have made?
My guess is $12,000 for 3 years in the minors...and then that's it.
Worse than a job flipping burgers at McDonalds.
BJDocaz
we have had in the medical literature is that it seems hard for physicions or
drug companies to acuratly describe their results. That is why good surgeons
like to let new tecniques and medications pass the test of time before using
them on their patients. Luckily for us we can take all the time we need to see
if TJ's and Tom's methods as described" pan out". Thank you again for your
feedback.
Most Sincerely, Doc AZ
rmj...@my-deja.com
I play chess at about the same level that Jordan played baseball and
next to Kasparov I don't even attain "worthless" status.
Dsklansky
class at a game that wasn't his specialty. The same is true for great thinking
ability.
Bill T
Some years ago, I took a break from *real life* and spent a year basically
being
a bum. I spent some months playing poker in AC and Vegas, mostly in the
mid-level games. I would be hard-pressed to describe any poker players as
people with "great thinking ability", vis-a-vis real-world successes.
Bill T
P.S. Making money at poker was kinda fun, but unfortunately the money
was much less than anything I can earn in the real world.
Barry Shulman
Bill T <wct...@pacbell.net> wrote
> Some years ago, I took a break from *real life* and spent a year basically
> being a bum. I spent some months playing poker in AC and Vegas, mostly in
the
> mid-level games. I would be hard-pressed to describe any poker players as
> people with "great thinking ability", vis-a-vis real-world successes.
Actually we play with many "real-world successes" with "great thinking
ability" at the mid higher limits at Bellagio. Some are retired and enjoy
poker; some are still working and enjoy poker.
Besides making the games quite enjoyable (yes there is a life outside of
poker) at a social level, it is quite interesting to actually observe how
some of these people intuitively adapt to many basic proper playing
techniques after several hours of play in a game where they have no
foundamental background or training.
On the other hand, there is absolutely no question that among the younger
group of great poker players, virtually all of them could do considerably
better in the real world IF they had the proper discipline. They probably
could also do considerably better in the poker world IF they had the proper
discipline.
That brings up why you can't just walk by a table and know it is a tough
game - but that is a different topic.
Barry Shulman
Cardplayer
Derek Opitz
on the field he could have ever played are left/right field or first base.
If it wasn't for the fan draw he would have never made the team.
What was your point again?
Lee Munzer
> World Class?? He hit 220 in single and double A ball, and the ONLY
positions
> on the field he could have ever played are left/right field or first base.
I think we're getting away from David's point, but you're right. However,
the only 'position' Edgar Martinez can play is DH, but I'd be happy to have
him if I were a big league Mgr.
Lee
LouKrieger
However, the only 'position' Edgar Martinez can play is DH, but I'd be happy to
have him if I were a big league Mgr.<<
Lee, I don't think anyone is demeaning Michael Jordan's incredible athletic
skills, but anyone with the aspirations to play major league baseball has to be
able to turn on a big league fastball and hit a breaking pitch. Jordan could
do neither. He generally punched the ball to the opposite field, looking for
all the world like Bo Jackson when trying unsuccessfully to come back from
ruining his hips.
Jordan never generated any power with his swing, and was only able to spray the
ball weakly. He was never able to drive a pitch, and he could not hit a curve
ball.
While Jordan is undoubtedly a much better all around athlete than, say, Mike
Piazza, Edgar Martinez, or Jim Edmonds, they are all big league hitters in a
way Jordan never could be.
And regardless of the analogy one is trying to make, a Double A outfielder with
no appreciable power, an average throwing arm, and an inability to hit a
big-league breaking pitch is not a world class baseball player by any stretch
of the imagination.
Keep flopping aces,
Lou Krieger
PSLoris
Off topic, but the fact is Edgar could play first and maybe even third, and he
just might do that if the M's get by Chicago and Oakland. Congrats to Edgar,
the American League RBI Champ for 2000!!
.......Goatboy
Patrick G. Bridges
> My point was that his general athletic talent allowed him to be almost world
> class at a game that wasn't his specialty. The same is true for great thinking
> ability.
What, so there *IS* some correspondence between intelligence and chess
ability?
Patrick G. Bridges
> I think we're getting away from David's point, but you're right. However,
> the only 'position' Edgar Martinez can play is DH, but I'd be happy to have
> him if I were a big league Mgr.
Yeah, but at least Edgar has offensive value as a major-league
player. Some players (Edgar) get to the bigs on purely offensive
ability, some (R. Ordonez) get to the majors on purely defensive
ability, and some have both. The point was that Jordan had neither at
even the A or AA level.
Patrick G. Bridges
It's a shame the M's didn't being him up sooner so he'd have a real
chance at the HoF.
SigAlEp18
He actually hit .202 in AA ball after not having played for 15 years, and hit
over .300 the last month. He proceeded to hit .256 that fall in the Arizona
Instructional League against basically AAA pitching.
So in my opinion Jordan was "getting it" and could have, assuming he kept
motivated and dedicated, very well been a legitimate major-leaguer.
Mark Harman
jimb...@my-deja.com
poke...@aol.com (Pokerkat1) wrote:
> Sklansky & Malmuth have considered themselves poker's foremost
theorists for
> years. They freely state that no other poker writer has anything much
> worthwhile to say unless it is them or someone writing for 2 plus 2.
It has
> been their constant attacks on writers often taking things out of
context that
> leads me to believe that their own "fuzzy thinking" blinds them.
>
> Other writers, myself included, give them credit where credit is
due. I often
> recommend their books to others. This is a concept that seems
completely
> foreign to them. I have now come to the inescapable conclusion that
they do
> virtually nothing out of conviction. I have known David for over 20
years and
> have seen him deteriorate to an unprincipled egomaniac who thinks he
is never
> EVER wrong. He obsesses about things that go back more years than I
can
> remember. I have also known Mason for a number of years. To list
the number
> of ridiculous things he has stated, just in the last year, would take
too much
> space for this post. I think that Mason is genuinely unbalanced. I
believe
> they are both almost totally self-serving.
>
> For years David stood virtually alone on the poker writers pedestal.
He seems
> unable or unwilling to now share that pedestal with other deserving
writers.
> Shame on him.
>
> Tom McEvoy
> Tom McE...@Bigplanet.com
>
I don't believe you are being totally fair here. I believe David
Sklansky and Mason Malmuth hold Bob Ciaffone and John Feeney in very
high regard. They both have recommended Ciaffone's books on Pot limit,
Omaha, and Improve Your Poker as well as commending his columns in
CardPlayer. They thought highly enough of John Feeney to publish his
excellent book "Inside the Poker Mind" without having even met him.
John Harkness
Unless you're Devon White or some other megadefensive player, you need
some pop to play outfield in the bigs. Jordan was a light hitting
outfielder with no power. And he was 35 years old. That ain't a
legitimate big leaguer. You can't hit that way unless you play a major
defensive position, and play it well.
John Harkness
mike_...@my-deja.com
> Unless you're Devon White or some other megadefensive player, you need
> some pop to play outfield in the bigs. Jordan was a light hitting
> outfielder with no power. And he was 35 years old. That ain't a
> legitimate big leaguer. You can't hit that way unless you play a major
> defensive position, and play it well.
>
> John Harkness
Right you are John. So I say give him the tools of ignorance -- a deck
of playing cards and HPFAP 23rd Century BC -- then send him to the Taj.
He knows the way.
M>N>
Derek Opitz
pretty bad....
SigAlEp18 <siga...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001002182322...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
Sean Duffy
wrote:
>On 02 Oct 2000 22:23:22 GMT, siga...@aol.com (SigAlEp18) wrote:
>
>>In Defense of Jordan:
>>
>>He actually hit .202 in AA ball after not having played for 15 years, and hit
>>over .300 the last month. He proceeded to hit .256 that fall in the Arizona
>>Instructional League against basically AAA pitching.
>>
>>So in my opinion Jordan was "getting it" and could have, assuming he kept
>>motivated and dedicated, very well been a legitimate major-leaguer.
<snip>
>Unless you're Devon White or some other megadefensive player, you need
>some pop to play outfield in the bigs. Jordan was a light hitting
>outfielder with no power. And he was 35 years old. That ain't a
>legitimate big leaguer. You can't hit that way unless you play a major
>defensive position, and play it well.
If I recall correctly, Jordan was a pretty good base stealer. (I know
he stole a fair number of bases but I don't have his success rate
handy.) Perhaps he could have made the majors as a pinch-running
specialist a la Herb Washington.
-Sean
John Harkness
Wasn't Herb Washington one of Charlie Finlay's oddball experiments?
John Harkness
beando...@my-deja.com
j...@attcanada.ca (John Harkness) wrote:
> Wasn't Herb Washington one of Charlie Finlay's oddball experiments?
It was Finley, and yes - Washington was strictly on the roster as a
pinch-runner. Two seasons in the majors, _zero_ at-bats. With the
current inflated salary scale, and the convention being that most teams
now carry an extra pitcher, this position would never exist,
pre-September, in today's game.
After rosters are expanded in September, all bets are off, though. Maybe
the Expos can add Celine Dion as a September call-up next season to get
some more butts in the seats.
Sean Duffy
>In article <39ecd621....@nntp.netcom.ca>,
> j...@attcanada.ca (John Harkness) wrote:
>
>> Wasn't Herb Washington one of Charlie Finlay's oddball experiments?
>
>
>It was Finley, and yes - Washington was strictly on the roster as a
>pinch-runner. Two seasons in the majors, _zero_ at-bats. With the
>current inflated salary scale, and the convention being that most teams
>now carry an extra pitcher, this position would never exist,
>pre-September, in today's game.
There was an interesting thread in rec.sport.baseball a while ago
about the viability of keeping a midget on the roster a la Eddie
Gaedel for the sole purpose of drawing a walk in key situations.
(While the commissioner in the 40s put an end to the Gaedel spectacle,
that was done simply because Gaedel was used as a publicity
stunt--there's no rule against using a midget for strategic purposes.)
The consensus in rsbb was that using a midget wouldn't be worth the
waste of a roster spot, and that it wouldn't be too tough for the
defense to put an infielder on the mound to just throw the ball
completely straight. For the "midget plan" to work, a team would need
a midget who was at least capable of fouling pitches off.
-Sean