On the index page of his website, Ulliott, in response to a reader's question, briefly advises the fellow to "Stop reading Sklansky". Anyone have any idea why this might be? The person said he was specifically a tournament player...do you think Ulliiot feels Sklansky's tight-aggressive style is best for cash games only, or does he have no respect for the man's work?

http://www.thedevilfish.com/

who knows.. you cant make everyone in this world think what you do is right or wrong.. good or bad.....

?

problem with Sklansky's appraoch, even to tournament play, is one of style. Davids approach to everything is conservative, mathematically solid play that will avoid trouble spots and try to maximize advantages.

My guess is Daniel, Devil Fish, Layne Flack etc don't give a crap about the "gap concept". They play the man as much as they play the cards, and you wont find that in any book.

Except that Daniel advocates reading Sklansky...... the Theory of Poker at least, he wrote a positive review for it in the book forum.

I dont think anyone has a problem with TOP, since all it does is present very straightforward and indisputable concepts of EV, information etc.


Even the "recipe" books, HAP, SSHE and TP in and of themselves are valuable as a starting point for the novice. I think all Ulliot is saying (and David and Mason would agree) is that to succeed against top players you can't play a cookie cutter style of "Raise with Group 1....." or strict adherence to the Gap Concept. Or, to butcher the line from "Cincinatti Kid", poker is doing the wrong thing at the right time. (Which, if you dig into it, is really just a basic introduction to implied odds.)