Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Why isn't this the right forum regardless? Suppose I started a thread called "Are The Math Players Taking Over?" This isn't the best forum for that? I seriously would like to know.
This is the right forum if you want to reach the widest audience. This may be the wrong forum (or at least the wrong way to write the original post) if you don't want the discussion to center around the anonymous person whose opinion you are citing. It's the difference between how things "ought to be" and how they realistically function.
Have you found this attitude in younger non-math-oriented players (who are the most recognizable players who fit this label?) or is this belief generally restricted to much older players?
I suspect that some people on this forum don't think highly of Andy Bloch's game, at least, based on his televised appearances. If given the opportunity, some people (but not I) would probably label him a ridiculous calling station.
If there is a reasonable criticism of game theoretical players, I think it is something that Matt Matros (a math-y player in his own right) pointed out in his book The Making of a Poker Player: some math-based players are exploitable because they are incredibly bad at putting their opponents on a reasonable hand range. (Matros also seems to believe that some notable math players are "tell stations," so it doesn't matter if they use optimal bluffing frequency against an expert player. This criticism probably has some merit, so perhaps more players need to adopt Chris Ferguson's ritualistic approach to playing.)