Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth

Showing 1-80 of 80 messages
Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth jackhigh 6/2/00 12:00 AM
RPG'ers:

     I have been a huge fan of Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth for
decades and eagerly look forward to and reread everything any of
them ever writes.  Each in their own way has presented a coherent
and unassaible analysis of poker strategy and I anticipate
learning more from them.

     That being said, and that is a huge acknowledgement and on
most levels more important than being a top poker player, few
players I know would consider any of them in the top 50 players
in the world.  It is a fascinating question why these three who
understand poker theory so well have not dominated cash or
tournament games at the highest levels.


* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/3/00 12:00 AM
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 22:24:10 -0700, jackhigh
<jackhighNOjaSPAM@pacbell.net.invalid> wrote:

>RPG'ers:
>
>     I have been a huge fan of Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth for
>decades and eagerly look forward to and reread everything any of
>them ever writes.  Each in their own way has presented a coherent
>and unassaible analysis of poker strategy and I anticipate
>learning more from them.
>
>     That being said, and that is a huge acknowledgement and on
>most levels more important than being a top poker player, few
>players I know would consider any of them in the top 50 players
>in the world.  It is a fascinating question why these three who
>understand poker theory so well have not dominated cash or
>tournament games at the highest levels.

Whomever you're hanging out with, stop.

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Asha34 6/3/00 12:00 AM
There is a huge difference between being a gifted theorist or writer and being
a champion poker player.  The best musicians are not necessarily the best
concert performers or the musicians who win the contests.  The best teachers
are seldom the best performers.

I would suspect, though I don't know from first hand experience, that all three
are excellent poker players but have  not devoted themselves to the task of
winning tournaments or, for bankroll reasons, playing in the highest stakes
side action games.

Hey, have you ever heard of a driver ed instructor, even the best ones, driving
at Indy?

Ashley


 

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/3/00 12:00 AM

Hi, Ashley --

I can't speak for anyone else, but I regularly play moderately big
limits (up to $200/$400) and win. My favorite is $75/$150. I play on
my own money and don't seek partners and don't sell shares -- which
isn't always true of everyone in the spotlight. Occasionally, I've
played $400/$800 and larger, but I don't like to.

I don't regularly play tournaments, but I think my record is better
than anyone is likely to do in the same number of events on a bet --
although not as good as whomever is running the hottest at any given
time.

I'm strange in that I wouldn't teach if I didn't sincerely believe I
was the very best player. So, you'll have to allow me to go on
believing that -- rightly or wrongly -- unless you're hoping I'm
struck by silence. (And, of course, that might be a rational hope.)

I don't know where so many people come up with this "those who can't,
teach" philosophy. But it irritates me sometimes. I'm off to Minnesota
for a couple days. See y'all soon.

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Dsklansky 6/3/00 12:00 AM
Assuming a full ring game, I rate myself in the top ten in hi lo split; the top
20 in limit holdem, omaha, lowball, razz and draw; the top 30 in pot limit
Omaha  seven card stud, and No Limit Holdem: and consider myself relatively
weak only in pot limit holdem. In a decathalon of ring game events, I am no
worse than 5 and probably first or second.
  Unfortunately, however, the above rates how well I play (when I am
concentrating) rather than how well I would do. A large part of your results
have to do with how well your opponents play against you. Writing books does
not help in this regard. Even Mike Caro cannot escape this fact. There are
things we can do to mitigate the problem but not totally eliminate it. However
even with this problem I would easily be in the top 50 as far as what I could
earn per year playing poker. I would estimate $175,000 without ever playing
above 100-200. As for Mason he also is in the top 50 in ring game limit holdem
and maybe stud as well. (Not to mention our co author Ray Zee who might be
better than all of us)

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Heldar 6/3/00 12:00 AM
Mike Caro wrote:

"I don't know where so many people come up with this "those who can't,
teach" philosophy. But it irritates me sometimes."

Mike, you probably already know the answer to this, but....

One reason is the examples we see all around us.  There are lots of
teachers, in public schools and in universities, who could not earn their
living doing whatever it is they are teaching about.  To choose one
convenient example, why aren't all business school professors millionaires
or billionaires?  Perhaps because most of them don't actually have any great
business acumen.

The second reason is that many "greats" have a gift that they can't teach.
I believe that in many fields (but not poker, I hope...) the greatest
performers cannot teach what they do because they have gifts their students
don't have.  Ted Williams was arguably the best hitter in baseball history,
but he wasn't much of a coach or manager.  He couldn't understand why others
couldn't do it HIS way.  (Indeed, Ty Cobb once tried to give Williams
hitting advice, and Williams wrote that he couldn't really understand what
Cobb was getting at).  With very few exceptions, the greatest managers in
baseball history were mediocre fringe players like Whitey Herzog.

Heck, I taught my son to play baseball and he's waaay better than I ever
was.  So SOME that teach, can't do.  The fallacy is the assumption that NONE
that teach can't do.

And since we already know you both CAN do, all your and Sklansky's faithful
readers hope you CAN teach, too!

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Asha34 6/4/00 12:00 AM
David,
   Your post raises some interesting questions.  If you could make $175K or so
even with people playing their best game against you then why don't you?
   I do wonder why you don't play tournaments more.

Mike,
   I surely don't opine that those who can't do teach.  I DO say that the very
best teachers may not be the very best performers.  There is a difference.
   I do wonder why you don't play tournaments more.

Ashley

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth David Monaghan 6/4/00 12:00 AM

There have been plenty of arguments on the group as to why top cash
players don't tend to feature among the tournament top winners and vice
versa. The most likely reason, IMHO, is that tournament and cash games
require different skills and/or styles and the players gravitate toward
the format that best suits their temperament/playing style. After all,
for professionals the object is to win money not accolades.

DaveM

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Dsklansky 6/4/00 12:00 AM
>David,
>   Your post raises some interesting questions.  If you could make $175K or
>so
>even with people playing their best game against you then why don't you?

Isn't that $90 an hour?

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Iceman 6/4/00 12:00 AM
In article <occjjsgnaqd54eqb0a81vdgati5cqh2dv1@4ax.com>, David

A player and theorist of David's caliber could easily make the
proper adjustments for tournament play. But even doing so, the
luck factor in tournaments is so high, and the time investment
so great that he would likely earn more in the side games than
in all but the highest buy-in events. And the variance in
tournaments is also very high, which is a problem for a
professional player. If a large part of your return depends on
finishing 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in events with hundreds of entrants,
you could easily go for long stretches with a highly negative
win rate even when you had a strong positive expectation
overall. David did play some WSOP events, including the main
event, but it's not worth the opportunity cost for him to play
some $100 buy-in limit holdem event.

Iceman

"Feel like I'm gonna drown..."
-Juliana Hatfield

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth jackhigh 6/4/00 12:00 AM
Caro drones on incessantly about being the best player in the
world, but is never seen playing at the very highest levels or
winning any tournaments.

Mason complains about tournament structure and how he wants to
play for first; he is also never seen above a certain level in
live games.

Sklansky actually does had a quite good tournament record ten
years ago.

TJ without a question is a world-class tournament player, perhaps
the best, but his books leave something to be desired.

Perhaps there are two different kinds of thinking, one more
analytic and one more intuitive.  Few people can be the best at
either one, and noone the best at both.  Both work great for
poker, as these poker giants have established, but analytic
people will make better writers and prefer full tables, whereas
intuitive thinkers can do even better at the table and probably
prefer shorthanded games.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Daniel Negreanu 6/4/00 12:00 AM

>
> I'm strange in that I wouldn't teach if I didn't sincerely believe I
> was the very best player. So, you'll have to allow me to go on
> believing that -- rightly or wrongly -- unless you're hoping I'm
> struck by silence. (And, of course, that might be a rational hope.)
>
> Straight Flushes,
> Mike Caro

  Mike, with all due respect, I don't believe that you actually think
you are the best poker player in the world.  That would simply be
silly.  How could you know??  In order to consider yourself the best
player in the world, in my opinion, you have to beat the best players
in the world, or do better than them in the same game.
  I know you to be an excellent player, from playing with you on just
a few occasions.  You couls probably beat most poker games in the
world. At the same time, if you ran into the likes of Ted Forrest he
would clean your clock!!  You can't HONESTLY tell me you think you play
better than he does.  Daniel Negreanu

Daniel Negreanu


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Daniel Negreanu 6/4/00 12:00 AM
In article <20000603054125.21050.00001198@ng-bh1.aol.com>,

  dskl...@aol.com (Dsklansky) wrote:
> Assuming a full ring game, I rate myself in the top ten in hi lo
split; the top
> 20 in limit holdem, omaha, lowball, razz and draw; the top 30 in pot
limit
> Omaha  seven card stud, and No Limit Holdem: and consider myself
relatively
> weak only in pot limit holdem. In a decathalon of ring game events, I
am no
> worse than 5 and probably first or second.

   Oh boy.  David, I like you a lot and have come to your defence on
many occasions, but ths time you are wrong.  Top ten in hi-lo split?
Well, let's start with this short list of players that ARE better than
you:

1.Annie Duke
2.John Hennigan
3.Howard Lederer
4.Jennifer Harman
5.Chau Xiang
6.Ted Forrest
7."Miami" John Cernutto
8.Huck Seed
9."Magic" Epstein
10.Tommy Hufnagle

  Now that list was just off the top of my head, and in no particular
order.  Now, top 20 in limit hold'em??  Here is another list for you:

1.Annie Duke
2.John Hennigan
3.Howard Lederer
4.Jennifer Harman
5.Ted Forrest
6.Mickey Coleman
7.David Chui
8.Lee Salem
9.David Oppenheimer
10.Jimmy Jimmy
11.Tony Dee
12.KMS(from commerce)
13.Shun Ojida
14.Tom Hood
15.Chip Reese
16.Doyle Brunson
17.Erik Seidel
18.Fred Bonyadi
19.Ray Decaradani
20.Richard Dunberg

Again, that was just off the top of my head and in no particular
order.  Next we has loball, razz, draw and 7 stud top 30?  Well, I'll
have to give you those three.  Yet, I've caught you again, top 30 in No
Limit Hold'em??

1.T.J. Cloutier
2.Phil Hellmuth
3.Huck Seed
4.Johhny Chan
5.Bobby Hoff
6.Annie Duke
7.Randy Holland
8.Allen Cunningham
9.Layne Flack
10.Steve Rydel
11.Surindar Sunar
12."Devilfish" Ulliot
13.John Bonetti
14.Tony Ma
15.Erik Seidel
16.Kathy Leibert
17.Carl McKelvy
18.Billy Duarte
19.Mike Carson
20.Bill O'Conner
21.Mike Sexton
22.David Chui
23.Tony Dee
24.Mike Magee
25.Berry Johnston
26.Young Phan
27.O'Neil Longston
28.Chris Bigler
29.Doyle Brunson
30.Herschel Zeluski

 Lastly, you said top 5 in a decathalon of ring games, we'll how about
this game:
1.Ted Forrest
2.Annie Duke
3.Chau Xiang
4.Chip Reese
5.Doyle Brunson

  No offense, but you wouldn't have much chance doing better than those
players in any 8-handed ring game.  Setting the record straight, Daniel


Negreanu


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth MSA1213 6/4/00 12:00 AM
>From: Daniel Negreanu kidp...@hotmail.com

Daniel

So should we expect to see Mike and Ted joining  you and Gary at the table?

And in another post, I noticed that you offered David names of players to bring
with him to fill out the table.

Good luck.

marc

>  Mike, with all due respect, I don't believe that you actually think
>you are the best poker player in the world.  That would simply be
>silly.  How could you know??  In order to consider yourself the best
>player in the world, in my opinion, you have to beat the best players
>in the world, or do better than them in the same game.
>  I know you to be an excellent player, from playing with you on just
>a few occasions.  You couls probably beat most poker games in the
>world. At the same time, if you ran into the likes of Ted Forrest he
>would clean your clock!!  You can't HONESTLY tell me you think you
>play
>better than he does.  Daniel Negreanu

>Lastly, you said top 5 in a decathalon of ring games, we'll how about


this game:
1.Ted Forrest
2.Annie Duke
3.Chau Xiang
4.Chip Reese
5.Doyle Brunson

>  No offense, but you wouldn't have much chance doing better than those
>players in any 8-handed ring game.  

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth jimb...@my-deja.com 6/4/00 12:00 AM
In article <8he6kc$hfo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

Dan, to your list of limit hold-em players I would add Jay Heimowitz,
Steve Lott, and Dan Harrington (now retired).  To your list of pot
limit players I would add Garland Walters and O'Neil Longsdon.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/4/00 12:00 AM
On 04 Jun 2000 00:24:04 GMT, ash...@aol.com (Asha34) wrote:

Ashley --

I have repeated again and again why I don't play tournaments often,
including on this forum.

1. You are judged by how conspicuously you finish in the money. Hardly
anyone is keeping track of how often you play. Therefore, you better
be willing to devote a large portion of your life to tournaments if
you want to prove yourself to those who are inattentive. I can't do
that right now.

2. Conventional tournaments are very unfair to those who want to win
trophies. In order to maximize your chance of being champion, you must
sacrifice your chance of making the most money. (I've explained this
concept in detail. It has to do with winning all the chips and then
having to give most of them away to others.) As a result, if the most
skillful players decide to win trophies and succeed conspicuously,
they might not even make a profit overall.

3. There's a great deal of short-term luck in tournaments, making the
a less-than-ideal proving ground for talent.

Despite these objections, I may decide to play more tournaments in the
future. I'd like to tour for a year.

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Asha34 6/4/00 12:00 AM
David,
   No, $90 an hour is not $175K/year unless you play for 2,000 hours.  $90/hour
could very well be $90 if you only played for one hour.  But you already knew
that I'm sure.

Michael,
   Thank you.  I hadn't read your prior post on the subject.

Ashley

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/4/00 12:00 AM
Hi, Daniel --

David belongs high on most of those lists. I don't quarrel with your
choice of many of the others, but I'm too politically astute to be
specific.

And you can leave me off your lists if you want to (but you
shouldn't). It doesn't bother me at all, you stupid son of a bitch
moron bastard how could you do that I thought you were smart you piece
of... Where was I? And I'm not going to argue the point. Just for the
record, I have no idea how most people form these types of opinions.
They often seem to name the same people they're familiar with and who
often play in the same circles. But I guess you could argue that's
logical.

You're one of my favorite poker people and you add color and character
to the game. But, questioning just one of your lists, I don't think
you could possibly convince ME not to put my money on David Sklansky
in high-low anything.

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Dsklansky 6/4/00 12:00 AM

> Top ten in hi-lo split?
>Well, let's start with this short list of players that ARE better than
>you:
>
>1.Annie Duke
>2.John Hennigan
>3.Howard Lederer
>4.Jennifer Harman
>5.Chau Xiang
>6.Ted Forrest
>7."Miami" John Cernutto
>8.Huck Seed
>9."Magic" Epstein
>10.Tommy Hufnagle
>
There are at least five players on this list who I am better than. I believe
three of them would admit it. Annie Duke actually said to me that she doesn't
think she plays better but rather she gets others to play worse. Of course you
might claim that is part of poker skill as well but I don't think you meant
that. Of the other five I don't know about three . I also want to remind you
that I am talking about eight handed games rather than six. This is important
not only because it makes it more mathematical but also because it increases
the chances for  multiway pots. Finally you left out maybe the best player- Ken
Flaton.

>Now that list was just off the top of my head, and in no particular
>order.  Now, top 20 in limit hold'em??  Here is another list for you:
>
>1.Annie Duke
>2.John Hennigan
>3.Howard Lederer
>4.Jennifer Harman
>5.Ted Forrest
>6.Mickey Coleman
>7.David Chui
>8.Lee Salem
>9.David Oppenheimer
>10.Jimmy Jimmy
>11.Tony Dee
>12.KMS(from commerce)
>13.Shun Ojida
>14.Tom Hood
>15.Chip Reese
>16.Doyle Brunson
>17.Erik Seidel
>18.Fred Bonyadi
>19.Ray Decaradani
>20.Richard Dunberg

I don't know about ten of those players. You left out Lenny Martin, Bobby Hoff,
Todd Brunson and Steve Y. You are right about Tom Hood and a few others you
have left out. You are probably right about Mickey Coleman, KMS, and Lee
Salem.However I am sure I play better than some of the others on this list
(again when I am concentrating). I also believe you are overating some of the
"big names" on this list. I think they would struggle at a nine or ten handed
tough 60-120 game both in Vegas and LA.

This is a total guess on your part. You are basing it on your observation of
tournaments. Tournaments have a much different strategy. Many on your list have
never even played a no limit side game. I know you have never seen me play one.
I don't know some of the names  on the list. I will concede on numbers 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 15 17, 20, 22, 25, 29. The ones I left out I may or may not have an
opinion on. You left out Todd Brunson and Jay Heimowitz among others.


>Lastly, you said top 5 in a decathalon of ring games, we'll how about
>this game:
>1.Ted Forrest
>2.Annie Duke
>3.Chau Xiang
>4.Chip Reese
>5.Doyle Brunson
>
>  No offense, but you wouldn't have much chance doing better than those
>players in any 8-handed ring game.  Setting the record straight, Daniel
>Negreanu
 

Are you saying that those five are better than me in an eight handed
decathalon? Or are you saying that those five are all better than me in EVERY
ONE of ten different full table poker games? If you are saying the second
statement, here is a list of five people who would disagree with you: Ted
Forrest, Annie Duke,Chau Xiang, Chip Reese, Doyle Brunson.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Daniel Negreanu 6/4/00 12:00 AM
In article <ycI6OfTYJblEWWhYrPA3uMHtrs7=@4ax.com>,

  Mike Caro <ca...@caro.com> wrote:
> You're one of my favorite poker people and you add color and character
> to the game. But, questioning just one of your lists, I don't think
> you could possibly convince ME not to put my money on David Sklansky
> in high-low anything.
>
> Straight Flushes,
> Mike Caro

  Funny you say that, because of all the lists that was by far the
toughest one to come up with.  I rank David high on all my lists, just
not as high as he ranks himself.  In regards to hi-lo, I believe that
would be one of David's higher rankings because he seldom if ever gives
anything away in those games.  As David mentioned though, if it came to
overall profit in the toughest game, his image would prove to be a
detrement as he wouldn't be able to maximise his profit against the
best in the world.  Because David is unwilling to get out of line at
all, his hands become more easily read by the top players in the
world.  Conversely, some one like Ted Forrest will take part in many
negative EV situations in order to maximize in others.  In lamens
terms, it's tough to figure out what Ted has, but he KNOWS what David
has.
  I didn't mention this in my previous post, but I think David is at
the top of most lists when it comes to understanding the correct play,
and having the mathematical foundation to back it.  Arguing any
mathematical poker problem with David is futile, you'll just be wrong!
  On the other hand, execution is another thing, as tells are another.
I don't see that as David's strengths, but I may not be giving him
enough credit in those departments.  The bottom line is this, David is
a top poker theorist and a GREAT poker player...just not the best!  Of
course we all know who we want to play the aliens:-)  I just hope that
they are nice aliens, because I don't like our chances:-)


Daniel Negreanu

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Dsklansky 6/4/00 12:00 AM
Daniels opinions of me are based exclusively on the bigger games where I
purposely choose the less volatile play the vast majority of the times. His
opinion would probably be differrent if he was observing me at 75-150 or lower.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Timmer 6/4/00 12:00 AM
Now Mike you know  that should be "stupid son of a bitch (as well as a)
moronic bastard. Now lets try again. as you know practice makes perfect.
(or nearly perfect)
Mary Poppins
Practically perfect in every way
Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Gary Carson 6/4/00 12:00 AM
http://garycarson.home.mindspring.com
MEEHAN1952 wrote in message
<20000605000629.21422.00001788@ng-fg1.aol.com>...
>>>From: dskl...@aol.com  (Dsklansky)

>>> where I
>>>purposely choose the less volatile play the vast majority of the times.
>>
>>Well.  I'm gonna stay *OUT* of the lists and rankings, cuz I'm a quiet
kinda
>>guy reluctant to voice his opinions except when *absolutely* necessary,
but
>>...
>>Mr. Sklansky's above-quoted comment is to me the *perfect* springboard for
>>any
>>gamer's ultimate question
>>
>
>[Interpolate apologies *again* cuz lack the tech wits to quote at bottom
the
>entire post ... but, CHRIST, let's get *ON* with it <smile> ]
>
>Poker player has the (stylistic? <smile>) option of
>1) Playing ten times, losing a thousand nine times, and winning twenty-nine
>thousand the other time, for a net win of 20,000/10 = 2,000/play;  *OR*
>2) playing ten times, winning twelve hundred eight times, losing twelve
hundred
>two times, for a net win of 7,400/10 = 740/play.  [No calculator,
first-glance
>but GOD I'm *HOPING* the math is close - hee-hee ...]
>
>Now the question is, _*IF*_ the gamer's goal is to *make money*, which
option
>is preferable?  Assuming without conceding that emotions play a role in
>winning/losing money, which player is *HAPPIER* ?
>
>One guy wins eight-out-of-ten, the other *LOSES* nine out of ten ... think
>about it ... you buncha *NITS* <smile>


The poker equivalents here are approximiately that 1) is a wild and crazy
ring game where the heor will win his share, but get much dead money when he
wins and 2) is heads up against a player who just can't win.

I'd go for 2), not as much money in the long run, but gets to the long run
much faster -- and does so with smaller bankroll needs.

But, many players make the mistake of thinking of 2) as an alternative ring
game -- as a game that's tamer than 1).   As a model of an alternative ring
game, 2) is ignoring 40 hands or so that are skipped while you're waiting
for those 10 hands you play. So, it's not really an 80% win -- more like 80%
wash, 16 % win and 4 lose.

When comparing 1) to a a ring game version of 2), it might look like 1) is
more volatile -- but it's really an illusion.  1) is just a bigger game.


Gary Carson

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth RazzO 6/4/00 12:00 AM

eh...? No Bobby Buckler?    8-o

razz

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth DrToast 6/5/00 12:00 AM
Wow. You read minds now too? Is that an attribute of all high level thinkers?
;-)

DrToast

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth DrToast 6/5/00 12:00 AM
Ah come on, Daniel. If a kid wants to believe in Santa Claus, you're not
gonna ruin it for him. Are you?

DrToast

Daniel Negreanu wrote:

> >
> > I'm strange in that I wouldn't teach if I didn't sincerely believe I
> > was the very best player. So, you'll have to allow me to go on
> > believing that -- rightly or wrongly -- unless you're hoping I'm
> > struck by silence. (And, of course, that might be a rational hope.)
> >
> > Straight Flushes,
> > Mike Caro
>
>   Mike, with all due respect, I don't believe that you actually think
> you are the best poker player in the world.  That would simply be
> silly.  How could you know??  In order to consider yourself the best
> player in the world, in my opinion, you have to beat the best players
> in the world, or do better than them in the same game.
>   I know you to be an excellent player, from playing with you on just
> a few occasions.  You couls probably beat most poker games in the
> world. At the same time, if you ran into the likes of Ted Forrest he
> would clean your clock!!  You can't HONESTLY tell me you think you play
> better than he does.  Daniel Negreanu
>
> Daniel Negreanu
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth MEEHAN1952 6/5/00 12:00 AM
>Subject: Re: Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth
>From: dskl...@aol.com  (Dsklansky)
>Date: 6/4/00 5:36 PM Central Daylight Time
...
> where I
>purposely choose the less volatile play the vast majority of the times.

Well.  I'm gonna stay *OUT* of the lists and rankings, cuz I'm a quiet kinda
guy reluctant to voice his opinions except when *absolutely* necessary, but ...
Mr. Sklansky's above-quoted comment is to me the *perfect* springboard for any
gamer's ultimate question

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth MEEHAN1952 6/5/00 12:00 AM
>Subject: Re: Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth
>From: meeha...@aol.com  (MEEHAN1952)
>Date: 6/4/00 10:45 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000604234546.21410.00001672@ng-fg1.aol.com>Oops, I hit the wrong key - sent incomplete - .... so shoot me, mea culpa ...
here's the balance of the hypothetical:

[Interpolate apologies *again* cuz lack the tech wits to quote at bottom the
entire post ... but, CHRIST, let's get *ON* with it <smile> ]

Poker player has the (stylistic? <smile>) option of
1) Playing ten times, losing a thousand nine times, and winning twenty-nine
thousand the other time, for a net win of 20,000/10 = 2,000/play;  *OR*
2) playing ten times, winning twelve hundred eight times, losing twelve hundred
two times, for a net win of 7,400/10 = 740/play.  [No calculator, first-glance
but GOD I'm *HOPING* the math is close - hee-hee ...]

Now the question is, _*IF*_ the gamer's goal is to *make money*, which option
is preferable?  Assuming without conceding that emotions play a role in
winning/losing money, which player is *HAPPIER* ?

One guy wins eight-out-of-ten, the other *LOSES* nine out of ten ... think
about it ... you buncha *NITS* <smile>

Now, let's talk about IMAGE ... no, wait, Mr. Caro is the master of that ... I
disclaim any *answers* nor conclusions, I'm merely askin ' the question ...

Some anonymous Nit
who lacks *any* understanding of the game ... <smile>

PS:  And Mrs. Minneapolis Jim prefers the eight-out-of-ten approach ... but
then, what does *SHE* know ? <smile>

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/5/00 12:00 AM

Of course I really believe I play as well as he does (and I don't even
know how he plays). That's because I don't know how anyone -- without
extra edges -- could play any better. To my mind, I know what to do
strategically and psychologically at any given moment. On what do you
base your suspicion that he would clean my clock? This is a serious
question. If you were betting on him, what huge advantages does he
have?

By the way I wish you hadn't brought up Ted's name, because I know him
and have heard very good things about his play. I assume he ranks
right up there near the top of the ladder. So, my question is better
raised by equating myself to a nebulous "anyone," rather than a
specific "anyone" with an identity. I'm sure I would bet my money
without hesitation on Ted, just as I would without hesitation on
Doyle, David, Howard, Annie, Linda, Chip, Badger,  you, or dozens of
others.

If you tell me Ted has significant advantages, and you're right, then
that scares me for reasons I don't even want to discuss publicly. But
I'm betting it ain't so. Granted many observers might rationally
believe he has an advantage over me, and that would be fine with me,
but why would it be a significant advantage?

 And it brings up another point: There are actually a great number of
people who really WOULD clean my clock in a heads-up match, despite my
claims, and many of them do not possess noteworthy  psychological or
strategic abilities. And you know what I mean.

I promise, word of honor, kill myself absolutely dead if I violate
this oath, that I'll never, ever speak or write on poker again in any
way whatsoever if you can rationally show me why I'm not at least
close to the best (and arguably the best) at the games I play and have
studied and at which I claim that I am the best. And "best" means
abilitty to play the best on demand, and discounts actual performance
during poker exhibitions or other sessions when maximizing wins might
not be my intention.

So, here's your shot, Daniel. Go for it. You can drive me out of town
on this one. Mason Malmuth is probably cheering for you. And I'll keep
my word.

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth MEEHAN1952 6/5/00 12:00 AM
>Subject: Re: Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth
>From: "Gary Carson" garyc...@mindspring.com
>Date: 6/4/00 11:31 PM Central Daylight Time

>The poker equivalents here are approximiately that 1) is a wild and crazy
>ring game where the heor will win his share, but get much dead money when he
>wins and 2) is heads up against a player who just can't win.
>

Mr. Carson -  No, no, no - and with all due respect - you're missing the point
*entirely*.  Altho *clearly* you might be exactly correct about situations -
and I reach no opinion about that :-) - that is *NOT* what I was talking about.
 Ring game, ten-handed, four-handed, tournaments, yadayada - a talented player
has the *OPTION* of the hypothetical which I raised on an ongoing basis - else
he's simply *NOT* a talented player.

Again, you may well be correct, but that wasn't the point I raised - I was
*NOT* talkin' about *situations*, game selection, playin' against morons - I
was questioning the approach of the long-term gain - a philosophical approach
to gaming in general - do you wanna say you're a *WINNER* <smile> cuz you can
beat a' bunch of *IDIOTS*,  or cuz ya win eight out of ten, or can ya see the
*BIG* picture and pay the emotional price of the donkeys' *TOTAL* inability to
even *SEE* the big picture ??!

Jim the self-described Nit
altho I've never met anyone on planet Earth who has the guts to describe me
quite that way ... <smile>

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth DrToast 6/5/00 12:00 AM
Mike,

Here's where the problem is (IMO). You said "To my mind, I know what to do
strategically and psychologically at any given moment." But the key to that
sentence is "to my mind". The thing about being outplayed is that you don't
realize you're being outplayed. You can't be certain you're making the right
play. And maybe someone IS thinking on a much higher level then you. How would
you recognize this?

DrToast

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth MEEHAN1952 6/5/00 12:00 AM
>Subject: Re: Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth
>From: Daniel Negreanu kidp...@hotmail.com
>Date: 6/4/00 12:46 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8he4l5$fud$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>

>
>
>
>>
>> I'm strange in that I wouldn't teach if I didn't sincerely believe I
>> was the very best player. So, you'll have to allow me to go on
>> believing that -- rightly or wrongly -- unless you're hoping I'm
>> struck by silence. (And, of course, that might be a rational hope.)
>>
>> Straight Flushes,
>> Mike Caro
>
>  Mike, with all due respect, I don't believe that you actually think
>you are the best poker player in the world.  That would simply be
>silly.  How could you know??  In order to consider yourself the best
>player in the world, in my opinion, you have to beat the best players
>in the world, or do better than them in the same game.
>  I know you to be an excellent player, from playing with you on just
>a few occasions.  You couls probably beat most poker games in the
>world. At the same time, if you ran into the likes of Ted Forrest he
>would clean your clock!!  You can't HONESTLY tell me you think you play
>better than he does.  Daniel Negreanu
>
>Daniel Negreanu
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>

I *HATE* it when a guy pre-empts my posts. <smile> Daniel, when are you going
into the publishing/lecture business ?  *AND* Mr. Caro has a *delicious* sense
of humor ... <smile> ...

>  Mike, with all due respect, I don't believe that you actually think
>you are the best poker player in the world.

And Daniel  - please take no offense, you know me better than that, right?
<smile?>
You're kidding, right? <smile>

Jim

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Daniel Negreanu 6/5/00 12:00 AM
In article <393B140C...@home.com>,
  drto...@home.com wrote:
> Wow. You read minds now too? Is that an attribute of all high level
thinkers?
> ;-)
>
> DrToast
>
  No, what David said is true.  If David specified that he was talking
about games below 75-150, then his rankings of himself would be
accurate for a few reasons.  He feeds extremely well off the inferior
play of his opponents, and because of the simple fact that most of the
players on the lists would not qualify.  They just don't play in those
games.
Daniel Negreanu

> Dsklansky wrote:
>
> > Daniels opinions of me are based exclusively on the bigger games


where I
> > purposely choose the less volatile play the vast majority of the
times. His
> > opinion would probably be differrent if he was observing me at 75-
150 or lower.

>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Dsklansky 6/5/00 12:00 AM
>this oath, that I'll never, ever speak or write on poker again in any
>way whatsoever if you can rationally show me why I'm not at least
>close to the best (and arguably the best) at the games I play and have
>studied and at which I claim that I am the best. And "best" means
>abilitty to play the best on demand, and discounts actual performance
>during poker exhibitions or other sessions when maximizing wins might
>not be my intention.
>
>So, here's your shot, Daniel. Go for it. You can drive me out of town
>on this one. Mason Malmuth is probably cheering for you. And I'll keep
>my word.
>
>Straight Flushes,
>Mike Caro
>
>

It doesn't even make sense to ask who is better once you have decided it is
close. It is not linear. It is intransitive. For instance even if you were
merly talking about head up play it is easily possible that A is favored over
B, B over C and C over A.
There are many different ways to rate players:
1. Who makes the most money in a year.
2. Who makes the most money per hour
3.Who makes the most bets per year
4.Who makes the most bets per hour
5. Who plays best heads up.
6. Who plays best in tournaments
7. Who plays best at many games
8.Who is best in tough games
9.Who is best at less tough games
10.Who's best when AT their best
11.Who's best taking into account no tilt
12.Who's best taking into account getting others to play badly.
  I am sure I have missed some other possibilities. In any case there is no one
who is superb in all categories. There is also no one who is superb at more
than three games. I am sure that this thread will continue and I choose not to
get in the middle of it. But for those who do, it would at least be helpful if
you defined terms. In other words: which games are you talking about, and,
"better" using which of the above criteria. (Mason isn't cheering but he would
probably advise Mike not to pick ten handed holdem to make his point. He might
be wrong, however, since that is also not Ted's best game.)

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Gary Carson 6/5/00 12:00 AM
Finially David says something in one of these threads that I completely
agree with.

By the way, David, one of the criteria you left out would

Who's the best at getting somebody who wants to prove they are best to
challange them to a match and give odds?

--
Gary Carson


Dsklansky wrote in message <20000605014656.14265.00001854@ng-fj1.aol.com>...

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Daniel Negreanu 6/5/00 12:00 AM

> I promise, word of honor, kill myself absolutely dead if I violate
> this oath, that I'll never, ever speak or write on poker again in any
> way whatsoever if you can rationally show me why I'm not at least
> close to the best (and arguably the best) at the games I play and have
> studied and at which I claim that I am the best. And "best" means
> abilitty to play the best on demand, and discounts actual performance
> during poker exhibitions or other sessions when maximizing wins might
> not be my intention.
>
> So, here's your shot, Daniel. Go for it. You can drive me out of town
> on this one. Mason Malmuth is probably cheering for you. And I'll keep
> my word.
>
> Straight Flushes,
> Mike Caro
>
  First off, I'd need you to clarify exactly what the games you play
are.  Furthermore, what games you consider yourself to be the best at.
I honestly believe that I could prove that you aren't the best poker
player in the world, but if that would mean you would stop writing and
being involved in poker, I won't do it!  Why would I want to drive you
out?  I like you.  Also, I never said that your writings weren't the
best when it comes to the psycological aspect of poker.  Or that your
advice on table image and such isn't the best, it is!
  Also, when I said Ted would clean your clock, I never said how
significant his edge would be, just that he would have one in the long
run.  I gather that from my playing experiences with the both of you.
  You know what I found from playing with you?  You had an extremely
tough time dealing with someone that gave you a taste of your own
medecine.  Someone that wouldn't let you have the floor. Ittook away
from everything you were trying to accomplish.  It was tough to sell
crazy to a guy that is crazier than you!!!
  Your methods are extremely effective, I've used them in my poker
learning ever since I started, I even used them against you!  I bought
your seminar videos when I was 16, and then bought the book of tells
shortly after that.  I can't remember the last time I ever disagreed
with one of your Card Player articles, and overall I think some of the
things that you teach exclusively are invaluable.  I also think I
learned too good and have come up with tangents of my own regarding
table image and such.  Using that, and some of the other poker skills
I've acquired, I don't think you can beat me.  You are a hell of a lot
better teacher, but if we played heads-up limit hold'em, I feel like I
would have a decisive edge against you at this point.  Now that's not a
challenge, I don't want to play you, that's honestly just how I feel.
Daniel Negreanu
Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Daniel Negreanu 6/5/00 12:00 AM
In article <8hffue$oos$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,

  "Gary Carson" <garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Finially David says something in one of these threads that I
completely
> agree with.
>
> By the way, David, one of the criteria you left out would
>
> Who's the best at getting somebody who wants to prove they are best to
> challange them to a match and give odds?
>
> --
> Gary Carson
>
  And finally, who's the best at laying 10-1 on a 40-1 proposition and
getting people to bite?
Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Daniel Negreanu 6/5/00 12:00 AM
In article <20000604183642.14442.00001695@ng-fa1.aol.com>,

  dskl...@aol.com (Dsklansky) wrote:
> Daniels opinions of me are based exclusively on the bigger games
where I
> purposely choose the less volatile play the vast majority of the
times. His
> opinion would probably be differrent if he was observing me at 75-150
or lower.

  One more thing on this subject.  By playing this less volitale style
you are making errors because you are simply not playing optimally.  If
you were to play optimally you'd make more money in the long run.  You
are giving up EV when you decide you don't want to gamble and take the
safe route.
  I played with you a few times last week, and it appeared to me that
you were giving up way too many blinds, when that may not have been the
correct, optimal, mathematical play.  By playing it safe, you made it
easier for the other players to take liberties on your blind.  On the
other hand, these same players became annoyed by me because they would
have to fight for every pot that I had money in.  That is a
physcological edge in my favour.


Daniel Negreanu

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth im...@my-deja.com 6/5/00 12:00 AM
After reading recent posts I have a question.  I'm not a brilliant poker
player, and I fully realize that my point may be entirely off but here goes:
It has been my (very limited) experience that being a good no-limit player or
almost any other game for that matter but specifically no-limit, has a lot to
do with knowing your opponent. Now given that a player who knows how his
opponent thinks is obviously at a distict advantage.  So lets say I've read
all of David's books and I know how he thinks.        I could make moves that
wouldn't be statistically correct but will suddenly become correct because it
is distinctly based on knowledge of my opponent which he doesn't have on me.
So wouldn't that put any author at a disadvantage at tournaments?  You        could
argue that authors would play differently from that which is described in
their books but that wouldn't make sense.  So, I emplore you.  Tell me that
which I don't know, explain to me why all authors of such books are not
disadvantaged?

-Adam


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Daniel Negreanu 6/5/00 12:00 AM

>
> >Now that list was just off the top of my head, and in no particular
> >order.  Now, top 20 in limit hold'em??  Here is another list for you:
> >
> >1.Annie Duke
> >2.John Hennigan
> >3.Howard Lederer
> >4.Jennifer Harman
> >5.Ted Forrest
> >6.Mickey Coleman
> >7.David Chui
> >8.Lee Salem
> >9.David Oppenheimer
> >10.Jimmy Jimmy
> >11.Tony Dee
> >12.KMS(from commerce)
> >13.Shun Ojida
> >14.Tom Hood
> >15.Chip Reese
> >16.Doyle Brunson
> >17.Erik Seidel
> >18.Fred Bonyadi
> >19.Ray Decaradani
> >20.Richard Dunberg
>
> I don't know about ten of those players. You left out Lenny Martin,
Bobby Hoff,
> Todd Brunson and Steve Y. You are right about Tom Hood and a few
others you
> have left out. You are probably right about Mickey Coleman, KMS, and
Lee
> Salem.However I am sure I play better than some of the others on this
list
> (again when I am concentrating). I also believe you are overating
some of the
> "big names" on this list. I think they would struggle at a nine or
ten handed
> tough 60-120 game both in Vegas and LA.

  Some of the players you mentioned I didn't LEAVE off the list.  I
just have a different opinion as to what makes a great limit hold'em
player.  I certainly did leave at least one name off that list that
belonged there, but I'm sure I left off many more.  As I said, this
list was just off the top of my head.  At the same time, I'm not sure
who I'd take off this list because they are all strong limit hold'em
players.

> >Again, that was just off the top of my head and in no particular
> >order.  Next we has loball, razz, draw and 7 stud top 30?  Well, I'll
> >have to give you those three.  Yet, I've caught you again, top 30 in
No
> >Limit Hold'em??
> >
> >1.T.J. Cloutier
> >2.Phil Hellmuth
> >3.Huck Seed
> >4.Johhny Chan
> >5.Bobby Hoff
> >6.Annie Duke
> >7.Randy Holland
> >8.Allen Cunningham
> >9.Layne Flack
> >10.Steve Rydel
> >11.Surindar Sunar
> >12."Devilfish" Ulliot
> >13.John Bonetti
> >14.Tony Ma
> >15.Erik Seidel
> >16.Kathy Leibert
> >17.Carl McKelvy
> >18.Billy Duarte
> >19.Mike Carson
> >20.Bill O'Conner
> >21.Mike Sexton
> >22.David Chui
> >23.Tony Dee
> >24.Mike Magee
> >25.Berry Johnston
> >26.Young Phan
> >27.O'Neil Longston
> >28.Chris Bigler
> >29.Doyle Brunson
> >30.Herschel Zeluski
> >
> This is a total guess on your part. You are basing it on your
observation of
> tournaments. Tournaments have a much different strategy. Many on your
list have
> never even played a no limit side game. I know you have never seen me
play one.
> I don't know some of the names  on the list. I will concede on
numbers 1, 2, 3,
> 4, 5, 15 17, 20, 22, 25, 29. The ones I left out I may or may not
have an
> opinion on. You left out Todd Brunson and Jay Heimowitz among others.

  First of all, for most of these players my only reference would be
tournaments, simply because that is where the game is mostly played
today.  Still, this was hardly a guess, I've played with each and every
one of these players and was impressed with their play.  Of course, I
don't have enough to go with in regards to your game, just what I've
seen from other games.  Again in my opinion, I would guess that you
play too tight to win the big one, I don't know about live games, that
would be impossible to gauge today.
  I haven't played enough with Jay Heimowitz, but I'm assuming from
word of mouth that he belongs on that list.  Other than that, I think
those 30 are excellent no limit players and they've proved it to me in
both pot-limit cash games, and no limit tournaments.


> >Lastly, you said top 5 in a decathalon of ring games, we'll how about
> >this game:
> >1.Ted Forrest
> >2.Annie Duke
> >3.Chau Xiang
> >4.Chip Reese
> >5.Doyle Brunson
> >
> >  No offense, but you wouldn't have much chance doing better than
those
> >players in any 8-handed ring game.  Setting the record straight,
Daniel
> >Negreanu
>

> Are you saying that those five are better than me in an eight handed
> decathalon? Or are you saying that those five are all better than me
in EVERY
> ONE of ten different full table poker games? If you are saying the
second
> statement, here is a list of five people who would disagree with you:
Ted
> Forrest, Annie Duke,Chau Xiang, Chip Reese, Doyle Brunson.
>
  I was simply reffering to your initial statement, which was a
decathalon of games in an 8-handed game.  I'm sure all five of those
players have a weak link that you could exploit.  So no, I'm saying the
first statement.
Daniel Negreanu


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Dsklansky 6/5/00 12:00 AM
>Subject: Re: Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth
>From: Daniel Negreanu kidp...@hotmail.com
>Date: 6/5/00 7:05 AM !!!First Boot!!!
>Message-id: <8hfjeo$fls$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>

MIke,

Please don't play Daniel just yet. I need the money.    Gary Carson


OK so it isn't really Gary Carson. I'm just trying to save him some time. I did
this once before and he agreed I wrote exactly what he would have. I've got him
down cold now. Hmm. Maybe I should start a loose games thread and have a debate
with myself.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Dsklansky 6/5/00 12:00 AM
Everything you say is correct. I only wonder if you realize how easy it is to
go through many hundreds of thousands pushing every edge at these stakes.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Gary Carson 6/5/00 12:00 AM
http://garycarson.home.mindspring.com
Daniel Negreanu wrote in message <8hfk2d$g3j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

>In article <8hffue$oos$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
>  "Gary Carson" <garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Finially David says something in one of these threads that I
>completely
>> agree with.
>>
>> By the way, David, one of the criteria you left out would
>>
>> Who's the best at getting somebody who wants to prove they are best to
>> challange them to a match and give odds?
>>
>>
>  And finally, who's the best at laying 10-1 on a 40-1 proposition and
>getting people to bite?
>Daniel Negreanu
>


Well, you got me there Daniel.  I guess there's a catagory for everybody to
achieve greatness.

Gary Carson

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Dsklansky 6/5/00 12:00 AM
I have previously said the same thing. Counter strategies can be used to
partially offset this disadvantage but only partially (and no I won't say what
they are. I am not writing Holdem Poker for Advanced Poker Authors.) I am
curious whether Mike Caro agrees. I suspect he has mixed emotions.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Gary Carson 6/5/00 12:00 AM
http://garycarson.home.mindspring.com
Dsklansky wrote in message <20000605033710.14434.00001408@ng-fj1.aol.com>...


LOL

You beat me to it, David.  When I read that post I was thinking -- Gee, what
the hell am I gonna do if Mike busts him before we get around to our match?

>OK so it isn't really Gary Carson. I'm just trying to save him some time. I
did
>this once before and he agreed I wrote exactly what he would have. I've got
him
>down cold now. Hmm. Maybe I should start a loose games thread and have a
debate
>with myself.

LOL

Why not just have a 3-way with Mike and Mike.

Gary Carson

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Dsklansky 6/5/00 12:00 AM

> I was simply reffering to your initial statement, which was a
>decathalon of games in an 8-handed game.  I'm sure all five of those
>players have a weak link that you could exploit.  So no, I'm saying the
>first statement.
>Daniel Negreanu
>
>

You are definitely wrong, although it may only be because of a technicality. We
are not talking HORSE here. I said a DECATHALON. Thus you would have to add
draw high, draw low, hi-lo no qualifier, and two others such as pineapple,
deuces wild, six card stud, hi-lo declare, or other such odd games. Given a
full table, reasonable ante, fixed limit game, only Chip Reese would have a
chance of outperforming me in such a game. We assume of course that the stakes
are low enough that I wasn't trying to reduce fluctuations- something that
causes you to underrate me in general. But what I am saying is  the God's
honest, cut Mike Caro's dick off if I'm lying, truth.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Gary Carson 6/5/00 12:00 AM
Daniel,

It was Doyle Brunson who said that David was a better 7stud hi/lo split
player than anyone else he knew -- including himself.  That was a few years
ago, and things may have changed since then.  But I'm guessing that David is
a lot better at some of these games than you think.

Gary Carson

--
Gary Carson
garyc...@mindspring.com
http://garycarson.home.mindspring.com
Daniel Negreanu wrote in message <8hfllo$hud$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Timmer 6/5/00 12:00 AM
D.N. wrote:


Hmm. Maybe I should start a loose games thread and have a debate
with myself.

timmer added:

isnt that what you are doing now ?


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Timmer 6/5/00 12:00 AM

Timmer wrote:

> D.N. wrote:
>
> Hmm. Maybe I should <snipped> have a debate


> with myself.
>
> timmer added:
>
> isnt that what you are doing now ?


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/5/00 12:00 AM

David --

I DO agree that there is an enormous disadvantage to having divulged
much of our thinking and tactics publicly. For instance, I've written
about people coming in and reversing tells on me and then
complimenting me on my Book of Tells as they leave.

Certainly our tactics would work much better in most cases if they
were unknown. Whenever somebody conspicuously reverses a tell these
days, my counter strategy is to pretend not to have noticed so that
they'll try again. But that's only partial compensation.

Of course, now that I've said that, there's a chance that I've just
handicapped myself some more. Another thing I think works against both
of us is that some skillful players who don't consistently play their
best game everywhere tend to play their best game specifically against
us. They don't want us to know that they lack discipline. (However, I
always try to make the majority of players feel comfortable playing
poorly.)

Anyway, I agree. And all this greatly diminishes the gap between me
and the next best player.

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/5/00 12:00 AM
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 05:03:33 GMT, DrToast <drto...@home.com> wrote:

>Mike,
>
>Here's where the problem is (IMO). You said "To my mind, I know what to do
>strategically and psychologically at any given moment." But the key to that
>sentence is "to my mind". The thing about being outplayed is that you don't
>realize you're being outplayed. You can't be certain you're making the right
>play. And maybe someone IS thinking on a much higher level then you. How would
>you recognize this?
>
>DrToast

All the higher levels are unoccupied, DrToast. I've been exploring
them for some time.

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Patri Forwalter-Friedman 6/5/00 12:00 AM
Daniel Negreanu (cheap...@my-deja.com) wrote:

: > >Again, that was just off the top of my head and in no particular

:   First of all, for most of these players my only reference would be


: tournaments, simply because that is where the game is mostly played

: those 30 are excellent no limit players and they've proved it to me in


: both pot-limit cash games, and no limit tournaments.

Daniel, you've been in the tournament world too long.  Tournament success
and live game success are very different.  I'd say only 15-20 of those
people are top NL/PL ring game players.  Several of them are people who
make us cash players go yum-yum when we see 'em coming.  You let me pick 5
of them to play at a table w/ me & 3 real cash game players and we'll bust
'em & bust 'em till that tournament money runs out.

Patri

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth pokerphil 6/5/00 12:00 AM

Dsklansky wrote:

     Daniel, you have done a superb job of making an important point that most of
RGP doesn't seem to fully understand.  For the real pros on tour and those who play
in the biggest games in the world consistently (of which I do, but admittedly my
results haven't been very good the last year or TWO), we rarely if ever see Mike
Caro or David Skalansky playing with us.  Which begets the question, why?  Most of
the pros that you have listed in your posts live in huge houses and drive expensive
cars (the fruits of being a great poker player today).  I don't honestly know what
kind of house or car David and Mike drive (yes, money is a one measure of poker
success), but based on the poker 'real world results' I have seen...well...I never
see them play, so I really don't think that they have won all that much money
actually 'playing poker.'  Most of the pros that you have listed would have an edge
against David or Mike in the long run.  Your reasoning seems sound to me, in that
you believe that Mike and David are great for poker (absolutely) and write
excellent game theory.  However, writing excellent game theory and 'poker skills'
are two completely different animals.  David would like to confine himself to the
'supertight' startegy that good game theory calls for in most games today.  This
may work against the masses of people out there that play too loose in the poker
world today.  But what makes a player rise to the top in todays game is what I
would like to call 'situational analysis' or the ability to change your opinion of
poker hands after the flip of a card (or a new 'street').  How will my opponent bet
his hand after a new card changes everything (tells)?  What do I think he has given
the way he acted pre-flop, on the flop, on fourth street and on the river (the big
picture using tells, tendencies, moods, tilt considerations and 'other' info that
great players pick up on)?  How does his current 'frame of mind' or current style
influence what he is likely to be playing at this exact moment in time?  Poker is a
game of people a lot more then it is a game of theory, that is why we are seeing
people like Eli (with the wife) winning all of the money lately.  Eli makes great
laydowns and understands people (the way they think and act).  I would guess that
most of the great players know what David knows when it comes to game theory in the
big five poker games or HORSE.  It really isn't all that complicated, but the great
players also know people and thats what distinguishes them from David and Mike.

     For the record, the advantage that the great players have over David is by
definition, small, since David is capable of playing perfect poker (or close enough
anyway) against a computer.  I know a lot less about Mike Caros game, since after
playing poker professionally and being on the tour for 14 years, I have only played
with him three times.  Assuming that David plays better then Mike (since after all,
David is known to play in the bigger games in Vegas), then of course the greatest
players would have an even bigger edge against Mike.  Assuming that Mike plays
better then David, then Mike would be a very small underdog against the top twenty
or so players in the world.

    Interestingly, if David or Mike thinks they have an edge over the greatest
players around, then they can just go to the Bellagio and play in the $600-$1200
games for a couple of months and we will see.  I'm betting that they will be
surprised to find out that writing about great play is a lot different then
implementing great play.  I'm betting that they will find out why the great players
are great and it will have a lot to do with 'people skills.'

    Another way to prove that they are great players is through poker tournaments.
I don't remember either one of them winning a poker tournament since I have been
around poker.  Although, admittedly they sure don't play in very many events.
Which again begets the question, why not?  The great players have been winning a
lot of money playing poker tournaments every year.  However, I admit that both
David and Mike are great for poker and write beautiful poker theory.  But if they
want to talk about how great they are at 'playing' poker on RGP, then they will
open themselves up to have the truth of the matter examined.


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth BillM 6/5/00 12:00 AM
>Yet, I've caught you again, top 30 in
>No
>> >Limit Hold'em??
>> >
>> >1.T.J. Cloutier
>> >2.Phil Hellmuth
>> >3.Huck Seed
>> >4.Johhny Chan
>> >5.Bobby Hoff
>> This is a total guess on your part. You are basing it on your
>observation of
>> tournaments. Tournaments have a much different strategy. Many
on your
>list have
>> never even played a no limit side game. I know you have never
seen me
>play one.
>> I don't know some of the names  on the list. I will concede on
>numbers 1, 2, 3,
>> 4, 5,

Phil is undoubtedly a better NLHE tournament player than David,
or anybody else except maybe TJ when he's playing his best, but
a ring NL game?  I'm sure David has played more side NLHE than
Phil, and I'm sure that TJ, Chan and Hoff would love Phil to
play big bet with them.

A long time pro/bracelet winner with decades of NL/PL ring
experience told me that Phil is a big fish in NL/PL ring games.
I'm surprised David conceeded this one.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/5/00 12:00 AM
Phil --

Thanks for the comments.

You have made me understand that since I lack "people skills" in
poker, I should work hard on that part of my game, rather than just
sticking with the mechanical strategy I use now.

And I guess I should reconsider the two job offers in excess of
$400,00 a year I turned down in the last six months. That way I could
buy another even bigger house and you might reevaluate my poker
skills.

I haven't heard from you since our misunderstanding last year when you
left a message on my wife's answering machine threatening to expose me
as unethical for stealing your idea for a world championship
tournament online.

As I told you then, apologetically, hard as it is to believe, the
management of Planet Poker, thinking independently and having already
held tournaments and serving the world poker community, came up with
the idea of a world championship on their own in what is admittedly
one of the weirdest coincidences I can remember.

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

And since On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 17:32:56 GMT, pokerphil

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth pokerphil 6/5/00 12:00 AM

Mike Caro wrote:

> Phil --
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> You have made me understand that since I lack "people skills" in
> poker, I should work hard on that part of my game, rather than just
> sticking with the mechanical strategy I use now.

No Mike, I guess you really are one of the best poker players in the world today.  All I
am saying is that in 14 years of playing 'the tour', I have never seen you win a
tournament before and I have never seen you play in a sidegame before.  I am just
wondering why you claim to be one of the best poker players around, is all.  I have a
lot of respect for your writing and believe you to be honorable, honest and great for
poker.

>
>
> And I guess I should reconsider the two job offers in excess of
> $400,00 a year I turned down in the last six months. That way I could
> buy another even bigger house and you might reevaluate my poker
> skills.

How did I know you would attack that?  My point here was supposed to be that the
greatest poker players in the world are the ones who make (or have made) a lot of money
'playing' poker, I am sorry for not making that clearer.  Again I respect the way that
you write theory and market yourself.  Without having ever achieved too much in poker
you seem to have become more famous then Doyle and 'Amarillo Slim.'

>
>
> I haven't heard from you since our misunderstanding last year when you
> left a message on my wife's answering machine threatening to expose me
> as unethical for stealing your idea for a world championship
> tournament online.

Ouch!  Thats true, I was steaming in a message that I left for you.  You can imagine
what I thought when I told you about my idea to have a World Championship of online
poker in late August 1999 and then to read September 14th or so that you were
implementing that very idea at Planet Poker.  Of course, you and I talked about it after
that and I said I was sorry and left the issue for dead.  I have always enjoyed my
interactions with you actually.

>
>
> As I told you then, apologetically, hard as it is to believe, the
> management of Planet Poker, thinking independently and having already
> held tournaments and serving the world poker community, came up with
> the idea of a world championship on their own in what is admittedly
> one of the weirdest coincidences I can remember.

Even now, when you mock me I enjoy the interactions, I am just not willing to concede to
you that you are one of the top twenty poker 'players' in the world as of yet.  I think
that you have been unchallenged so long at RGP, that you are starting to believe that
you actually are one of the best poker players in the world today.  I don't think so and
am wondering why you do think so.  One last time I will say that I respect you, your
writing skills and the way that you market yourself.  Also, I believe that you are
honorable, honest and great for the poker world.


     Have a nice day, Phil Hellmuth

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Barbara Yoon 6/5/00 12:00 AM
Phil Hellmuth:
>> For the real pros...in the biggest games...we rarely if ever see
>> Mike Caro...  ...why?  Most of the pros...live in huge houses
>> and drive expensive cars.  ...writing...and 'poker skills' are two
>> completely different animals.  Mike Caros game...after playing

>> poker professionally and being on the tour for 14 years, I have
>> only played with him three times.  ...of course the greatest players
>> would have an even bigger edge against Mike.  ...they will find

>> out why the great players are great and it will have a lot to do with
>> 'people skills.'  I don't remember either one of them winning a
>> poker tournament since I have been around poker.  ...they sure
>> don't play in very many events.  ...why not?  ...if they want to talk

>> about how great they are at 'playing' poker on RGP, then they
>> will open themselves up to have the truth of the matter examined.

Mike Caro:


> Thanks for the comments.  You have made me understand that
> since I lack "people skills" in poker, I should work hard on that
> part of my game, rather than just sticking with the mechanical
> strategy I use now.  And I guess I should reconsider the two
> job offers in excess of $400,00 a year I turned down in the last
> six months.

Enterprise rent-a-car district manager, and the other job offer was...?!

> That way I could buy another even bigger house...

Or at least get a set of shiny new hubcaps for the old house,
and maybe even a new paint job on the trusty ol' Yugo...


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Dsklansky 6/5/00 12:00 AM
>we rarely if ever see Mike
>Caro or David Skalansky playing with us.  Which begets the question, why?
>Most of

I do play an average of 150-300 four days a week. Playing 600-1200 risks ten
times as much money for little or no extra EV. The world's best player won't
make twice as much at 600-1200 as 150-300 and he risks a million dollar
downswing.

>Most of
>the pros that you have listed in your posts live in huge houses and drive
>expensive
>

Less than half of the players Daniel listed make as much per hour as I do.
Thirty percent have total yearly income from all endeavors higher than mine.

>never
>see them play, so I really don't think that they have won all that much money
>actually 'playing poker.'  Most of

Need to be vague here, but I have made more than $70 an hour for many years.
You might be surprised at the number of players on that 30 player list of
Daniel's that haven't, or won't, when the smoke clears.

>David would like to confine himself to the
>'supertight' startegy that good game theory calls for in most games today.
>This
>may work against the masses of people out there that play too loose in the
>poker
>world today.  

Anybody who knows me, knows that that is usually not at all how I play. Some of
the big players have an incorrect opinion because when I do step up to 300-600,
I do so because I feel that the game is good enough that a very tight, sub
optimum strategy, will still result in a high hourly rate while maintaining a
low SD. Phil's opinion about me and also what it takes to beat smaller games is
very wrong. Supertight play leaves way too much money on the table. Also this
is where I am at my best. In other words most of those few players who could
probably beat me in those tough high stakes games, would be underdogs to me
cross booking in 30-60.

>Another way to prove that they are great players is through poker
>tournaments.
>I don't remember either one of them winning a poker tournament since I have
>been
>around poker.  Although, admittedly they sure don't play in very many events.
>Which again begets the question why

Mike Caro has addressed this issue well.

>But if they
>want to talk about how great they are at 'playing' poker on RGP, then they
>will
>open themselves up to have the truth of the matter examined.
>

This is absolutely correct. Remember however that my rating of myself was not
"great"  but merely "excellent'' except in hi lo no qualifier and in all around
games (since almost no one else plays more than than three games excellently.)
I also restricted myself to full ring games where my strenghts are most
relevant.

You make good points except for some factual errors. However I think I have
addressed them, to my satisfaction anyway. Mike Caro, because he publicly rates
his own playing ability higher than I rate mine, and because he less often
plays in Vegas big games may seem more susceptible to your criticisms. I'm
curious to how he will reply to you. I'm guessing he won't take to kindly to
the comment:

>the great
>players also know people and thats what distinguishes them from David and
>Mike.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/5/00 12:00 AM
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:41:13 -0400, "Barbara Yoon" <by...@erols.com>
wrote:

Barbara --

The Yugo doesn't need a paint job and is not for sale. I'm surprised
you knew about the "Enterprise" offer and I wish you hadn't made that
public.

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/5/00 12:00 AM
Phil --

Actually, I believe you are great for poker, too, and have said this
repeatedly to many people. I think we need different types of strong
personalities to attract public interest, and your personality niche
is an important one

 I also greatly admire your advance into poker broadcasting (which, by
the way, had been MY idea for about four years, so now we're even on
the idea theft).

Just so you know, I would bet on you in almost any match, and
certainly not against you. If my retorts were too sarcastic, it was
only because I believed your comments about me to be based on too
little information. Your opinion is appreciated nonetheless. And I
remain an admirer.

You and I should play sometime. I'd enjoy it, even if you took my
money.

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Jim Geary 6/5/00 12:00 AM
Tho my ISP has yet to render the original post unto me,
Mike said Phil said:

> Most of the pros that you have listed in your posts live in huge houses

Uhoh. New contest. I'll put my square footage against Phil's to
see who the greatest player ever is. :)

Jim Geary (who saved about $x,xx0,000 by buying sftage in Baking Arsehole,
AZ instead of Menlo Park).


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth TEX DOLLY 6/5/00 12:00 AM
Mike and David==As I recall, Wallace somebody wrote ''Death of a Poker Player''
after Super System came out. I've been laughing all the way to thr bank ever
since.==Doyle Brunson

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/5/00 12:00 AM

Doyle --

That was our friend Wallace Ward who wrote a "review" of Doyle
Brunson's Super/System -- A Course in Power Poker" claiming we
wouldn't be successful thereafter because you had given away all the
secrets.

Thanks for reminding me.

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth pokerphil 6/5/00 12:00 AM

Dsklansky wrote:

> >we rarely if ever see Mike
> >Caro or David Skalansky playing with us.  Which begets the question, why?
> >Most of
>
> I do play an average of 150-300 four days a week. Playing 600-1200 risks ten
> times as much money for little or no extra EV. The world's best player won't
> make twice as much at 600-1200 as 150-300 and he risks a million dollar
> downswing.

My mistake David, I wasn't aware that you were playing a lot of hours these days.
I have too often made the mistake of playing in the $600-$1200 games instead of the
easier $200-$400 and it certainly has cost me money.

>
>
> >Most of
> >the pros that you have listed in your posts live in huge houses and drive
> >expensive
> >
>
> Less than half of the players Daniel listed make as much per hour as I do.
> Thirty percent have total yearly income from all endeavors higher than mine.

You may be right about this as well, David.  I certainly also believe that you are
pretty sharp in making sure that 'all endeavors' continues and expands for you.

>
>
> >never
> >see them play, so I really don't think that they have won all that much money
> >actually 'playing poker.'  Most of
>
> Need to be vague here, but I have made more than $70 an hour for many years.
> You might be surprised at the number of players on that 30 player list of
> Daniel's that haven't, or won't, when the smoke clears.

Again, you may be right about that, but if they had your money management, I
believe that the number is less then you believe it is.  So what were talking about
here is money management vs. playing abilities.

>
>
> >David would like to confine himself to the
> >'supertight' startegy that good game theory calls for in most games today.
> >This
> >may work against the masses of people out there that play too loose in the
> >poker
> >world today.
>
> Anybody who knows me, knows that that is usually not at all how I play. Some of
> the big players have an incorrect opinion because when I do step up to 300-600,
> I do so because I feel that the game is good enough that a very tight, sub
> optimum strategy, will still result in a high hourly rate while maintaining a
> low SD. Phil's opinion about me and also what it takes to beat smaller games is
> very wrong. Supertight play leaves way too much money on the table. Also this
> is where I am at my best. In other words most of those few players who could
> probably beat me in those tough high stakes games, would be underdogs to me
> cross booking in 30-60.

Agreed.

>
>
> >Another way to prove that they are great players is through poker
> >tournaments.
> >I don't remember either one of them winning a poker tournament since I have
> >been
> >around poker.  Although, admittedly they sure don't play in very many events.
> >Which again begets the question why
>
> Mike Caro has addressed this issue well.

Well, that may or may not be the case, but nonetheless the 'supertight' skill set
which you excell in, may promote lasting a long time in a tournament, but it
certainly doesn't promote winning a tournament.  All skill sets help in winning
poker tournaments.

>
>
> >But if they
> >want to talk about how great they are at 'playing' poker on RGP, then they
> >will
> >open themselves up to have the truth of the matter examined.
> >
>
> This is absolutely correct. Remember however that my rating of myself was not
> "great"  but merely "excellent'' except in hi lo no qualifier and in all around
> games (since almost no one else plays more than than three games excellently.)
> I also restricted myself to full ring games where my strenghts are most
> relevant.

True, but how often are the big games actually 'full' these days?  The only thing
that I took exception to is this: I thought that you rated yourself in the top five
in HORSE games (I don't wish to engage you in a discussion about games that aren't
played in Vegas anymore).

>
>
> You make good points except for some factual errors. However I think I have
> addressed them, to my satisfaction anyway. Mike Caro, because he publicly rates
> his own playing ability higher than I rate mine, and because he less often
> plays in Vegas big games may seem more susceptible to your criticisms. I'm
> curious to how he will reply to you. I'm guessing he won't take to kindly to
> the comment:
>
> >the great
> >players also know people and thats what distinguishes them from David and
> >Mike.

I am merely pointing out that theory is great in a book, but in a game,
understanding people is more important when you are playing great players (since
they have the game theory anyway). Again, I respect you, your writing and your
play, David.  I am merely challenging the notion that you are one of the top ten
players in the world at 'playing' HORSE poker.  If you and Mike want to make that
claim in a public forum, then it is something which will be discussed by all.

     Have a nice day, Phil Hellmuth

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth pokerphil 6/5/00 12:00 AM

Mike Caro wrote:

> Phil --
>
> Actually, I believe you are great for poker, too, and have said this
> repeatedly to many people. I think we need different types of strong
> personalities to attract public interest, and your personality niche
> is an important one

Yes, our personalities are good for the game I think.

>
>
>  I also greatly admire your advance into poker broadcasting (which, by
> the way, had been MY idea for about four years, so now we're even on
> the idea theft).

OK, even though you had both ideas ahead of me!  But I also must say that
I admire your advance into poker education with MCU.

>
>
> Just so you know, I would bet on you in almost any match, and
> certainly not against you. If my retorts were too sarcastic, it was
> only because I believed your comments about me to be based on too
> little information. Your opinion is appreciated nonetheless. And I
> remain an admirer.

A little sarcasm isn't such a bad thing.  Your right, I don't have enough
information about your game.

>
>
> You and I should play sometime. I'd enjoy it, even if you took my
> money.

Someday, I guess we will find ourselves at the table together.  I just
hope that I'm not on tilt!  I never meant to attack you, its just that
when you claim to be great at 'playing' poker, then you open yourself up
to discussion and seeking the truth about such matters.  I have a lot of
respect for you and the 'Mad Genius marketing machine.'

     Have a nice day, Phil Hellmuth

>
>
> Straight Flushes,
> Mike Caro


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/5/00 12:00 AM
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 20:57:51 GMT, pokerphil <poke...@ispchannel.com>
wrote (in part):

>  I have a lot of respect for you and the 'Mad Genius marketing machine.'
>
>     Have a nice day, Phil Hellmuth

Phil --

Thanks for all you nice comments. About the last one...

Actually it's really easy to make the marketing machine work as long
as I have something worth marketing. Otherwise, my machine would stop
very quickly.

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Barbara Yoon 6/5/00 12:00 AM
Mike Caro:

>>> I guess I should reconsider the two job offers in excess
>>> of $400,00 a year I turned down in the last six months.

>> Enterprise rent-a-car district manager, and the other...?!

>>> That way I could buy another even bigger house...

>> Or at least get a set of shiny new hubcaps for the old house,
>> and maybe even a new paint job on the trusty ol' Yugo...

> The Yugo doesn't need a paint job and is not for sale.


> I'm surprised you knew about the "Enterprise" offer
> and I wish you hadn't made that public.

Well then, you should've made that clear ahead of time when
you put ME down as a 'reference' on your application...OK?!

And by the way, I'm returning the lovely plastic flamingo that
you sent to me as a gift in that connection -- not that I don't
appreciate your sincere sentiment, but it's just that it's a slightly
different shade of pink, and so it clashes with the others in my
front yard...  I'm sure you understand...


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/5/00 12:00 AM

Oops, the name was Frank Wallace. Just looked at my book. Sorry.
Anyway, I recommended his first book on "Using the Advanced Concepts."
It was something like, How to Make A Guaranteed Income for Life Using
the Advanced Concepts of Poker. I think it was the best-selling book
in the country. Then he wrote some other stuff that seemed strange to
me, but I can't remember.

He was an interesting man. But that was one very bad prediction. :-)

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

To all of the above Incognito 6/5/00 12:00 AM
How much of an edge to the best players have over other great players?
What is this debate over, a one cent per hour edge?

I am VERY much a novice, at this point, and may not have much of an
understanding of the depth and skill level to which a player can achieve.
However, it seems to me that none of the players on any of the lists would  want
to make a living playing the other players on the lists at their best games?

Is'nt the most money made by choosing the weakist opponents?

This seems like a debate over a very small difference in abilities, please
enlighten me where I have erred!

jackhigh wrote:

> RPG'ers:
>
>      I have been a huge fan of Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth for
> decades and eagerly look forward to and reread everything any of
> them ever writes.  Each in their own way has presented a coherent
> and unassaible analysis of poker strategy and I anticipate
> learning more from them.
>
>      That being said, and that is a huge acknowledgement and on
> most levels more important than being a top poker player, few
> players I know would consider any of them in the top 50 players
> in the world.  It is a fascinating question why these three who
> understand poker theory so well have not dominated cash or
> tournament games at the highest levels.


>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth hux 6/6/00 12:00 AM

> I promise, word of honor, kill myself absolutely dead if I violate
> this oath, that I'll never, ever speak or write on poker again in any
> way whatsoever if you can rationally show me why I'm not at least
> close to the best (and arguably the best) at the games I play and have
> studied and at which I claim that I am the best. And "best" means
> ability to play the best on demand, and discounts actual performance

> during poker exhibitions or other sessions when maximizing wins might
> not be my intention.
>
> So, here's your shot, Daniel. Go for it. You can drive me out of town
> on this one. Mason Malmuth is probably cheering for you. And I'll keep
> my word.
>
> Straight Flushes,
> Mike Caro
>
Oohaa, that's quite a statement, Mike.  Shades of "Rounders": putting
your life on the line for poker (sort of).  Wouldn't it make more sense
to say "I'll eat my hat" instead of threatening to give up poker
altogether if you are wrong.  I've told you at least a million times to
avoid hyperbole.

Fortunately (IMO)the criteria you provide are too broad to be tested
conveniently.   You appear to discount freeze-out tournament play, so
the only way it could be done is by an extended session (perhaps a week
or so to take out short term deviations) against a selection of the top
players, playing your favourite games, with the end result depending on
the total amount of money won rather than the last-man-standing format
of normal tournaments.   This would imply unlimited buy-backs, seeing
as freeze-out is discounted.   Hmmm.  Could be interesting. I don't
think we'll see it though.

In the absence of any objective measure, there is no way anyone can
prove that you - or indeed any player who wants to make the same claim -
 isn't the best in the world, so you are pretty safe.

Interesting question: what would you do if you had to give up poker?
I'm sure there are plenty of areas you would excell at.

Hux is david Zanetti, from perth western Australia


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Mike Caro 6/6/00 12:00 AM
On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 02:49:41 GMT, hux <zda...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>Interesting question: what would you do if you had to give up poker?
>I'm sure there are plenty of areas you would excell at.
>
>Hux is david Zanetti, from perth western Australia
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.

David --

I think I would go to Australia and hang out with you. My neighbor is
from Australia. It's tied for number one on places I want to visit,
along with New Zealand. Never been down under yet.

Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Dsklansky 6/6/00 12:00 AM
>David.  I am merely challenging the notion that you are one of the top ten
>players in the world at 'playing' HORSE poker.  If you and Mike want to make
>that
>claim in a public forum, then it is something which will be discussed by all.
>
>     Have a nice day, Phil Hellmuth
>

It is a pleasure discuss things with somone who doesn't throw out insults and
is willing to modify his stance in the face of cogent counterarguments. Now as
to the above quote: Firstly I did not rate myself in the top ten in HORSE but
rather in the top five in a decathalon of ten games. Yes some of these games
are rarely played, but that is true for me also. My rating goes up to a large
degree because when facing unfamiliar rules, I am more apt to quickly grasp
what the best strategy is. If there was a ring game where every round was a
different game with different oddball rules- high hand gets 2/3, deuces wild
only on fifth st, match the pot to get an eighth card etc etc., but no game
ever gets played twice, I would be the best in the world period. This factor
comes into play enough that it should put me in the top five in a decathalon.
  As far as HORSE is concerned (again assuming an eight handed game.) I want to
point out that there are two different ways to rate somebody. One way is to
assume that there is a HORSE game comprised of me and the 10 best plyers in the
world where three of them randomly sit out. Then the question would be whether
my results would be the worst of all (in the long run of course). If not then I
am in the top ten.
  The second method would be this. I play in normally found higher stakes HORSE
games. The ten best players (not necessarily the same as the ten in the other
proposition since they are being rated differently) play the same number of
hours against the same table. In this second case all eleven of us would
certainly win. I am not in the top ten if they all do better.
   Using the first criteria I believe I am in the top ten. Using the second
criteria, I am sure I am.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth MSA1213 6/6/00 12:00 AM
Mike,

Go for it. Take some months in Australia & New Zealand. The nicest time in our
early retirement was 3 months traveling in Australia/New Zealand. That was too
short. We plan to return soon.
My only disappointment was poker. Only in 3 of the 10 casinos visited (they
have 1 per city there), did I find a poker game to play. And only Melbourne
provided any real choice. (Although we skipped Canberra which I've heard has
games.)
So if you go, unless you find home games, it will certainly be "what would you
do if you had to give up poker?"  And some skeptics might then possibly
question your ranking as the #1 player because you're away from the game.

marc
"an eager reader of this thread between the 2 most noted poker authors and 2
top poker players or is it between 4 top poker players"?

p.s. Let me know when you want to have a game in Perth and I might just fly
over there!

>>Interesting question: what would you do if you had to give up poker?
>>I'm sure there are plenty of areas you would excell at.
>>
>>Hux is david Zanetti, from perth western Australia
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
>
>David --
>
>I think I would go to Australia and hang out with you. My neighbor is
>from Australia. It's tied for number one on places I want to visit,
>along with New Zealand. Never been down under yet.
>
>Straight Flushes,
>Mike Caro
>


Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Elocutu...@hotmail.com 6/6/00 12:00 AM
In article <393B140C...@home.com>,
  drto...@home.com wrote:

> Wow. You read minds now too? Is that an attribute of all high level
> thinkers?

No--just the good ones.

--E*Borg


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

To all of the above JarredLA 6/6/00 12:00 AM
.The best poker player in the world is Doyle Brunson.He has played the longest
versus all of the names you have mentioned and he has ALL the money..Chip is
right there behind him...Evrybody else is a distant whatever.Lets not forget
Doyle is 70 years old and he STILL plays in the biggest games.Ted is a verygood
player but he is not even in the same ball park as Doyle or Chip...Just ask the
other players on those "list" of yours who the best is and I am sure they will
agree.And if they dont I can promise you doyle will play"them" heads up in any
game "they"want.And I am sure Chip would too.He who has all the skins is the
best hunter....I think doyle has the most!!

To all of the above Dsklansky 6/6/00 12:00 AM
Whoever is the best player in the world, whether that be Doyle, Chip, Mike
Caro, or someone else, would not play anyone at any game they want. Firstly the
best player may be not the best at headsup which requires different skills at
than a ring game. But even if they were the best head up player, there would be
plenty of games where specialists in that game would be favored over them. No
one is superb at more than three games.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Elocutu...@hotmail.com 6/6/00 12:00 AM
In article <8hhos0$468$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

  hux <zda...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> In the absence of any objective measure, there is no way anyone can
> prove that you - or indeed any player who wants to make the same
> claim - isn't the best in the world, so you are pretty safe.

Woo hoo!  I'm the best player in the world and nobody can prove I ain't!

--E*Borg (who had no idea he was so good.)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth Elocutu...@hotmail.com 6/6/00 12:00 AM
In article <S2o8OWo4trdwX+...@4ax.com>,

  Mike Caro <ca...@caro.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 02:49:41 GMT, hux <zda...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Interesting question: what would you do if you had to give up poker?
> >I'm sure there are plenty of areas you would excell at.
> >
> >Hux is david Zanetti, from perth western Australia
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
> I think I would go to Australia and hang out with you. My neighbor is
> from Australia. It's tied for number one on places I want to visit,
> along with New Zealand. Never been down under yet.

Ahhh!  Mike is poisoning the pot.  You win the bet, you get him as a
houseguest.  No fair!

--E*Borg


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

To all of the above Marc Gilutin 6/7/00 12:00 AM
On 06 Jun 2000 18:00:42 GMT, dskl...@aol.com (Dsklansky) wrote:

>{snip}


>>
>Whoever is the best player in the world, whether that be Doyle, Chip, Mike
>Caro, or someone else, would not play anyone at any game they want. Firstly the
>best player may be not the best at headsup which requires different skills at
>than a ring game. But even if they were the best head up player, there would be
>plenty of games where specialists in that game would be favored over them. No
>one is superb at more than three games.
>
>
Is there some mathematical proof that no one is superb at more than
three games.....or is it some kind of grammatical thing?
Obviously the more accurate phrase is:" No one is superb at more than
*four* games."
Now...you guys fight back and forth with David for a while and, if you
still think there *is* someone who's superb at more than three games,
come see me about the fourth.

Cheers,


Marc

To all of the above Daniel Negreanu 6/7/00 12:00 AM
In article <20000606133453.23677.00000990@ng-cu1.aol.com>,

  I won't dispute that this is possible, but how do YOU know?  Have you
played with Chip and Doyle?  What makes you think Doyle is better than
Chip or vice versa?  I couldn't tell you for a fact who is better, only
what I've heard.  I've played with both briefly.  I played with Doyle
at the TOC and was in awe of the five hours I witnessed.  I watched him
play in side games as well and thought the same thing.  I played with
Chip once...he was "socializing" playing 600-1200 Omaha 8 waiting for a
bigger game, and didn't do anything "spectacular".  Yet his presence
was overwhelming, and I'm sure sitting to his immediate right didn't
help me much.  Luckily he quit to go play some 4 billion 8 billion stud
game or something, phew:-)
  Yet, through word of mouth I've always heard Chip was the best all
around player in the world.  Doyle is EASILY dominant in no limit
hold'em, but I've "heard" that Chip is the best side game player who
ever lived, and I believe it.
  At the same time, I can't agree that Ted Forrest isn't in "the same
ball park" as those two, I've played with him!  You are entitled to
your opinion, I'm just curious what you base it on?  I've given you
what I know about the three gentlemen(and that they all are from my
experience), what have you experienced?  Please don't view this as an
attack, but you made some strong statements and I was curious where
your foundation for them are?
Daniel Negreanu

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

More topics »