Sklansky Dollar Definition?

[Al Mirpuri]

Is the Sklansky dollar the amount theoretically won or lost on any bet? even if you lose the bet to a longshot you have made a Sklansky dollar profit on it because the longshot should not have called, right?

[SevenStuda]

I have over a billion of Sklansky's Dollars, where can I cash them in at?

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the Sklansky dollar the amount theoretically won or lost on any bet? even if you lose the bet to a longshot you have made a Sklansky dollar profit on it because the longshot should not have called, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Sklanky bucks are a tongue-in-cheek reference to the money you make when you play correctly, regardless of any particular hand's *holds word at arm's length like a diaper* results.

/mc

[2ndGoat]

If you turn in 2500 at the boardwalk you get the huge stuffed animal.

2ndGoat

[Louie Landale]

Haven't read the article. But there are no-doubt two possible choices:

[1] Theoretical money made or lost given the two actual hands but ignoring future cards and therefore drawouts. If I bet as a 4:1 favorite and get one call, I've made .6ths of a bet in Sklanski dollars. This method is fairly easy to calculate, once you know what everyone had.

[2] Theoretical money made or lost given your actual hand but for the range of reasonable hands the opponent may have. If I bet and get called where I am a 4:1 favorite half the time (example [1] above) but am a 3:1 dog the other half the time, then I made .6-.5 = .1ths of a bet in Sklanski dollars. This method is hard or impossible to calculate since you really don't know the reasonable range of hands the opponent may have, and even if you do the calculation will get far to long (he may have 20 different hands at 15 different probabilities at 20 different pay-offs).

[2] represents your overall EV in that situation. If its negative you played poorly. [1] represents more closely how well you did. If you cap it with 2nd set against top set you lose a lot of S$ for [1] but gain a lot for [2]; but that doesn't mean you played "poorly" in the [1] sense.

- Louie

[fnord_too]

One thing about this. When you WIN a hand you should have won, your theoretical earn on that hand was less than what you actually earned. Say you play a hand that is an 80% favorite to win. It costs you 4 BB to play and results in an 8BB pot. Then it looks like you win 4BB when you win the pot, but in the theoretical sense you win 2.4 BB every time you play the hand (.8*4 - .2*4 = 2.4).

If you want to cash in your sklansky dollars, you have to pay the sklansky tax. Put aside that 1.6BB every time you win this hand, and draw your 2.4 BB win from this fund on the times you lose it.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read the article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you direct me to the article?

[Leo Bello]

Finally someone that understood the concept...

[Monty Cantsin]

I don't get it. Is Fnord's explanation drastically different from Louie's, mine, or even Al's assumption as expressed in his original question?

/mc

[Cerril]

Not entirely, but it does make the point more directly that the sklansky dollar is actually completely unrelated to the real dollar. Your earnings on a hand are static regardless of the outcome, and may be either more or less than the actual one.

[jdl22]

The problem is that people only notice the discrepancy between their $klansky and the real $ when they get sucked out on. Very few people realise it comes into affect when they win a hand as well.

[Monty Cantsin]

From Al's original post:

[ QUOTE ]
Is the Sklansky dollar the amount theoretically won or lost on any bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, as a matter of fact, the standard usage for this phrase is to refer, in a joking way, to the theoretical money a good player makes by playing correctly.

I think if you study the way people actually use this term you will see that it's not quite synonymous with EV, but actually closer in meaning to the positive EV one makes when playing well.

That's why I basically confirmed Al's assumption and then subtly corrected it to be more in keeping with the actual meaning of the phrase.

I agree that Fnord's point is interesting. I just wanted to point out that I'm right. AS USUAL.

I AM TEH KING OF THE INTARWEB.

/mc