Quote:
Originally Posted by daxile
Man the disrespect to Sklansky ITT and the other one is quite sad to see. You can disagree with him and his ideas but to insinuate he's an old man who's out of touch is really insulting to someone who's contributed so much to our better understanding of the game of Poker. In fact, I would say out of all the outdated poker books that were written (and there are a lot), theory of poker is still a book that holds up relatively well and that is saying a lot since the book was literally written in the 70s.
i agree, you'd be hard pressed to find a more influential person in shaping the game into what it has become today
but people have issues with him for 2 very big reasons
1 - a la dunning kruger he still views himself as a world class
contemporary mind and is not receptive to constructive criticism - he's always right in his mind despite that a lot of what he posts now is objectively not correct/optimal etc and instead of learning and adapting, he's used to be being the thought leader and thus continues to try to lead thoughts when at this stage he should be more of a collaborator who is willing to adjust his stance based on new information he didn't consider or misinterpreted
for example, you see how sauce who's widely regarded as one of the best to ever play even prefaced his post with
Quote:
Originally Posted by sauce123
I haven't played in awhile so take this with a grain of salt.
despite that few here would ever question his opinion on this and he could probably get away with trolling us all with nonsense to which everyone would go "wow i had no idea that's what it was like" he's still cognizant of the fact that he could be wrong and things could have changed enough since his time that his perspective may have some issues - and sauce is orders of magnitude closer to the contemporary game than sklansky is - but he's aware enough to believe his distance means he could now be incorrect (despite that it's incredibly likely he could easily get away with being wrong) whereas sklansky, who for years now has had people openly disagreeing with him and showing their work, is not receptive to any of it
sklansky has none of that - he's always right, whether it's the correct limping with kings strategy or a political opinion of his - he's never wrong in his mind and this leads to him making a bit of a fool of himself at times as a result
nobody is saying that sklansky is stupid, you'll see conversations in which people disagree with him here yet still using terminology he coined in order to do so, he's just lost touch and refuses to believe that and that's where the conflict comes from
2 - him as a person