|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 10/15/2008 3:28:11 PM PACIFIC |
 Sklansky tables wrong?, Banning, 24. Jul 2003 05:46 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I read this online article quite awhile ago, something like 6 months ago or more. In it the author uses a variety of computer simulations to test out the "sklansky tables" This is a link: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/ I know that Texas hold'em for advanced players is generally considered the bible of poker and was interested in your guys' opinion of the article. The article was found at www.gocee.com/poker That site was the very first poker strategy sites I had ever found or read and the site was quite useful. For the most part the author agrees with the first two categories, but after that he starts making slight adjustments and moving starting hands around between different groups. He also playtested starting hands for multihand action vs less people seeing the flop and made observations concerning that as well. It was interesting to see how certain hands actually work better in multiway pots (especially JJ and TT) whereas big slick AK has a crazy dropoff for multi way action. Anyhow, I was interested in your opinions of this article which throws mud in the eye of our bible. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky tables wrong?, Roy Cooke, 24. Jul 2003 06:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi Banning Interesting article! This should make a great thread.......Thanx for posting it! First, The differences were quite small. I have small differences in my hand selection strategies than S &M. The author of this article (Ken )did not define well how these hands played as far as expectation against differing types of opponents....just the number of opponents. This may be the background for the discrepancies. The AK issues were interesting....That said, AK has other Aces in BIG trouble pre-flop and the propensity of that event adds value to AK...Many players play any ace and generally only have 3 wins when AK has them outkicked. I already devalued the lower suited connectors and have previously stated so in articles.....I think in volume situations in which you should play them they are drawing to an underflush too often and it decreases the value in the hand significantly as the propensity for your opponent to be playing Q3 of the same suit is increased in volume pots! I also feel that the JJ and TT hands in general play better playing them more aggressive than what S & M state! Ken seems to take more risk regarding kickers than I would chose to do so....I like to pre-emptively avoid those tough (and VERY unprofitable) spots. Just some thoughts regarding the article.....Any other opinions? Roy Cooke on 24. Jul 2003 05:46 Banning wrote: > I read this online article quite awhile ago, something like 6 months ago or > more. In it the author uses a variety of computer simulations to test out the > "sklansky tables" This is a link: > http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/ > I know that Texas hold'em for advanced players is generally considered the > bible of poker and was interested in your guys' opinion of the article. The > article was found at > www.gocee.com/poker > That site was the very first poker strategy sites I had ever found or read and > the site was quite useful. For the most part the author agrees with the first > two categories, but after that he starts making slight adjustments and moving > starting hands around between different groups. He also playtested starting > hands for multihand action vs less people seeing the flop and made observations > concerning that as well. It was interesting to see how certain hands actually > work better in multiway pots (especially JJ and TT) whereas big slick AK has a > crazy dropoff for multi way action. Anyhow, I was interested in your opinions > of this article which throws mud in the eye of our bible. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky tables wrong?, MozMan, 24. Jul 2003 10:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hey- When I picked up my copy of "Advanced," I got the most recent version, an dI notice that Sklansky has actually revised the tables there... I don't recall why he said he did it, but perhaps it was in response to information like this... -Moz "May your chips never fall from a cow." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky tables wrong?, Snorbolus, 24. Jul 2003 12:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think that the reason AKo suffers so badly, in that simulation, as more players see the river is because those players only call if they hold at least one pair or a good draw; whereas the AKo bets every time. The type of hand that AKo makes is top pair top kicker (or just ace high), and that is exactly the sort of holding that will do badly in this kind of simulation. I think that what this result tells us is that, ace high to top pair top kicker fares badly against opponents who always have at least one pair; and the more opponents who have at least one pair there are the worse it does. Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading that article. It helped me to think about the way that hands play out and how your opponents likely holdings affect the value of your own. Snorbolus on 24. Jul 2003 05:46 Banning wrote: > I read this online article quite awhile ago, something like 6 months ago or > more. In it the author uses a variety of computer simulations to test out the > "sklansky tables" This is a link: > http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/ > I know that Texas hold'em for advanced players is generally considered the > bible of poker and was interested in your guys' opinion of the article. The > article was found at > www.gocee.com/poker > That site was the very first poker strategy sites I had ever found or read and > the site was quite useful. For the most part the author agrees with the first > two categories, but after that he starts making slight adjustments and moving > starting hands around between different groups. He also playtested starting > hands for multihand action vs less people seeing the flop and made observations > concerning that as well. It was interesting to see how certain hands actually > work better in multiway pots (especially JJ and TT) whereas big slick AK has a > crazy dropoff for multi way action. Anyhow, I was interested in your opinions > of this article which throws mud in the eye of our bible. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky tables wrong?, Snorbolus, 24. Jul 2003 12:22 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think that this result also emphasizes that one of the things that makes AKo such a profitable hand pre-flop is that it is easy to muck on a bad flop. It is certainly not a hand that you want to take to the river every time. Snorbolus | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky tables wrong?, Schuster, 24. Jul 2003 13:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Very good point about AK in loose games Snorb. Lou Krieger has a discussion about it in his book and when to raise with it and when to just call the blinds. Conventional wisdom says when you get AK, you raise. His book advocates just calling in late position and seeing the flop after a lot of people are in. If you flop well, then you can throw in your raise, and people will have worse odds to draw to whatever can beat you. It's worth a read if you get the chance. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky tables wrong?, noiseboy, 25. Jul 2003 10:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I still think you should raise, even if a lot of people are in. What happens a lot in loose games is "check to the raiser" on the flop. Then you just check right along behind them and get another chance to pair up. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky tables wrong?, Jav, 24. Jul 2003 13:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree. And one thing that many people fail to understand is that if you do play it to the river frequently, even when the flop doesn't hit you, then over time it's NOT going to be a profitable hand. What makes it profitable is that it holds up frequently when it does hit. You get the most out of it by getting out when it's not helping you. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky tables wrong?, Andrew Wells, 24. Jul 2003 17:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I asked Mason Malmuth several years ago how often he expects to win a pot with position and AK unimproved on the flop. His response was about 1/3rd. of the time. This may be right away on the flop or later in the hand with or without catching top pair. In a middle limit game with an unthreatening board we will both generally raise from last position with just these overcards to a single bet. Mason may even call if the bettor now reraises. This sort of play to retake the initiative and allow the turn card to define the appropriate strategy against whatever player characteristics you are up against is probably not something the computer simulation is adept with. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky tables wrong?, Snorbolus, 24. Jul 2003 18:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think that this sort of play is very opponent specific. If I was up against players who would call me down with middle or bottom pair, because they think it is a good hand and they don't want to risk raising and scaring anybody out of the pot, then I would expect to win very much less than 1/3 of the time with position and an unimproved AK on the flop. Snorbolus on 24. Jul 2003 17:03 Andrew Wells wrote: > I asked Mason Malmuth several years ago how often he expects to win a pot with position and AK > unimproved on the flop. His response was about 1/3rd. of the time. This may be right away on the > flop or later in the hand with or without catching top pair. In a middle limit game with an > unthreatening board we will both generally raise from last position with just these overcards to a > single bet. Mason may even call if the bettor now reraises. This sort of play to retake the > initiative and allow the turn card to define the appropriate strategy against whatever player > characteristics you are up against is probably not something the computer simulation is adept with. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky tables wrong?, noiseboy, 24. Jul 2003 16:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think any table of hand values has it's flaws. Especially one that pits computer players against each other as it's base. Do computers play like humans? I don't think so, not yet at least. That being said, I do agree with the article in some of it's assessments of flaws in S&M, specifically on the "Medium suited connector myth". I think the medium suited connectors can be played, but that most players over-value them. I also think S&M might undervalue small pairs compared to small suited connectors, but that depends a lot on table conditions. Another example is that I agree that S&M's recommendations with the medium pairs seems a bit weak. I'll pretty much always raise with TT's and 99's if I'm first in the pot. It makes it harder to read me when I'm in there with AA's and it helps protect those pairs from overcards. However, the main place that hand tables fail, is not in the specific play of a certain hand. Where the tables fail is that table conditions, the quality and playing style of your opponents and your table image all contribute to which hands become valuable. There really are a myriad of factors to consider which hands you want to be playing, not just position and whether someone has raised. For example, WHO has made the raise makes an enourmous difference in what you would play. A maniac raises UTG, you have 99's in middle position so you re-raise because your hand is better than the one he is likely raising with. If a rock raises UTG and it's folded to me in middle position, I might fold those same 99's, especially if I've observed that this player only raises with big pocket pairs. If I think there's a damn good chance that I'm over a 4-to-1 dog, why would I call bet? Anyway, a big step for me was when I stopped thinking in terms of hand rankings and just started to think about the unique characteristics of each hand and what situations I like to play them in. I group them in my head by pairs, suited connectors, off-suit connectors and subdivide them by big medium and small cards. That got me away from the confusing thing about value charts which is that they compare apples and oranges. For example, in certain situations 22's are a better hand than AK, but you don't see the 22's way up there in group 2, it's like group 7 or something. Anyway, I can say with all certainty that AA's are better than KK's are better than QQ's, all the way down to dueces. I can say that AK is better than KQ is better than QJ... But can I really say that AK (the best non-pair) is ALWAYS better than 22's (the worst pair)? No, I can't, if you play them heads-up to the river, the 22's win more. Anyway, I know this post has become somewhat long and convoluted, but hopefully my basic point that you cannot draw a line and say "play these hands in this position". The value of a hand in hold'em is dependent on the entire situation, not just position and whether there is a limp, raise, whatever. Thanks for posting that link, I hadn't looked at that table in several months and it has some interesting ideas. I'm with Roy on sticking with good kickers. I just like to be in a situation where I KNOW whether I likely have the best hand or not, and hands like AT and A9 might win sometimes, but it's hard to profit from them when you are worried your oppenent has AK. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|