the gap concept and domination

[spurgeon]

I have a question. In the book tournament poker for advanced players, one of the most important things taught is the gap concept.Sklansky writes, "You need a better hand to play against someone who has already opened the betting than you would need to open yourself . . . The gap is the diffence between the hand you need to call (or raise) an opener with and that which you would open yourself." My question is: How is this any different than the standard belief in being dominated? You read about the dangers of domination in any beginning hold em book. If someone raises and you have K-J, you have to fold because you have a trouble hand and are dominated. I do not understand how the gap concept is any different than avoiding domination.

[RiverDood]

I'm assuming this is a serious question -- though if you were trying to plant a mischievous troll, you'd get an A-plus.

Thinking only about dominance will eventually lead you to about 40% of thet significance of the Gap Concept, but you'll be backing into all the analysis very slowly and awkwardly.

Let's take that vulnerable KJ hand you talked about. If you're in early position, slightly short-stacked, and push with it, it's very possible that:
a) the guy with 99 won't call because he's worried that you have a higher pocket pair. (and then he'll be dominated.)
b) the player with KQ won't call because he figures you're far too likely to be betting an Ace or a pocket pair. (and then he'll be dominated)
c) the player with AJ will chew his nails -- and maybe let you have the pot for fear that you've got QQ or better, or maybe AK or AQ. (ATHBD)

All of them will have made defensible laydowns . . . In the end you'll steal the antes thanks to timely early aggression in a hand where you'd be dead if you'd limped.

But if you're only thinking about avoiding situations where you might be dominated, you're capturing only the back end of the relevance of the Gap Concept. You'll avoid some precarious calls -- but you won't look for chances to make money by timely aggression.

The Gap Concept is among the best weapons of a serious player in attacking the pot. Thinking mostly about avoiding dominated hands isn't likely to lead you to make effective raises.

[FrankieFish]

You're trying to steal the blinds when you apply the gap concept. You do NOT want to play a flop.

A few sentences later, I believe, Sklansky says something along the lines of "but of course you fold to a reraise."

[PairTheBoard]

They are two different concepts. The "domination" concept shows how bad a good hand can play when it's up against certain slightly better hands.

The gap concept just points out the difference in situations.

Case 1. You are on the button. A tight player who rarely plays a hand in early position limps UTG. Everyone else has the good sense to fold around to you.

Case 2. You are on the button. Everyone folds around to you.

In Case 1. you are in a Full Ring game and probably up against a very strong hand.

In Case 2. after all players fold, you are now "essentially" in a 3 handed game, on the button and ready to wreck havoc on the blinds with anything reasonable.

Clearly these are dramatically different situations for which you will adjust your starting hand requrirments whether you ever heard of "domination" or not. The "gap" concept applies to this and other less extreme examples.

PairTheBoard