The problem with Sklansky's ranking.

This opinion is in regards to David's recent post flop question concerning what to do with J,J post flop.


David ended his post pointing to Tommy Angelo's solution of 10,10,10. That being that a raise, call or fold are pretty much the same thing or equal as an appropriate tactic. He intimated that Tommy's ranking was pretty much correct. Leading me, at least, to believe that no matter what you did in this situation the result would pretty much be the same.


I don't buy it. And I believe that Sklansky is doing all of us readers a disservice if he doesn't show why his solution is correct. Yes, a disservice and a dangerous one if I am correct. When I and I believe almost everyone else go to the table the only weapons we can bring are "concepts". In my opinion there is a playing concept that governs this type of situation given David's parameters. That concept is try and limit the field when the pot gets big. Or do what is necessary to win a big pot. In the situation David describes there is no way to impliment this concept if one folds. If one calls then one leaves to probability ones potential to influence the outcome of the hand. That is, one may call with the intention of raising the turn but that will only be possible if specific events occur. If these specific events do not occur then one misses a golden opportunity to do what is necessary to increase his chances of winning the pot. That being not taking the opportunity to raise and possibly drive out opponents on the flop.


Please do not misunderstand. I am not claiming that I know which action will produce the best EV. I do not know that. If someone can show me that one or another play will result in the best EV I will accept that. But that aside I am positive that the best poker play in this situation is a raise. In fact without any proof that another action produces a higher EV I believe that a raise is the only action a good poker player should take in this situation.


I think this is an important discussion because I believe that it is important to carry "concepts" to the table. To me these concepts limit confusion and thus reduce mistakes. I believe that David's solution will cause one to be confused when faced with this, some what, common situation.


Anyway that's my opinion. Comments welcome.


Vince

you have to know what to do next...that's the key...gl

I think Sklansky's recommendation would be to randomize your play of the two jacks in that situation.

Vince,


Before citing my answer of 10 10 10, David wrote:


“Of course what bothers me the most is that so many of you gave your lesser choices such low ratings.”


I took this to mean that David felt that my early answer might have served as a hint, that all answers could be cluttered near ten, not that they should be. That he did say, prior to that, that they should be all near ten, was incidental, I believe, to the point he made at the end of his post when he cited my answer.


“And I believe that Sklansky is doing all of us readers a disservice if he doesn't show why his solution is correct. “


I was struck by the length of his explanation and I felt fully serviced. As to its content, I think he was doomed to be unconvincing by the nature of the problem. A nifty way to look at the whole thing would be to take on the challenge of devising a bet-facing situation on the flop in a multiway pot for which all three choices -- raise, call and fold -- would have identical EV. Perhaps this is what David set out to do. If you see problems in what he concocted, the crux may be that such a rapidly-deeply-branching situation cannot be proved correct to a degree of accuracy that separates 9.5 from 10. (I still think a scale from one to ten should include only whole numbers and all whole numbers from one to ten.)


We know that there must be situations for which the answers 10,10 and 10 are correct, even if we know that we can never know that they are correct. That’s what attracted me to the thread. And that’s why I answered 10,10,10 -- I simply couldn’t come up with convincing reasons to prefer one choice over the other, so I could only hope that David had indeed devised an equal-EV situation of three choices, while never knowing if he had.


Tommy

"In my opinion there is a playing concept that governs this type of situation given David's parameters. That concept is try and limit the field when the pot gets big. Or do what is necessary to win a big pot."


Skalansky explicitly considered limiting the field, and it was why he preferred raising to calling. On balance, he suggested it wouldn't work enough to be better than folding, suggesting that one would typically either be building a pot for hands with a much bigger share when you are presently "best" or, worse, building a pot with the equivalent of 1 out. He may be wrong about that, I certainly don't know, but it seems a reasonable survey of the relevant concepts.


Rather than selecting from a series of recipes for play/pot manipulation (raising to limit the field, calling to set up a turn raise, etc), what I thought you were getting at (and it is something I found attractive) is that in a dicey marginal situation in a big pot, raising is strong. That is, I read you as saying that a decent poker player must raise here to try and limit the field and win this big pot, even if the EV in a zillion trials is zero -- and he can't do that if he throws his hand away; or, similarly, he must call to set up a turn raise on the same grounds. That is where I think you may be on to something...

If folding is best, then it's ev is 0. So I guess at 30/60, raising must have an ev of -$0.34, and calling must have an ev of -$0.68

I assume the readers of this forum are fully aware of general concepts which makes it OK to pose questions that might be exceptions to those concepts. I liked this question because the choice of calling seems so counterintuitive. But against sufficiently tight opponents, it is probably the right play.

Sklansky,


If you change the player types I'll change my answer, maybe. You said "decent players" not "sufficiently tight".


"I assume the readers of this forum are fully aware of general concepts which makes it OK to pose questions that might be exceptions to those concepts."


On this point I yield to Oz. I believe in exceptions to most rules and general concepts. Though I do not consider the cited example a valid exception I respect the opinion of those on this forum that do.


Vince

Tommy,


One question. If you found yourself in the situation that David cited would you 1) raise 2) call, 3) fold, 4) On occaison do one or the other. If so why? 5) randomize your play- if so why and how? 6) do something else, w?. Note that it depends should not be an issue unless it's that time of the month.


Vince

If you call, how do you play it on the turn and river?


If you call on the flop, how much flop action would you be able to withstand?

"If you found yourself in the situation that David cited would you 1) raise 2) call, 3) fold,"


I'd raise, essentially always, because when the options have equal value, I prefer raising. Maybe it's just a style thing, or reflex, or maybe raising earns residual money somehow, or maybe it just feels good. I'm not confined by profit as a motive.


Tommy

"I'd raise, essentially always"


Gee, me too!


"Maybe it's just a style thing, or reflex..."


Maybe. Might it also be that raising is the best way to play poker like I believe?


Well, whatever your reasons, thanks for responding and your honesty.


Vince