David Sklansky on NLHE

At the beginning of our book is a warning that in No Limit holdem, all the theory and knowledge in the world ,will not make you a favorite against a player who can read you a lot better than you can read him. At least in big stack games. One of the reasons that I never wrote a no limit book before. On the other hand you, as an intermedite player, should realize that it is even more true in no limit than limit, especially as regards shorthanded games, that the most succesful players will be confused about the mathematical underpinnings of the game. Because they won't be punished enough for their ignorance.

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

the most succesful players will be confused about the mathematical underpinnings of the game. Because they won't be punished enough for their ignorance.

I find this very profound.

Is this from the book I heard he's releasing?

How complex a mathematial strategy are we talking about? I'm sure H@LL knows he's 36% to hit his flush.

You've obviously been following the threads in the 2+2 HSNL forum that DS has been posting lately.

It's been interesting and at the same time kinda annoying to see how the high stakes 2+2 NL players react to DS's posts. His 'do you see why' condescension seems to rub people the wrong way. Then again, I've seen a lot of uncalled for disrespect thrown his way too. Regardless, if you manage to wade through all the ego, you can learn a fair amount from those posts.

I hope the DS+Miller upcoming NL book isn't a big disapointment. Based on the quality of TOP and SSH, I expect it to do a good job in formalizing general NL concepts. I also expect to see a large amount of discussion on stack depth etc. Then again, part of me doesn't even want that book published out of fear that enough of my bad opponents will read it and as a result cease to be as horrible as they are.

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Is this from the book I heard he's releasing?

How complex a mathematial strategy are we talking about? I'm sure H@LL knows he's 36% to hit his flush.

No, it's from a 2+2 post.

On the other hand you, as an intermedite player, should realize that it is even more true in no limit than limit, especially as regards shorthanded games, that the most succesful players will be confused about the mathematical underpinnings of the game. Because they won't be punished enough for their ignorance.

I don't normally complain about this but oh oh sweet mother of grammar. I hope Sklansky has good editors

I'm sure there's a great message in there but I'm not sure I understand it due to horrific sentence structure and sentence fragment. Anyone care to interpret?

Is Sklansky saying

-that the best players are mathematically ignorant?
-the best players disregard a major part of the math (and this is somehow exploitable)?

Something else?

sklanskys a fish
his book on limit was good though...

I thought that BOTH skills are important, math AND reading skills. Occasional "lucky" 568 flops are also welcome, just to pull Ripptyde's move against nitty set-farmer

At the beginning of our book is a warning that in No Limit holdem, all the theory and knowledge in the world will not make you a favorite against a player who can read you a lot better than you can read him...Because they won't be punished enough for their ignorance.

Originally Posted by Blinky

Anyone care to interpret?

Is Sklansky saying

-that the best players are mathematically ignorant?
-the best players disregard a major part of the math (and this is somehow exploitable)?

Something else?

Booksmarts<Streetsmarts

I haven't been paying attention to sklansky or his posts. When is he planning on releasing his book?

Originally Posted by Blinky

Is Sklansky saying

-that the best players are mathematically ignorant?
-the best players disregard a major part of the math (and this is somehow exploitable)?

Something else?

The best players can do the maths BUT the good players dont need to if they can read, force errors from their opponents (i.e. strong instincts).
In otherwords....Rippy doesnt play by the math but he doesnt do too badly for himself.

Thats what i took it to mean. I also disagree. I strongly suspect that the best players got good by studying the game and most of them will have picked up some maths along the way. I havnt read many educational cardplayer articles that havnt at least mentioned maths, and those tend to be written by some pretty good players.

I interpret this as saying that there are two main skills to use when playing poker - playing the numbers and playing the player/situation/psychology. He is saying that especially in no limit and shorthanded games, the element of playing the player/situation/psychology can be as important or more so than the numbers. The players that use that part of their game to their advantage can't appreciate or understand as much as the pure mathematical side because they haven't lost out enough from making bad mathematical decisions since the other part of their game is making up for it.

So, if a strict "by the numbers" player is on a straight draw and faces a 3/4 of a pot bet from a villain, from a numbers perspective, he folds since the drawing odds aren't there. But, a player who can read well may sense weakness and fire back with a big re-raise with rags (other than the straight draw). If he's right and the villain folds, he won't necessarily understand the mathematical side as much since he wasn't punished for making an incorrect statistical decision.

Originally Posted by Jason

The player/situation/psychology is more important than the numbers. However, he's going on to say that many of the biggest winners are making mistakes which are exploitable by a somewhat worse opponent

Fixed your post.

Originally Posted by RiverMonkey

Then again, part of me doesn't even want that book published out of fear that enough of my bad opponents will read it and as a result cease to be as horrible as they are.

Oh shit I never thought about it that way maybe I shouldn't be eagerly awaiting its release...

Originally Posted by twosevoff

Originally Posted by RiverMonkey

Then again, part of me doesn't even want that book published out of fear that enough of my bad opponents will read it and as a result cease to be as horrible as they are.

Oh shit I never thought about it that way maybe I shouldn't be eagerly awaiting its release...

Dont be silly guys, one more book in the library... its not gonna change the make up of our opponents - the studiers will continue studying, the gamblers will continue gamb000ling

Originally Posted by SinkRox

Dont be silly guys, one more book in the library... its not gonna change the make up of our opponents - the studiers will continue studying, the gamblers will continue gamb000ling

The NLHE material out there right now is mediocre at best.