08-29-2001, 07:22 PM
I was up on rgp the other day, o.k. yesterday, and I read a thread that dealt with Hand Rankings. You know, that grouping stuff Sklansky and Malmuth did that Sklansky wishes he hadn't and Mason says is good for beginners and Badger says that he (Mason)is crazy (in so many words) and Gary Carson makes jokes at cause he probably doesn't undestand the value anyway and come to think of it from the responses over on rgp I don't think anyone but me and a little bit of Mason really understand the value of hand rankings. Whew!
Suppose you were playing 10 handed Holdem with the following rules: Everyone must call all the way to the river. Who would have the edge? Of course, no one would. Everyone would win 10% of the hands in the (elusively defined) long run. That goes for you, me, Mason, Robo Sklansky and any other none human, etc. etc. etc. No edge for no one, period.
Now suppose we play the same game only this time only Robo Sklansky must call all the way to the river to a showdown. The other nine players, all experts skilled like Mason and Pretty Boy Nebiolo, must make a decision on whether or not to call all the way to the river after each street is dealt. What would Sklansky's minimum expectation (% of hands won) be under this scenario? Of course, it would not be any less than 10%. If they all decided to call all the way to the river then Sklansky would have a 10% expectation. If one or more of them decided to fold occaisonally based on their expert analysis of the likelyhood that they would win then Sklansky's expectation would increase to something greater than 10% of the hands. That is because he would win his alloted (predicted) amount plus share some of the equity he would pick up because of less players at the river. The experts even with their expertise would be dealing with imperfect information. Consequently, they would only fold correctly some less than perfect number of times. This would have the effect of increasing all remaining players probability of winning the hand. Thus robo Sklansky would benefit from the imperfect play of experts.
This begs the question of why not just play every hand to the river, as some folks do, and win your share of hands. Well Sklansky (the real one) has said many times that poker is not about winning hands it's about winning money. Playing as described might maximize your hand winning expectation but as we all know would have the exact opposite effect upon winning money. Poker as we play it in Casino's is a game of decision making. Ironically the optimal method for maximizing the number of winning hands you recieve is very likely diametrically opposed to the optimal method (I do not claim to know the optimal method) of winning the most money. If you want to win the most hands just play them all. If you want to lose the most money just play them all.
So what do we do to optimize our money winning at poker? We look at the rules and we take advantage of those rules. In short we strategize. This is running longer than I wanted it to so I am brevitizing. One of our strategies is to be selective with the card strength of hands we chose to play. As we get more proficient at the game we focus less on card strength and more on the situation. Not because hand strength is not important but because we have gained a fundamental understanding of how the game of poker must be played to win money. When we reach advanced or expert status we have gone beyond the need to focus on hand strenght. But we have not forgotten it's importance. No, it becomes second nature. We know the relative strength of hands. We no longer need to dwell on them for they are part of us. But make no mistake about it, unless one has a thorough understanding of relative hand strength one will never become a winning poker player. You can avoid game selection, you can never check raise and you may beable to make up for poor preflop play in games like Holdem or Omaha but you cannot play winning (limit full game) poker without understanding and practicing some form of hand selection. And if you do not understand relative hand strength you cannot effectively practice hand selection. And the best method of learning relative hand strength is through a ranking system. The best ranking system (for winning money) that I've come accross is the one Sklansky thought shouldn't be included in Holdem for Advanced Players but is there. He may have been correct because the book is for advanced players. Advanced players should have learned these hand rankings long before picking up HPFAP. They should have learned hand rankings before they began playing poker. That's how important they are.
They are not only important for the beginner that needs somewhere to start. Somewhere where he can feel comfortable that allows him to learn the intricacies of the game without getting crushed in the process. They are important for the advanced player and the pro when they run bad, when they need a place to go to to evaluate their game and determine if they are doing something wrong. Following a hand ranking system allows the pro to focus on other aspects of his game that may be lacking. Hand rankings once learned are very easily reviewed and easy to reincorporate into ones game when necessary. The title of this thread implies that this might be an important subject. I think it is. If it's the most important subject in poker I can't say but it is one of them.
Vince
Suppose you were playing 10 handed Holdem with the following rules: Everyone must call all the way to the river. Who would have the edge? Of course, no one would. Everyone would win 10% of the hands in the (elusively defined) long run. That goes for you, me, Mason, Robo Sklansky and any other none human, etc. etc. etc. No edge for no one, period.
Now suppose we play the same game only this time only Robo Sklansky must call all the way to the river to a showdown. The other nine players, all experts skilled like Mason and Pretty Boy Nebiolo, must make a decision on whether or not to call all the way to the river after each street is dealt. What would Sklansky's minimum expectation (% of hands won) be under this scenario? Of course, it would not be any less than 10%. If they all decided to call all the way to the river then Sklansky would have a 10% expectation. If one or more of them decided to fold occaisonally based on their expert analysis of the likelyhood that they would win then Sklansky's expectation would increase to something greater than 10% of the hands. That is because he would win his alloted (predicted) amount plus share some of the equity he would pick up because of less players at the river. The experts even with their expertise would be dealing with imperfect information. Consequently, they would only fold correctly some less than perfect number of times. This would have the effect of increasing all remaining players probability of winning the hand. Thus robo Sklansky would benefit from the imperfect play of experts.
This begs the question of why not just play every hand to the river, as some folks do, and win your share of hands. Well Sklansky (the real one) has said many times that poker is not about winning hands it's about winning money. Playing as described might maximize your hand winning expectation but as we all know would have the exact opposite effect upon winning money. Poker as we play it in Casino's is a game of decision making. Ironically the optimal method for maximizing the number of winning hands you recieve is very likely diametrically opposed to the optimal method (I do not claim to know the optimal method) of winning the most money. If you want to win the most hands just play them all. If you want to lose the most money just play them all.
So what do we do to optimize our money winning at poker? We look at the rules and we take advantage of those rules. In short we strategize. This is running longer than I wanted it to so I am brevitizing. One of our strategies is to be selective with the card strength of hands we chose to play. As we get more proficient at the game we focus less on card strength and more on the situation. Not because hand strength is not important but because we have gained a fundamental understanding of how the game of poker must be played to win money. When we reach advanced or expert status we have gone beyond the need to focus on hand strenght. But we have not forgotten it's importance. No, it becomes second nature. We know the relative strength of hands. We no longer need to dwell on them for they are part of us. But make no mistake about it, unless one has a thorough understanding of relative hand strength one will never become a winning poker player. You can avoid game selection, you can never check raise and you may beable to make up for poor preflop play in games like Holdem or Omaha but you cannot play winning (limit full game) poker without understanding and practicing some form of hand selection. And if you do not understand relative hand strength you cannot effectively practice hand selection. And the best method of learning relative hand strength is through a ranking system. The best ranking system (for winning money) that I've come accross is the one Sklansky thought shouldn't be included in Holdem for Advanced Players but is there. He may have been correct because the book is for advanced players. Advanced players should have learned these hand rankings long before picking up HPFAP. They should have learned hand rankings before they began playing poker. That's how important they are.
They are not only important for the beginner that needs somewhere to start. Somewhere where he can feel comfortable that allows him to learn the intricacies of the game without getting crushed in the process. They are important for the advanced player and the pro when they run bad, when they need a place to go to to evaluate their game and determine if they are doing something wrong. Following a hand ranking system allows the pro to focus on other aspects of his game that may be lacking. Hand rankings once learned are very easily reviewed and easy to reincorporate into ones game when necessary. The title of this thread implies that this might be an important subject. I think it is. If it's the most important subject in poker I can't say but it is one of them.
Vince