|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 2/13/2012 4:15:36 PM PACIFIC |
 Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, CRCarson, 28. Nov 2003 07:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I understand that Sklansky & Malmuth along with Lee Jones are considered to be "pillars" in the world of poker theory...or "must read" authors at the very least. However, I have heard something about some computer wizards at a university somewhere (Carnegie Mellon?) who developed a sophisticated program to simulate Hold 'Em play. After running a few million (billion?) hands with varying degrees of tightness/looseness and numbers of players seeing the River, they came to the conclusion that Sklansky got it wrong to some degree when he published his famous hand groups and that Jones was way off the mark in his starting recommendations. Anyone heard of this study? Is there any consensus or opinion as to whether these guys were correct in their conclusions? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, gary ford, 28. Nov 2003 08:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 28. Nov 2003 07:43 CRCarson wrote: > I understand that Sklansky & Malmuth along with Lee Jones are considered to be > "pillars" in the world of poker theory...or "must read" authors at the very > least. > > However, I have heard something about some computer wizards at a university > somewhere (Carnegie Mellon?) who developed a sophisticated program to simulate > Hold 'Em play. > > After running a few million (billion?) hands with varying degrees of > tightness/looseness and numbers of players seeing the River, they came to the > conclusion that Sklansky got it wrong to some degree when he published his > famous hand groups and that Jones was way off the mark in his starting > recommendations. > > Anyone heard of this study? Is there any consensus or opinion as to whether > these guys were correct in their conclusions? I printed out the study, called "A Players Guide'--a new guide to the starting hands in Texas Hold-em Poker. I wouldnt call it debunking as much as fine tuning.. Here it is----www- ( dash not dot )2.cs.cmu.edu/people/mummert/poker/. -- You can decide for yourself Good luck--- Gary Ford---fuel the boom | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, CRCarson, 28. Nov 2003 08:23 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| DOH! I had already done the same...but I sure as heck wasn't going to tell the world where to find it! Now, edit that link out of your post pronto! ;-) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, gary ford, 28. Nov 2003 08:40 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 28. Nov 2003 08:23 CRCarson wrote: > DOH! > > I had already done the same...but I sure as heck wasn't going to tell the world where to > find it! > > Now, edit that link out of your post pronto! > > ;-) LOL--That's what was said when DB wrote "Super System" --- reading and applying are 2 different things---I hope!! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, RonnieB, 28. Nov 2003 09:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Gary, how do you feel about this paper? I found it interesting but am too much of a newbee to know it's value. It appeared the hero was always UTG. They did not seem to feel position effected the results. It would seem being EP throughout every hand would be an issue. Ronnie | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, gary ford, 28. Nov 2003 14:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 28. Nov 2003 09:11 RonnieB wrote: > Gary, how do you feel about this paper? I found it interesting but am too much of a newbee to know > it's value. > It appeared the hero was always UTG. They did not seem to feel position effected the results. It > would seem being EP throughout every hand would be an issue. > Ronnie I am not a mathametician, and wouldn't know an algorithm form an apricot but i do understand hand groupings and position. i won't attempt to interpret this study beyond the fact that it assigns power rankings to various hands in the 2 card universe. It is not a magic bullet, YOU still have to decide what to do after you get your 2 cards, but you will know their relative strength. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, gary ford, 28. Nov 2003 18:06 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| read the following posts---you had nothing to worry about | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, Blazer, 1. Dec 2003 19:40 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Sklansky's Holdem Poker and Jones' WLLHE are the two best books to start out with. Stay away from Lou Krieger's Books. His books are totally vague and his Start Chart is ridiculous and will burn $$. His start chart recommends playing A7 and K8 from late position, and thats a good way to burn some chips. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, Blade, 1. Dec 2003 22:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree with your book recomendations but I think your assessment of LK is a bit over the top. He's a quality player and while I think some of his hands seem to assume more post flop playing expertise then his paying audience probably has I don't think his advice is completely wrong. Have a nice day | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, Aisthesis, 28. Nov 2003 10:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Interesting study, and quite sophisticated although still, in my opinion, with a lot of limitations and question marks regarding degree of simulation of practice. I found very interesting that AA and KK appear less sensitive to multi-way pots than most people (including me) think. There, I have certain questions about the betting algorithms. While I don't doubt that they will generally hold up pretty well all the way to the river in multi-way pots, it become very tricky to bet them because there's no telling when you're going to run into 2 pair, possibly lower sets, possibly straights or flushes, if there are lots of players in. I guess that is largely compensated by the return you're getting for every dollar you throw in. And it's probably a bit immaterial in most practical situations since raising and re-raising with them pre-flop is going to make it unlikely that you'll be facing a lot of opponents anyway. I guess the real result is that if your AA or KK raise gets a lot of calls, you're probably still in pretty good shape in most cases. Also liked the fairly high rankings on AXs and KXs, hands I've been playing a lot more lately. And while the model is clearly much more sophisticated than something like pokerstove (which I also consider a very useful tool and is simple enough to allow for a number of interesting "Gedankenexperimente"), there are some obvious limitations: For one thing, Hero always being UTG, but most importantly, probable insufficient algorithms in emulating some typical real playing styles (it's unclear to me just what the algorithms are, but I think just loose/tight, aggressive/passive are much too simplistic). So for me, anyway, the results still have more the quality of a more sophisticated pokerstove rather than really being able to make the claim of defining which hands (in conjunction with appropriate strategies for playing them) are going to make or lose money. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, PairTheBoard, 28. Nov 2003 12:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks very much for that link. I'm keeping a shortcut to it for future reference. It's nice having the S&M, Jones, and the Simulation results in one place with easy access. Some people say that being Suited is not that big a plus - value being mostly determined by rank of cards. It looks like the Simulation weighs in on the side of Suitedness. Suitedness really does make a difference. The simulation really upgrades hands like any suited Ace or King, especially with medium high kickers. I may have to rethink these hands. I was very interested to see the precipitous drop in value for pocket pairs at the 77 level. I had thought 77 was more playable than what the simulation would indicate. Is it just me? But for say a typical online 5-10 game it looks to me like the recommended play from all three sources on that link is WAY TOO LOOSE. If I played some of that junk regularly from EP I'm afraid I'd get KILLED. Even on the button I'd be reluctent to put money in with a lot of that stuff. Maybe I'm just in the Extreme Anorexic Category of players. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, Palinya, 28. Nov 2003 16:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "Player 1 is always our hero. Whatever starting hand our hero is dealt becomes the focus hand in that round of play. Focus hands are always played aggressively all the way to the river." If this is the way they tested it, it really doesn't say much about playing hold'em. If all you had to do was only play "winning" hands and play them aggressively to the river... well who couldn't win doing that? No wonder pairs 77 and less didn't hold up well. Are they saying they played 22 aggressively to the river even if you missed a 2 on the flop? If that is what they mean then you can throw out the whole thing. Low pairs can be very powerful. If you can see the flop for 1 bet and you hit your set you have a great hand. Most of the time you will miss it though. That one bet has a potential to bring in a lot of bets. If you miss, you get out. If you hit you win big. If this went to the river everytime, of course you just turned a winning hand into a huge loser. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, Aisthesis, 28. Nov 2003 17:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| yes, exactly! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, GambleAB, 28. Nov 2003 19:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Personally, I put more stock in what pro players, who make their living following what they write, say than a bunch of numbers that a computer spits out. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, Aisthesis, 29. Nov 2003 00:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I fully agree, although I do think the computer models can run so many more hands than any player can actually play in a lifetime that they can discover certain holes in conventional wisdom. What I would find TRULY interesting would be: Starting with Mike Caro's program that could successfully play along with the pro's, devise simulations of various playing styles all the way from the top pro's down to hobbyists who sit in once in a while for fun at casinos or online (trying if possible to also include a "reading skill" factor). Then get some good observers to take some samples of representative scenarios all the way from WSOP to lower level games of various sorts. Then decide on a set of levels with which to run the simulation, choose some representative sets of model players. Then at each table let the computer run a billion or so hands, also with all possible permutations in seating order. I think the results of that study would be MOST revealing--although also obviously an enormous project. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, Charles Kincy, 28. Nov 2003 21:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| More interesting computer models [for instance, see www.posev.com] have shown that S&M has some limitations, but is generally correct. It's interesting that this study and Abdul's work come to generally the same conclusion, even given the limitations of the former. Also, Lee Jones' recommendations are for the new player who plays in certain types of games--the hand choices are designed to help keep a novice out of trouble rather than maximizing profits. Low limit games in California require no great skill to beat--just get big hands, stay out of trouble, and bet aggressively when you get there, and you'll make money. But a good player should be able to beat them for even more. Maximizing the haul from such games takes some tricks that even S&M don't typically write about, because they don't generally apply to the games they play. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, Banning, 29. Nov 2003 00:36 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I actually brought up this exact article about 6 months ago, and we discussed it then...of course it is buried somewhere in the anals of time in these archives. I believe it was my first article that Roy got involved in and he said that he doesn't agree with all that S&M have to say, but he also doesn't agree with everything that the article had to say either. basic point is that we all have our own strategies, our own styles, and each situation is different. so if two different hands are slightly different depending on how they are tested, meh...simulations don't dictate everything...they are just a good guide and should be used as such | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Sklansky/Jones Debunked?, Schuster, 29. Nov 2003 00:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I don't think you can really debunk a starting hand value system since the values of each hand shift a lot from game to game anyway. The Sklansky groups, Jones recommendations, and the groups from the article are all just a foundation that doesn't change in a game of extremely different circumstances. Once you get a lot of experience, you won't even think about a hand being in group 2, or Jones says to raise, you'll see the value of the hand and each action in the game you are in and go from there. Lee | ||
| 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 | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|