Sklansky -- Man or Machine?
Hey Dave,
After reading your book, I delved into some of the suggested readings you provided. One book I've found particularly interesting is "Tournament Poker for Advanced Players" by David Sklansky. This book really helped me understand how tournament play could be analysed in a very "scientific" manner (i.e., considering plays in terms of EV). However, I must admit that I cannot see myself making some of the mathematical judgements that Sklansky offers in the heat of battle. For instance, he advises:
"When you have the larger stack, and a smaller stack moves in against you, it is again a math question, once you have used your judgment to determine the possible hands he will make that play with. You see what odds you are getting, you look at your hand, and you estimate his possible hands. You take the weighted average of your chances with each of those possible and see whether your pot odds makes the call worth it."
Sheesh. For me, calculating pot odds is difficult enough. But if I'm staring down an all-in and I'm considering calling, I suspect that I will never have the mathematical prowess to spontaneously apply combinatorics and weighted averages to figure whether my pocket Jacks are a positive EV hand. Does Sklansky really think this way during a tournament. And if so, is he human? Do you apply these principles in tournaments?
Thanks,
Phil
After reading your book, I delved into some of the suggested readings you provided. One book I've found particularly interesting is "Tournament Poker for Advanced Players" by David Sklansky. This book really helped me understand how tournament play could be analysed in a very "scientific" manner (i.e., considering plays in terms of EV). However, I must admit that I cannot see myself making some of the mathematical judgements that Sklansky offers in the heat of battle. For instance, he advises:
"When you have the larger stack, and a smaller stack moves in against you, it is again a math question, once you have used your judgment to determine the possible hands he will make that play with. You see what odds you are getting, you look at your hand, and you estimate his possible hands. You take the weighted average of your chances with each of those possible and see whether your pot odds makes the call worth it."
Sheesh. For me, calculating pot odds is difficult enough. But if I'm staring down an all-in and I'm considering calling, I suspect that I will never have the mathematical prowess to spontaneously apply combinatorics and weighted averages to figure whether my pocket Jacks are a positive EV hand. Does Sklansky really think this way during a tournament. And if so, is he human? Do you apply these principles in tournaments?
Thanks,
Phil
Comments
I am not clever enough to be THAT accurate. I can, however, come pretty close. I know, for instance, how given individual hands match up against other hands (see page 77 in my book). From there it's not too far a stretch to estimate how your hand will do against a range of hands. After giving this some thought and practice you will be able to do this "close enough for government work."
I shall attempt it now, before your very eyes. What follows is done without peeking (please let me get this right!).
__________________
Blinds 1 and 2. I make is 5 to go in the cutoff. The button makes it 15 to go and is all-in. The blinds both fold. I have 9-3o and I am facing a call of 10 into pot of 23. Ignoring stack size and bubble issues, I am getting 2.3 to 1. Should I call?
The next question I ask myself is "What range of hands do I put my opponent on?" Suppose in this case I consider him to be a little looser than standard. OK, I will give him credit for A-K to A-J. Any suited ace. Any pair. K-Q, K-J and Q-J.
Should I call?
I don't, honestly, know the answer off the top of my head but I will take a guess at my pot equity: 33%. If I am right I am getting 2-1. OK... I call.
Now I get out my pokerstove.com to see what the REAL odds were. It turns out that against that range of hands 9-3o is 29%. I missed by four percent (oops). I estimated the odds at 2-1 and the actually were 2.4-1.
Sigh... bad call. I made a 2.4-1 call getting 2.3-1 pot odds. Is this a bad play? Yes. Is it a disaster? No. It was close and I missed by a whisker. It would be nice to never miss by a whisker, but I frequently do (sometimes by the whole bushy cat as a matter of fact).
For me, based upon what I perceive as my strengths and weaknesses, I think my time away from and AT the table is better spent on some other issues that being 100% accurate with the math. I wish I could be. I envy Sklansky. But, I can't. So, I am happy to get close enough that my other skills will overcome the occasinal slight math error.
Sklansky is the NUTS.