"Level 2" Sklansky Karlson

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone worked out the "level 2" Sklansky Karlson problem?

That is, you're on the BB. You know your opponent, first in on the SB, has his handy Sklansky/Karlson chart in his lap, and he's going to move in whenever he's +chipEV. He does not flip over his cards, however.

What do you call with for +chipEV for you, given the well-defined range of hands that you can now put him on?

eastbay
7/01/04 (no responses then)


[/ QUOTE ]

OK eastbay, where do we begin?
Scuba

[TheUsher]

Yeah I saw this post too when googling that phrase. It's a shame no one replied to it.

[Shanemex]

Link to level 1 Sklansky/karlson? I can't find anything with the search function.

[Scuba Chuck]

when I have time...

Hand Ranking (comparison to Karlson-Sklansky) (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=&Number=732911&page=0& view=expanded&sb=5&o=14&fpart=)

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone worked out the "level 2" Sklansky Karlson problem?

That is, you're on the BB. You know your opponent, first in on the SB, has his handy Sklansky/Karlson chart in his lap, and he's going to move in whenever he's +chipEV. He does not flip over his cards, however.

What do you call with for +chipEV for you, given the well-defined range of hands that you can now put him on?

eastbay
7/01/04 (no responses then)


[/ QUOTE ]

OK eastbay, where do we begin?
Scuba

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not particularly enamored of the idea anymore.

The problem with K-S is that the calling ranges are silly for most hands except a narrow band towards the middle-upper regions of the ranking.

The "level 2" calculation is still an interesting one when applied in context, however.

Say you're doing the usual raise analysis with ICM, and you have to pick a calling range. Usually you do this by guesstimation.

Another way to get at it is to make an assumption that the caller puts you on a range of push hands, and then works the calling problem to determine his correct calling range.

My intuition says that usually this estimate will be more conservative than experience would dictate (since most players don't fully appreciate the significance of the gap.)

eastbay

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
Another way to get at it is to make an assumption that the caller puts you on a range of push hands, and then works the calling problem to determine his correct calling range.

My intuition says that usually this estimate will be more conservative than experience would dictate (since most players don't fully appreciate the significance of the gap.)

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed, you find many more opponents who call with too many hands then opponents who fold too many hands, even at the highest levels of SNG play. This is an interesting subject but I am worried that some people may take this idea too far in that, opponents are rarely aware of optimal play. Don't just rely on models like this and assume you should follow a chart to tell you how to play against an optimal opponent.

Be aware of who is to your left when you are pushing, pay attention to their actions and reactions to others raises in all levels, especially when they are in the blinds.