Sklansky was probably a top player in the 1970s when Doyle asked him to write a chapter in his book. Not sure when Sklansky became not a top player, but it seems like with once being a top player and being a famous author, he didn't determine what type of games and stakes he could beat. He maybe didn't deal with that he needed to grind mid stakes.

Brandi was a beauty contest winner, who went to Hollywood, probably trying to get roles by .... Then she went to Vegas and seemed to be involved with several well known poker players simultaneously.

I didn't mean there was any logical relation between Brandi's death and Sklansky's later problems. It just seemed like her ghost put a curse on him or something.

When I grow up, I want to white knight a 16 year old death and dance on the grave of a dead man too! Slugant, you are a clown.

But, this forum can also avenge her!

David use to play games of fairly high limit, like $75-$150 stud (30 years ago). But he always played them sporadically and was known for walking a lot. So, exactly how he did in those games, I don't know.

As for online, he liked to play small buy-in tournaments. He did this under a different name, and again I don't know how he did.

While The Theory of Poker is probably his greatest contribution, he did write other books as either the author or co-author which were well received. For instance, we sold approximately 280,000 of Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players which is the second best selling book that his name is on.

Thanks for your positive comments relative to this website.

I always thought Sklansky on Poker, specifically the Razz section, was his best contribution outside of Theory of Poker. Even if it wasn’t his best selling or most popular.

David liked razz because he felt that some poker concepts could be easily illustrated using this game. And that's why you see razz popping up in some of his works even if they were books not about razz.

I think the opposite of this is true. He was always looking for good games and weak players, and put more emphasis on that than virtually anyone I knew. Thus, he wasn't interested in grinding, and would often quit games if a bad player or two were replaced by a much better player.

I need to reread this-it'll be my first time sober! Word for word, it's definitely the most bang for your buck imo. No filler at all. Lean & mean.

I think your rush to label people as White Knights is clouding your views. Especially now that he is dead.

People labeling David's actions as horrible aren't doing it to give him some sort of power. We can all argue all we want about how much actual influence David had over Brandi's suicide, but that doesn't matter either.

What matters is that David's actions in themselves were absolutely deplorable. Even if they mattered 0% or 100%, it doesn't matter. Telling a clearly mentally disturbed individual that they should commit suicide is an absolute horrible act. Period. And makes that person a piece of **** human being. There is no defending that.

It doesn't take a White Knight to grasp this. It just takes a normal human being with a normal sense of compassion to get this.

There is no way to ever know just how much David was responsible for her death. It doesn't matter. The fact that he even tried to influence it in a negative way is what matters.

David had a very largely positive influence on poker and general poker knowledge. In fact he had a huge influence on how to think about problems of incomplete information in general. He was a giant in this. That is to be respected and can never be taken away from him.

However it can be equally said that he literally tried to influence a mentally disturbed person to commit suicide. That makes him a terrible human being and should be disrespected by almost everyone, not just White Knights. That is just as much of his legacy as any of his positive attributes.

Recognizing the terrible side of David doesn't give him any sort of power nor does it make anyone a White Knight defender of Brandi. It just makes the person a decent human being.

That is wrong. David sent the email March 1, 2008 and Brandi died April 13, 2008.

Damn. Can imagine that time for letting David's words sink in. At least he threw one of the stones sealing her fate. Guy was full of hate he couldn't conceal or smoothen properly, used his writing talent ruthlessly. Kind of human, but the bad human.

He softened his text just enough for not being criminal, but that's just about it.

QUOTE=BullyEyelash;59309836]Nonsense[/QUOTE

Delete Slugant's posts for what ever reason even though he's obviously right yet allow this simp to continue clogging up the thread. Makes sense.

***

Edit/MH: Deleted 13 copies of first "Quote".

People are very bad at having nuanced discussions about other people. As someone who has been a member here for 20+ years, I would say that all of the following are likely true things about David.

-David is not someone you would classically call a good person, or that people should look up to as a role model.

-David contributed books to the poker world that had a positive impact on many of us here.

-David often sparked interesting discussions on this website

-David often posted things that he thought made him smarter than everyone else but actually showed glaring holes in his life experience, thought process, and personality.

-David was a despicable ******* to a very troubled young woman, and said things that no decent person should ever say to another human.

-It is incredibly unlikely that David caused this young woman to commit suicide. Her entire storyline was very sad on here at the time. Many people in the poker world treated her terribly and took advantage of her, but it is unlikely any one of their actions directly led to her end.

We can all talk back and forth with each other about these facts, but it’s just rehashing the same thing that has been discussed exhaustively in the past.

/thread