Sklansky and the System

[kamelion44]

I just finished up a big multi-table No Limit Hold 'Em tournament. What are your opinions of the Sklansky System that is put forth in Tournament Poker for Advanced Players? I'm referring to the all-in or fold system. I used the revised system for much of the tournament, and I finished 6th, my highest ever for that large a tournament. Does Skylansky himself still stand by this system? Are there further writings and refinements of it? Thanks.

[whiskeytown]

I think those two pages of his book get WAY too much friggen credit, and only an amateur who has no idea how to play the game should resort to such a tactic, as he designed it to be. How can you get a 200 page book, and devote so much friggen crap to just two pages of it is totally beyond me...

Seriously, there's a funny article in Cardplayer about how to deal with these one trick ponies - (all-in pushers and that's the only thing they know how to do)- there's also talk about PL becoming the new Cadliac of poker due to the number of morons who just push all in all the time in NL -

The System did serious damage to a lot of people's games - who wants to spend hours working on their game, read skills, when they can just have a set of defined rules that let them push all in - morons, I say...Morons...

but that's not David's fault...not like he didn't write 198 other pages that include good poker knowledge.

RB

[daveymck]

Dont know if I have a later edition of the book or not but there is at least a chapter on the system, its definatley more thna 2 pages.

Its a section I havent spent much time on as in a way I didnt understand its inclusion, the book is meant to help good players develop good tournament strategy and in a way that flies in the face of all the other teaching in the book.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Does Skylansky himself still stand by this system?

Just be clear on one thing. Sklansky designed the system to be used by a player with ZERO POKER EXPERIENCE. It isn't intended to be used by good players. If you're at a point where you undersatnd why you bet certain hands certain ways at NL, *and* you have at least a moderate capability of putting opponents on hands, the system is not for you.

[the life]

HEY kamelion44,

I think the system needs a little more work before it is playable by a good poker player. I dont think that this system will work for an on-line poker turnament but does have the possibilty to work at a high entry NLH live game.

bye bye

[Lost Wages]

Note that "The System" was designed to be used by an amateur when playing against professionals. It loses most of it's value in idiot filled on-line games where your all-ins are likely to be called a lot. Even if you are a favorite sooner or later someone will suckout on you.

Lost Wages

[SoBeDude]

Any serious poker player subscribes to the theory of small bet tourney poker.

Its never good to get all your chips in the middle unless you have the nuts.

Even QQ is basically a coin flip to AK, so how many times can you flip the coin before you lose? And remember just ONE all-in loss all-in means you get up from the table.

-Scott

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Its a section I havent spent much time on as in a way I didnt understand its inclusion, the book is meant to help good players develop good tournament strategy and in a way that flies in the face of all the other teaching in the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of good tournament strategy would be understanding other players gameplans, i suggest you don't skim it if only to give you some insight if you run into a player using this system

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Its never good to get all your chips in the middle unless you have the nuts.

But this advice is only valid if your stack is deep enough to bet properly without committing all your chips. You can't repeatedly pass up +EV situations just because you don't have the nuts and the proper bet commits all your chips.

Example, blinds are 200/400 a25 and you're still 10 places from the money. You have 3000 in chips. Folded to you 2 places off the button with QQ. Your only reasonable play is all-in.

[PlayerA]

What makes the system interesting is the question of its viability. If the system or a refinement thereof is viable, then it tosses out the notion that NL should determine the world champion (which is part of Sklasky's point). It gets attention because people want to know if it is possible to overcome skill with a mindless system. At the time of writing it, it was an open question. It may still be open, I don't know (not keeping up with it). If it is possible to have a system for which there is no defense except to play the system to negate it's advantage, then one would be a moron not to use it. I've never used the system nor do I have any immediate plans to do so. However, I am addressing the issue of why it is interesting.

[kamelion44]

In response to Whiskeytown, I understand what you're saying. But a few things. It seems that Skylansky, in the TPFAP book, implies that the System isn't to be used just by dummies who have no shot otherwise. And just for the record, I feel that I can make it on my own without such a system, I've in fact made quite a few final tables. But it was such an intriguing idea, and worked so well, that I wanted the feedback. Anyhow, in the book, he says, "if you think you play well, then go ahead and play normally (in the part about blind play w/ the System). (But if you lose a lot of chips on those hands you will always wonder what would have happend if you didn't)." This seems to suggest that the System could be used by solid players. Also, as a rational poker player, why wouldn't I want to explore something that gives me a real edge on even the best tournament pros? "Upon reflection I realized that he had hit upon a strategy which gave him almost as good a chance as the best players. In fact, if those players did not propoerly adjust to it, he might even have an edge over them." That sounds awesome. He states that, "there is no question that this new System could be improved upon." So a system that gives a total amateur a chance against world-class competition could be refined further...that's even more intriguing. And to note, I actually did bust out when I wasn't playing the system finally at the final table. Just like the casino owner in the book. While this isn't conclusive, it does make me wonder if the viability of the System is greater than what you suggest if played until the end. In fact your response is exactly the type of mentality that the System is designed to exploit, since you're unwilling to push-in when you don't have the clear best of it. And you're right, why should you? But something that's a weapon against a field of 500 good players like yourself is still pretty interesting...

[CrisBrown]

Hi kamelion,

The problem with the Sklansky "System" (which he admits is more an intellectual exercise than advice for play) is that it puts your tournament life in the hands of the dealer far too often to be profitable. The average "System" hand is no more than a 2:1 favorite to the average hand that would call an all-in bet. The short end of those odds adds up a lot faster than you'd expect, and you'd have to either get such a huge stack early that you're rarely covered by a caller, or dodge a lot of raindrops.

Consider that if you're called and covered just three times in a tournament, at 2:1 each time, your odds of winning all three of those pots are less than 1:3 (8:27). And it gets much worse, very fast. And this assumes that you ARE a 2:1 favorite each time you're called and covered. If you find yourself in a coin-flip (underpair vs. overcards) ... or run into an overpair to your pocket pair ... it gets really ugly ... really fast.

Having to survive so many all-in showdowns, with no chance to make decisions after the flop, is the huge and deadly weakness in the "System." It was created as an exercise, and not as a strategy to be employed by a skilled player.

Cris

[lostinthought]

Sorry to break it to you Kamelion,
you got lucky using the system... take your $700, and keep on reinvesting it in multi tables and keep on using 'the system' and see where the money goes..
learn some poker skills, or use the ones you have! 'the system' article is a thought experiment that was tried on an amateur who had $10,000 sitting around.. do you?

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[crockpot]

you're missing the most important point of the essay, which can be illustrated by this example:

you're in the final event at the world series of poker, and all three players here have the same stack size. player A is you, B is phil hellmuth, and C is a typical online fish.

you are dealt A-4 suited, hellmuth is dealt K-K, and the fish is dealt 2-2. playing the system, you move all in preflop, and accidentally expose your cards to hellmuth. what will happen?

hellmuth will fold. he knows that he is a 2:1 favorite, but that is not enough of an edge to risk all of his chips in this event. he is playing good tournament principles: win pots without showing down hands, build your stack slowly by bluffing, only risk your chips when you have a huge edge. the only hand he would call you with here is A-A.

what will the fish do? call, of course. "a pair is a favorite over two overcards," says he. it doesn't even enter his mind that you could easily have a bigger pair in the hole.

in other words, if you're playing the system against people who don't know the concepts of good tournament play, the system will not work, because the hands they call your all-in with will be ahead of yours on average. against a table of good players who don't want to risk it all without a big edge, however, it can be a powerful tool.

[ironman007]

good point, but don't try to convince anyone that Phil folds K K here. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[CCass]

IMO Phil would fold with KK in this scenario if he knew your cards, because he would be convinced that he could outplay you later, and not be worried about "outdrawing" you on this particular hand. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO Phil would fold with KK in this scenario if he knew your cards, because he would be convinced that he could outplay you later, and not be worried about "outdrawing" you on this particular hand. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

He'd only fold KK here if his ego was deluding himself into thinking his edge over the field was better than it is. 2-1 favourite to double through. Not even near to being a close gamble.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Its never good to get all your chips in the middle unless you have the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not really true, and not a good phrase to play by.


[ QUOTE ]
Even QQ is basically a coin flip to AK, so how many times can you flip the coin before you lose? And remember just ONE all-in loss all-in means you get up from the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'd better build a bigger stack than everyone else then.

And is QQ a coin flip against JJ? Plenty of tournament situations exist where you do not know it's a coinflip until the cards are actually turned over. Before that point, you may just as likely be a big favourite.

[crockpot]

you're actually considering the possibility that hellmuth isn't deluded by his ego when he plays in a big tournament?

sure, this isn't a close gamble. but if i considered myself one of the ten best players in the final event, i wouldn't call either. think about it this way: you make this call twice, and you've been eliminated 55% of the time. whether your goal is to win the tournament or just maximize your prize money EV, this is not a call you want to be making as one of the best players.

[spoody]

Moronic, Maybe
Very difficult to play against, Yes

Being put all in, especially preflop, really sux. Anyone who has played in a couple of sit and gos on party (or wherever) have run into the All-inners. It can be very difficult to try to play a normal game, hit a pair on the flop, raise and then be put all in. Or, have 88 in the cutoff, open with a 3x raise, and then the button, SB or BB moves all in...now what? Sure they usually get called by someone with Axs, KQ, TT, almost anything, but as a better player its pretty hard to deal with if you dont have AA or possibly KK and AK if you are in the mood for a race.

The example we have all seen, seems like almost every tourney, is when someone loses half of their stack and now they are the small stack, and they are on tilt and start moving in every hand. What usually happens? they rebuild their stack because no one calls.

I try not to play that way, but if my stack gets short and the table has like 6 or less people, I will move all in on almost anything. The money is close enough that people tighten up and wimp out. With the huge blinds in the sit and gos, it usually only takes 2 or 3 times to be par again.

In some ways I respect the play of all inners, just because of the fact that it causes me so much trouble. But it is absolutely not a way to win a tourney, but as a smaller stack (not too small), with big blinds, it can work wonders.

Spoody

[Nottom]

Nobody is going to fold KK in this situation. Make it 10 players left and you 3 the chip leaders in the button and blinds and maybe he would fold.

[daryn]

i am going to agree with nottom. especially if you play the tourney circuit, you won't fold KK. now if you're some clown who just happened to get down to the final 3 and you realllly want to win (for the trophy or something) then you might fold it


by the way phil would actually rather have AK in this situation than KK if he were to move all in (assuming the 22 will fold when he sees 2 guys in for all their chips)

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
you're actually considering the possibility that hellmuth isn't deluded by his ego when he plays in a big tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. He's definitely deluded if his articles are taken at face value. I'm just not sure what the gap is between his delusion and reality.

[ QUOTE ]
sure, this isn't a close gamble. but if i considered myself one of the ten best players in the final event, i wouldn't call either. think about it this way: you make this call twice, and you've been eliminated 55% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may not refer to yourself, but I often wonder why so many players only consider the risk without also considering the reward.

And are we never the bigger stack when playing one of these all-ins?

I consider the best survival tactic for a better player in a tournament is to build a bigger stack than their inferior opponents.

Can the player really consider himself superior if he is often the shorter stack anyway?


[ QUOTE ]
whether your goal is to win the tournament or just maximize your prize money EV, this is not a call you want to be making as one of the best players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never? Maybe at some stages, in some situations, but never?

The only gambles a better player should avoid calling for all their chips is close ones. I don't see many situations where 2-1 fav to double through can be considered close. Against real donkeys, maybe.

There's plenty in the archives of 2+2 and rgp about this type of thing if anyone wants to look into this subject.

[SoBeDude]

And is QQ a coin flip against JJ? Plenty of tournament situations exist where you do not know it's a coinflip until the cards are actually turned over. Before that point, you may just as likely be a big favourite

But you are also NOT a coinflip if your opponent has KK and now you're the big underdog.

Whats funny is you're actually justifying the 'small bet' poker strategy with your comments. When you don't know where you are is the WORST time to put all your chips in the middle.

I'm sorry, but you have a long way to go to understand the dynamics of no limit holdem.

-Scott

[JohnG]

I put opponent on a range of hands and then call the all-in or fold. I know exactly where I am against the range of hands I read them for, and I make the best play based on it.

You're either the worlds greatest reader of players when playing shallow money, or you are extremely weak-tight. I hope for your sake it's the former.

I'm glad to finally find someone that understands no-limit dynamics so well. Maybe you can educate me and explain how the game changes between shallow and deep money play. How hand values change. How our options change depending on depth of money. That sort of thing.

Can you do that for me? Sure would be appreciated. Or do you play and think the same way under both? Sure looks that way with what you said in this thread.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Its never good to get all your chips in the middle unless you have the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is no-limit suicide. You may as well forfeit the buy in and lie down in the street - you're getting run over one way or another playing this way. And the people doing it to you will be those same "serious poker players", who will identify you as weak and proceed to come over the top of you again and again. You may finally pick up AA or flop a set and trap them, but it will hardly matter because their stacks will be so much bigger than yours anyway by this point.

[CrisBrown]

Hi John,

<<I'm glad to finally find someone that understands no-limit dynamics so well. Maybe you can educate me and explain how the game changes between shallow and deep money play. How hand values change. How our options change depending on depth of money. That sort of thing.>>

And this is exactly the problem with "The System." It makes no distinction in the depth of the money, in where you stand in a tournament relative to the bubble, what the quality of your opponents are, etc. It simply gives a list of hands that you'll play, according to your position and what's happened ahead of you, and on any hand you play, you move all-in.

The reason for "the System" is that it gives the weaker player the fewest decisions to make -- all-in or fold pre-flop -- negating the skill advantage of stronger players who might otherwise maneuver you off of a better hand, or induce you to call with a lesser hand. It turns all of the post-flop action over to the dealer.

And -- like any other over-simplification of a complex system -- it gives up a lot. Specifically, it gives up the opportunity to get away from a hand. So unless you get off to a fast start, and keep getting lucky, you're going to face a lot of called-and-covered all-in situations. Even if by some miracle you always have the best hand when that happens -- and many of "the System" hands would not be -- you're still going to need a lot of luck to survive more than three or four of these.

And that's why skilled players prefer small-bet tournament poker. With more decisions to make, their skill advantage is magnified, and their risks minimized.

Cris

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
And that's why skilled players prefer small-bet tournament poker. With more decisions to make, their skill advantage is magnified, and their risks minimized

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is why the system works (somewhat) against good opponents, but not in most online tourneys.

[CrisBrown]

Hiya nottom,

You're right that "the System" is more effective against good players, and oddly, that's why the best strategy at a table with a "System" player is to wait for looser players to take him out, unless you have a monster hand. "System" players are tight enough that you'll get plenty of pots to play when they're not involved, so you can usually play to avoid them and let them run themselves onto the rocks of Fate....

Cris

[William]

I totally second this comment. I will even say that if he has 99 he will call faster than you can realize.

[SoBeDude]

Exactly my point and well said Chris,

-Scott

[SoBeDude]

Once again well said,

If you watch the WPT, you have seen a few players who seemed to be all-in or folding. And you saw the rest of the table happy to muck and avoid this player.

So he won the blinds/antes. He's never going to get anywhere because the opponents simply avoided him. And their stack actually continued to decrease in relation to the blinds (their stack stayed pretty much the same, but the blinds kept going up). Eventually they died a quick and deserving death.

Of course when you're short stacked, you need to take all-in chances, thats the nature of the game. But a smart, good player with chip-depth avoids all-ins against bigger stacks at ALL COSTS.

-Scott

[daryn]

if i remember correctly there was one old dude with a hat.. i think he was a dentist? we made it to the final table and didn't really have that big a stack, but he would either go all in or fold preflop... and nobody was calling him. mike sexton made a comment that we had never even seen a hand of his show down at all at the final table. actually, the ONLY hand he showed down at the final table, was the hand where someone called him and he busted out. lucky for him it was heads up by then.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again well said,

If you watch the WPT, you have seen a few players who seemed to be all-in or folding. And you saw the rest of the table happy to muck and avoid this player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the players I saw doing this were making the correct play for their stack. Only 1 player that I remember making too big an all-in overbet preflop. In the X22 game, the dentist I think, and he wasn't that far wrong.

Care to post any examples of what you are on about?

[ QUOTE ]
So he won the blinds/antes. He's never going to get anywhere because the opponents simply avoided him.

[/ QUOTE ]

The blinds and antes for most of the stacks I saw doing this is a good win.

[ QUOTE ]
But a smart, good player with chip-depth avoids all-ins against bigger stacks at ALL COSTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

All costs? You just talking final table play now, where they are both huge stacks? If so, then I agree, when it's you bullying him. If in general, I know plenty of good players that disagree. 'At all costs' is too strongly worded when talking generally.

Had you even any idea about the meaning of my post that you replied to when calling me a fish? I suspect not.

[JohnG]

Nothing I have said in this thread was related to 'the system', or 'small bet' poker. My only real comment was that:

"Plenty of tournament situations exist where you do not know it's a coinflip until the cards are actually turned over. Before that point, you may just as likely be a big favourite."

For this, I got called an idiot by some guy that obviously doesn't know what situations I was referring to. I gather he viewed it out of context or through a weak tight filter.

Most of these preflop tournament situations I was referring to will be on shallow money, hence the shallow money and deep money stuff in my reply to this guy.

But anyway, on the subject of small bet/system:

Firstly, I am not sure what other people mean when they refer to 'small bet'. I am not sure what context they use it in. I know what it means to me, but that doesn't mean we will be talking about the same thing in the same context, so I will mention a few.

[ QUOTE ]
And this is exactly the problem with "The System." It makes no distinction in the depth of the money, in where you stand in a tournament relative to the bubble, what the quality of your opponents are, etc. It simply gives a list of hands that you'll play, according to your position and what's happened ahead of you, and on any hand you play, you move all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe there was the advice to wait until the dead money was worth stealing. Which infers that the money will be approaching shallow rather than being deep.

As for the rest of it, it was a guide for novices to minimise the edge of the better players. It wasn't a guide to winning tournaments and being the next superstar. It's a
starting point. An experiment. An illustration of how silly tournaments are in identifying the best players.

I'm sure it can be refined for a more serious player. Sklansky himself has refined it in a card player article.

Changing the no-limit to pot limit instead would only make a difference in the deep money stage. But then you would not get these idiot players entering for long. The fields would be smaller. Less money. A good players edge would be less over the average field quality.

It isn't really an hardship playing an all-in or fold player in the deep money part of a no limit tourney. In the later shallow money stages, the few that get there are often making the correct play. Playing small bet against them in the shallow money stages doesn't work as they won't let you. And if the pros keep folding, then the novice is outplaying and beating the pro. Who has the edge? Not the pro if he keeps folding without AA on shallow money

So the better player only benefits from small bet poker on shallow money if the inferior opponent lets him. Hence the media trying to influence this style.

I think that on shallow money, if we bet/raise it should be the same amount in a tournament as it would be in a cash game under the exact same blinds/stacks/dynamics. Small bet does not work on shallow money regardless of the quality of the opponent, (assuming you would not make the exact same small bet in a cash game. If you would, then obviously it would be correct in a tourney also).

Having said that, I dont think small bet poker refers to shallow money play anyway. I just included it in case other people did.

I think small bet poker is just another term for the desire not to have to risk their whole stack when on deeper money against inferior players. To not play big pots. In which case, again, it is in the superior players interests to influence the inferior players to play this strategy also. Hence all the weak tight advice- gotta survive, only get it allin with the nuts, play small bet poker, small pot poker, avoid coin flips etc. They want you to fold to their bets. It's that simple. All the advice is true in a way, but they give only enough information for it to be misunderstood and misapplied.

[ QUOTE ]
And that's why skilled players prefer small-bet tournament poker. With more decisions to make, their skill advantage is magnified, and their risks minimized.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know a few skilled players. I am sure a few of them do prefer 'small bet' poker where all their chips are never at risk. In fact, just about every tourney player would prefer their entire stack not to be at risk. However, we don't always get what we want, and in that case none of them will then shy away from putting all their chips in if it is correct to do so. That's because there is a big difference between a desire to play small bet poker to not risk all our chips, and actually refusing to put our chips at risk should the situation dictate it being the correct play. I believe the actual play of a lot of the best tournament players throughout the past 30 years will support this view.

On deep money, our stack will often not be at risk, and if it is, a skilled player will usually have the best of it.

On shallow money, it is often correct to put all your chips at risk. Shallow money play is risky. That's the nature of the game. If these skilled players don't like the fact their chips are at risk then these so called skilled players will have no problem playing the deeper money cash games instead. After all, it's where the money is for the really skilled.

This small bet expression is just another slogan like 'gotta survive to win'. It's media bullshit designed to mislead. Just a little bit of info so people can misapply it for the pros benefit. My advice to you is don't fall for the hype. It's what they want.

[CrisBrown]

Hi JohnG,

By "small bet poker" I refer to making 3-5xBB or pot-sized bets/raises on your strong hands, rather than moving all-in, unless the normal bet -- or a pre-flop call -- would be more than 1/3 of your stack.

If the pot-sized bet/call would be more than 1/3 of your stack, then the correct play is to move all-in (or fold), because if you bet the lesser amount and are called, you won't have enough chips left to make a pot-sized bet at the flop, meaning you can't deny an opponent proper pot odds to draw at a straight or flush.

It also means not calling yourself all-in pre-flop with only marginal hands (QQ, JJ, even AK at higher buy-ins), because even if you are ahead in the hand (vs. an underpair or vs. overcards), the short sides of those odds do add up, and they add up a lot faster than people realize. E.g.: if you are all-in three times as a 3:1 favorite, your probability of winning all three pots is only 42%. Statistically, more often than not, you'll lose one of the three pots.

That's not to say you should never go all-in. As I said, if a standard bet/raise/call would be more than 1/3 of your stack, the correct play is to move all-in or fold right on the spot. And there are times when your hand plus the board makes all-in the right move, either because you have the nuts and you think your opponent will call, or if you sense weakness in your opponent and are sure he won't call (the "big bluff").

More often than not, though, you can get more money for a strong hand by not moving all-in, precisely because good players will fold to an all-in bet unless they either have the best hand or have you covered and are getting good pot odds for the call. It always amazes me to see a player flop the nut flush (or, worse, top boat or quads) and move all-in at the flop ... guaranteeing they'll win nothing but the pre-flop money. Even if you don't want to check-call because you don't think opponents will bet into you, you could probably sell the hand for a smaller bet and increase your profit on the hand.

That is "small bet poker," as I use the phrase. It's not about winning small pots. Often the "small bet" approach will win a bigger pot than a pre-flop all-in would have. And of course the "small bet" approach gives you a greater edge if you're a good player- and hand-reader, because you have the opportunity to get away from a hand gone bad, or bluff from the board when you sense weakness. You can't do either if you're all-in pre-flop on every hand you play.

Sklansky's "System" was an intellectual exercise, offered for two reasons: (a) as an entry-level strategy for a raw beginner or someone who knows he is hopelessly out-classed; and, more important I suspect, (b) Sklansky is not a good NLHE player, so he'd like to prove it can be beaten by a mindless "System" player, thus debunking its reputation as the "Cadillac of Poker," and displacing it as the format by which the World Champion is determined.

Cris

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
By "small bet poker" I refer to making 3-5xBB or pot-sized bets/raises on your strong hands, rather than moving all-in, unless the normal bet -- or a pre-flop call -- would be more than 1/3 of your stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, OK. To me, that would just be normal poker. The correct bet size to make in general.


[ QUOTE ]
It also means not calling yourself all-in pre-flop with only marginal hands (QQ, JJ, even AK at higher buy-ins), because even if you are ahead in the hand (vs. an underpair or vs. overcards), the short sides of those odds do add up, and they add up a lot faster than people realize.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what my original post was referring to. That there are plenty of tournament situations where you do not know it is a coinflip before the cards are turned over, (or a big dog). You could just as likely be a big favourite. Obviously most of these situations will be on shallow money play.

Unless I was getting 2-1 on my all-in call, I would be folding unless I was just as likely to have my opponent buried as they are to have me buried. The better read I have on the opponent, the more accurate my decision.

If it's a situation where I think it's heads I'm buried, tails we take a race, then I fold unless getting 2-1 pot odds on the all-in call. Of course, if I know 100% sure it's a race, then I call.

The times I make the all-in call for all my chips when getting less than 2-1 will be when I think it's heads I'm buried, tails they are buried. This will be the type of situation where I may end up in a coinflip when they turn their cards over.

[ QUOTE ]
More often than not, though, you can get more money for a strong hand by not moving all-in, precisely because good players will fold to an all-in bet unless they either have the best hand or have you covered and are getting good pot odds for the call. It always amazes me to see a player flop the nut flush (or, worse, top boat or quads) and move all-in at the flop ... guaranteeing they'll win nothing but the pre-flop money. Even if you don't want to check-call because you don't think opponents will bet into you, you could probably sell the hand for a smaller bet and increase your profit on the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't know how big an all-in overbet you are talking here, but ultimately the way to play it depends on how you play other hands in this situation.

However, for a poor player, always moving all-in regardless will not be that bad an idea, as they will not be buried if they happen to be called, assuming it's the nut flush or a big draw. Obviously not a good idea for a knowledgable player, but it does negate the good players edge to a large degree when an inferior player does this, if the money is not hugely deep. i.e. the pot is worth stealing, otherwise the check-raise all-in would be best for them.

[ QUOTE ]
That is "small bet poker," as I use the phrase. It's not about winning small pots. Often the "small bet" approach will win a bigger pot than a pre-flop all-in would have. And of course the "small bet" approach gives you a greater edge if you're a good player- and hand-reader, because you have the opportunity to get away from a hand gone bad, or bluff from the board when you sense weakness. You can't do either if you're all-in pre-flop on every hand you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, now I know what you mean by small bet, I pretty much agree with you. Your definition of small bet is what I consider normal bet. The generally correct bet.

For me, whether an all-in bet is too big an overbet depends on the nature of my hand and what my opponent will do with various hands. In many situations that will be how he reacts with hands I have buried.

When I have a hand like top pair on flop or a pp or big ace preflop, I basically want my opponent to make mistakes that will double me through, and by mistakes I mean with hands that I have buried. So when I have a hand like that, how he reacts with dominated hands is the key bit of info.

Generally, regrdless of the nature of my hand, if the all-in helps him play correctly so that he will not make a mistake, then it's too big an overbet.

This is why with top pair or an overpair on the flop, I will not normally be moving all-in if it would be for more than 2X the pot. Likewise I would not normally call an all-in with this type of hand for a bigger overbet than that. For me to move all-in for a bigger obverbet post flop, I would normally have a big draw or a big made hand.

[ QUOTE ]
(b) Sklansky is not a good NLHE player, so he'd like to prove it can be beaten by a mindless "System" player, thus debunking its reputation as the "Cadillac of Poker," and displacing it as the format by which the World Champion is determined.

[/ QUOTE ]

For this to be true, you have to make the mistake of thinking the WSOP 10k event is about identifying the best player and crowning them world champion. It isn't in my opinion. It's about promotion and making money. I would think Sklansky knows that. But he could be making that proof from an intelectual theory point of view. i.e what would be the best tournament game to identify the best player, or give the best player the greatest edge. But it will only ever be theory, and no traditional tournament whatever the game would ever identify the best player.

Tournament no-limit was never the cadillac of poker. That expression was really referring to deep money no limit, which is mostly cash play. Although the expression was used to hype the tournaments. But it's just hype for the suckers. All the media is. Maybe hype is what Sklansky likes to attack.