The Sklansky System

[Admania]

Recently purchased the Sklansky book on Tournament play which is a very good read. Within the book he describes a system he has developed in playing no limit holdem in tournaments. I was wondering, out of interest, if anyone had ever tried it and what were their results.

On another note I finally got past the bubble this weekend and feel I am progressing. Finishes 15th out of 339 at limit $3 holdem at stars, and then 7th in a satelite out of 113 at Bugsy's.

Cheers
Adam

[hutz]

I used it today, but in a (I think) modified form. I was in a 200+ person no-limit hold'em tournament, was card dead during the initial small blinds portion of the tournament, and had a below-average stack once the blinds started increasing. From that point forward, I followed the System all the way to the final table. I was second behind a HUGE stack and about 2:1 over the third stack. Unfortunately, my all-in raises with 22 and A9o got called by a slightly smaller stack with KK and a slightly larger stack (after the 22 v. KK beating) with JJ (which busted me) and I finished fifth.

I have to admit, it's a bit disconcerting to raise K2o UTG against six other players, but the System calls for that at the appropriate times. The problem with it is that you're eventually going to run into opponents with big pairs that are going to smack you around. If you can steal enough blinds to get into the money most of the time, though, it seems like the System has some merit.

I am getting ready to post a question about adjusting the System once one reaches the final table of a tournament. Hopefully, Mr. Sklansky will get a minute of free time to respond once I make that post.

[Magician]

I tried it before but it didn't work for me.

Problem is that when you move in with small suited connectors or A-rag suited that you can get called by a middle pair like 88 or 99 easily. If there is a big stack or two to act after you the likelihood of being called increases (likewise for a short, dire stack who might decide to make a stand right there).

The lower the buy-in the more likely you are to be victimized by a call.

I prefer to wait until I am down to 5 orbits worth of chips or less and even then I wait for any pair or AK or at worst AQ. Even then I think of position, if I am in EP I might not move in even with a small pair if I have 5 orbits of chips left, but with 3 orbits left, sure. Conversely if I have 6 or 7 orbits of chips left, I am more likely to move in from EP with TT to QQ.

For stealing blinds and antes I prefer to use traditional blind stealing techniques.

What I try to focus on now is get all my money in pre-flop in situations where I think I'm likely to have the best of it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Please bear in mind one thing about Sklansky's system: It was designed to be used by someone who knows *nothing* about playing poker.

[Rickfish]

What is the Sklansky system, or is it too complicated to explain here?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Basically, if I remember right, the system is to only go all-in preflop or fold. In the middle to late stages, the basic system says if you're first in, go all-in with any pair, any suited Ace or any suited connector (except 43 or 32). It may have a few more rules, but that's the gist of it. The idea is to put pressure on better players preflop, because you (the system user) can't outplay anybody post-flop.

He designed the system for a casino owner who had bought his daughter, who had never played before, and entry into the WSOP final.

[Rickfish]

That's funny.

I remember someone telling me once that he went to a tournament in Ireland with a pro friend. He hadn't played a Holdem Tournament before and the pro told him to only play pairs of jacks, queens, kings, or aces and to go all-in with them. It worked - he came 5th. The pro came 3rd.

[hutz]

This is only part of the story. The System has since been modified to account for the amount of the blinds and one's position relative to the remaining players in the hand. I just decided to play according to the System on a whim over half-way through a tournament yesterday and can see how powerful it could be. It's really tough for someone to call an all-in bet with anything but the best hands. The potential for stealing one's way up the ladder once the blinds increase considerably is very good. My main regret is that I should have stopped using it once I reached the final table. I could have finished in the top two or three, most likely, had I played my regular game at the end.

If you don't have Mr. Sklansky's tournament book, I believe you can find his essay on the modified System in a recent Card Player issue.

[Magician]

Could anyone please post the modified System (if it's not an infringement of copyright, etc.) or at least the gist of the modified System?

[hutz]

http://www.cardplayer.com/?sec=afeature&art_id=13194

Enjoy! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[Magician]

Well, I entered a 400 FPP super-satellite for the T106753 satellite on Pokerstars.

I figured better to risk 400 hard-earned FPP than hard-earned dollars on this.

I ended up playing only one hand (from my BB) and mucking about 40 hands in a row.

Then, down to 1,300 chips and with the blinds + antes at 75, I am dealt QQ from UTG + 2. UTG folds, UTG + 1 calls, I do my calculation and find I get a "key number" of 208.

(1,300/75)*(6 to act including blinds) * (1 limper + 1) = 208

OK, so following the revised System strictly I should muck the QQ, but I feel that at 208 vs. the 200 cut-off for moving in with QQ that this is a marginal decision.

I have a bad feeling that UTG + 1 is limping in with AA or KK from his early position but I figure that if I don't move in with QQ the revised System will have me moving in with less pretty soon. After all, if I was seated just one more seat to the left or if we had eight players at the table my "key number" would be below 200.

All folded to UTG + 1, who promptly calls and flips over AA.

Ouch.

I will try this again but this time at Pokerschool Online where at least I will lose only play money. Even FPP's are too valuable to waste on this.

Please share any results if any of you guys have tried this too.

Obviously I'm pretty discouraged right now. Moving in all those times you are going to run into aces eventually.

[Magician]

With spreadsheet open on another window and me racing to punch in the numbers and look up whether to move in or fold before timing out (the latter takes up most of the time), I anted myself down to about 900 chips left on PokerSchool Online ($20 play money buy-in). Blinds were $50/$100.

I'm dealt J2o in the cutoff. Folded to me.

Key number = (900/150)*(3 to act behind me including blinds) = 18

Sklansky's revised system says to move in with any two cards with a key number below 20.

I move in. Button folds. SB folds. BB calls with AJo and I am dominated and bust out (fair enough, BB had a stack about twice mine, but still).

Thank goodness it was just play money. In a real Pokerstars tournament, I think many players would call especially if they had a biggish stack.

Sure, you can say I should adjust for size of opponent stack, but that's not the point.

The point is to try and follow the instructions to the letter and see what happens.

So far, it's failed me miserably.

Has anyone had better results with it?

[RiverMel]

Sure, you can say I should adjust for size of opponent stack, but that's not the point. The point is to try and follow the instructions to the letter and see what happens.

So far, it's failed me miserably.


You're joking, right? Please re-read your first post in this thread about your results. In it, you flagrantly violated the system. You yourself say that the system advocated a fold, but you decided to go all-in anyway. You said it yourself: if you ever violate its advice, you are not following the system. So you really only have one tournament as evidence so far.

[Magician]

My "key number" was 208. The system set a threshold of 200 for moving in with QQ in that situation.

To me, less than 4% difference is marginal.

I agree, I violated it, but it wasn't flagrant. It's not like I moved in with QQ with a "key number" of say 250, which would be 20% over the threshold.

I think I will leave it to others to try it. I'm content to play my own way - I may not be Johnny Chan or Phil Hellmuth yet but I'm happy to play my game.

[cferejohn]

First of all, if you really want to test it, wait until you've done it in 100 tournaments and see if you've won more than average. The best tournament player in the world is likely to "fail miserably" in two tournaments. Secondly, I don't think play-money tournaments are the place to use it. Part of the reason it works to whatever degree that it does is that people don't want to put in all their money that often. In play money, you just aren't going to get as many people folding, especially the 4th or 5th time you do it.

I think its probably actually most effective in a bigger tournament, where no one wants to make the call that busts them. I think in a big tournament, people will routinely lay down TT, JJ, and AK to someone who is doing this if their stack sizes are even. However, in play money, they are quite likely to call, especially if they've seen you go all-in in several times before.

As an example, someone was playing some kind of modified system in a 2-table $30 sit-n-go at poker stars. Now, he wasn't going all-in on every hand, but every once in a while he'd dump them all in there and not get any callers, and due to some other plays, he was 2nd stack at the table and no one wanted to mess with him. He was doing it fairly often so I decided he was probably going all-in with any pair. I decided that I was going to call him with 99 or better. Next time he does it, by golly I have 99. He has 77. I double up (and eventually win the tournament). I would probably not do this in a $200 buy in tournament (I'd probably want at least JJ, and probably QQ).

I'm not suggesting you go try using it in $100 tournaments. Well, at any rate I wouldn't expect you to, but it is worth considering that a lot of what makes the system work is fear, and play money/FPP tournaments take a lot of that away.

[Magician]

At what amount of buy-in does the fear kick in?

I've seen people call all-in early in the $200 tournament with hands like JJ, AK, TT and even 99.

Sure if I was sitting at a table with Chan, Hellmuth, Cloutier, Seidel maybe it would work. But against Joe Blow from Idaho who plays online I think it's too risky.

For me the take-away is that you can steal a lot with it. Implicitly the revised system has you moving in as the SB a lot especially when it's rolling antes and there are no limpers.

Key number = (Stack/(blinds+antes)) * (1 to act)

Skewing it to a low number. So if your stack is less than 20 times the blinds + antes, he has you all-in with any 2 cards in the SB vs. the BB if there were no limpers.

I've tried it a few times and it worked pretty well but I didn't do it anywhere near as often as the revised system would dictate.

[RiverMel]

The point is not so much the level of the buy-in, but rather the level of the competition. The whole point of the system is that expert players don't want to call an all-in bet, not the schmoes playing FPP or freeroll tournies on-line. Higher buy-in tournies tend to bring in better players. If you recall, the system was designed for use in the $10,000 buy-in WSOP event.

[Magician]

You're welcome to try it in '04 with your own $10,000 buy-in - personally I'd be too terrified to do it.