Error in Sklansky's book

[cflksegmas]

the post might be silly, but I do not understand the follownig sentences in Hold'em for Advanced players by Sklansky.

Page 12:

"You occasionally should play a hand differently not only for sake of variation, but also depending on whether the game is loose or tight, or passive or aggressive. Expert players must be fooled more often than poor ones. But even if poor players always have a good idea of exactly where you are, you will lose some of your edge."

What kind of edge do I lose? I do not understand the logic.

Please help me.

btw, my opinion is that Sklansky is the best poker author ever.

[MaxPower]

If they always know what kind of hand you have, they will make fewer mistake against you. That is why deception is necessary in poker. Against poor players, deception is not as necessary because they cannot figure out your hand or aren't even trying. Still, if you play against the same players often, even a poor player will learn something about you and use it.

In my home game there is one player who plays very tight, but predicatably. Even the calling stations get out of the way when he bets or raises.

[1800GAMBLER]

You only raise AA preflop. I fold KK to your raise. You add 22 without me knowning and i just cost myself a lot when you have 22.

[Mike Haven]

btw, my opinion is that Sklansky is the best poker author ever.

thank goodness you put that rider in after the sacrilegious post title

maybe if your table image is that when you bet you always have top pair or the appropriate draw, if you are in the hand the betting is kept to a minimum - if occasionally you chase a gutshot where the odds don't warrant it, then you'll be called more often because they need to "keep you honest"

it's a balancing act - you don't want everyone to fold every time you bet, and you don't want to be called every time you bluff - you have to vary your play to suit your image of the moment - if your utg open-raises cause everyone to fold, raise with JTs or 99 until you get caught - use semi-bluffs more often - bluff-raise the river where you think you only have a small chance to win

i think in this instance edge means money - if you aren't winning as much as you "ought" to be, then it may be because you are playing too predictably

[cflksegmas]

Thanks MaxPower for your replay.

OK, when you're playing against poor players you will lose some of your edge because you don't fool them that often.

But I don't understand the logic of the last sentence:

" But even if poor players always have a good idea of exactly where you are, you will lose some of your edge. "

it should've been " Because poor players have a good idea where you are, you will lose some of your edge "

That sentence has no logic

Thank You

[Bozeman]

" But even if poor players always have a good idea of exactly where you are, you will lose some of your edge. "

Right, its a (not uncommon) sentence construction (but not poker) error. Changing it to "But if players, even poor players, always have a good idea of exactly where you are, you will lose some of your edge." conveys its intent correctly.

Craig

[TheGrifter]

He's saying that even if poor players (as opposed to strong players) know what you're holding, you lose some edge. It makes sense as written. Perhaps not the most eloquent way to put it, but we don't buy S&M for their literary prowess.

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
the post might be silly, but I do not understand the follownig sentences in Hold'em for Advanced players by Sklansky.

Page 12:

"You occasionally should play a hand differently not only for sake of variation, but also depending on whether the game is loose or tight, or passive or aggressive. Expert players must be fooled more often than poor ones. But even if poor players always have a good idea of exactly where you are, you will lose some of your edge."

What kind of edge do I lose? I do not understand the logic.

Please help me.

btw, my opinion is that Sklansky is the best poker author ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
i don't think this is an error. when a bad player figures you out, you lose alot more than edge. the idea here (on this page) is to "mix it up", it is OBVIOUSLY important.

Kenny

[MaxPower]

S&M suggest you read Hemingway if you want correct English.

The thing about most poor players is that they are not thinking about what you hold and even when they have a good idea what you have they often make the wrong play anyway.

You can't deceive a person who doesn't put you on a hand or care what you have, so you don't need to use that much deception. However there are some players who despite being bad do have some poker skills and you need to use a little deception against them. Also, even the worst of players will wisen up a little if they play with you enough.

[oddjob]

agreed, and this can be accomplished by merely showing down one bluff. in my experience a bad player will remember the one time you bluffed more then the dozens of times you've shown down winners.

[ QUOTE ]

i don't think this is an error. when a bad player figures you out, you lose alot more than edge. the idea here (on this page) is to "mix it up", it is OBVIOUSLY important.

Kenny

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mike Gallo]

Welcome aboard.

the post might be silly, but I do not understand the follownig sentences in Hold'em for Advanced players by Sklansky.

I do not understand why you would refer to something you do not comprehend asa mistake.

Since it falls beyond your scope of thinking, allow me to respond.

What kind of edge do I lose? I do not understand the logic.

When I first started playing the middle limit games,( 10-20 ) my opponents always knew where they stood against me in a hand. I played very abc and I never varied my play. As a result my big hands never got paid off because my opponents knew exactly what I had.

[webiggy]

[ QUOTE ]

S&M suggest you read Hemingway if you want correct English.



[/ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps purchase a copy of Elements of Style by Strunk & White

[J.A.Sucker]

[ QUOTE ]
When I first started playing the middle limit games,( 10-20 ) my opponents always knew where they stood against me in a hand. I played very abc and I never varied my play. As a result my big hands never got paid off because my opponents knew exactly what I had.


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually find this hard to believe. I frequently play ABC poker with the same players, day in, day out, at limits higher than 10-20, and they can't put my on a hand very often. This is becasue the natural essence of the game (raising on draws, manipulating the pots with raises/bets at seemingly strange times) affords one plenty of occasions to play hands differently than they would ever think to. This is why I win, and they lose (or don't win as much). The only limit games where I've seen it important to mix it up are higher limit games, usually shorthanded and with several top players. Then, one might should vary their play on occasion. At games 30-60 and below (and even bigger games that are especially good), being a nutjob will cost you money.

If you think that you really need to play some screwey hands against typical opponents, then you're not playing like an expert.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think that you really need to play some screwey hands against typical opponents, then you're not playing like an expert

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about playing a 'screwey' hand?
MG made no mention of this in his post.

Unless i missed something

b

[Mike Gallo]

This is becasue the natural essence of the game (raising on draws, manipulating the pots with raises/bets at seemingly strange times) affords one plenty of occasions to play hands differently than they would ever think to.

I didnt do this either /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Mike Gallo]

Who said anything about playing a 'screwey' hand?

I didnt say or imply this. I just played ABC poker first position I only raised with premium hands. If I reraised I only had Aces or Kings, etc.

[imago]

[imago]

cflksegmas,
Obviously,if you're applying concepts from Advanced Players you've read Theory of Poker and Hold'em Poker, I hope.
Anyway, the idea is that you are going to play your
hands and do your betting, etc., differently for each situation. For example, with QQ, sitting 2 off the button
and only 1 or 2 callers in front of you - how do you bet?
Who were the callers? Are they UTG and a middle? Are they
tough and would only call with a hand? If you bet, are you
going to call or raise? What is this telling the players
behind you, not to mention those bettors in front of you?
Now, put yourself UTG with those Queens; how do you play it?
Basically, if you always play a strong hand the same way,i.e., you always raise or always limp or always make your bet the same amount regardless of position or situation
you are giving way too much info to your opponents and you
will not get paid off nearly as much because they will fold,
knowing your hand is strong.
Go back and reread Theory of Poker. I also recommend Gary
Carson's The Complete Book of Hold 'Em Poker (Kensington
Publishing,2001).
Hopefully this helps some,
imago /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously,if you're applying concepts from Advanced Players you've read Theory of Poker and Hold'em Poker, I hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

<ul type="square">
It is never asking too much for a book to stand on its own.
The original poster didn't ask for help "applying a concept," he was confused as to what DS was trying to say.
I don't think you'll be getting royalties here.
I hope that your misplaced condescension is making you feel better about yourself.
[/list]

~D

[Duke]

Directly after stating that you were confused by a statement that indeed only makes sense if you disregard what is written and instead assume what he must have meant, you name David the best poker author ever.

Does nobody else see the humor in that?

Yes I know that they don't claim to be writers, but for god's sake, when a sentence implies the opposite of what you intend it to mean, people will have trouble figuring out what you mean.

But then again, it may have been transcribed incorrectly and it's written fine in the book.

~D

[imago]

Duke,
/images/graemlins/blush.gif Sorry! I was only offering clarification. His post
sounded as if he is very new to the game.
I am properly chastened and will choose my words and
tone much better in the future.
Thanks for the criticism.

- imago

[Chris Alger]

Sklansky's sentence makes perfect sense, as others have pointed out, but it's a bit dangerous for inexperienced players to overemphasize it.

First, consistency against weak players is underrated (and deception is overrated). A weak player almost by definition is one that doesn't adjust to opponent patterns, therefore playing optimally all the time will maximize your earn until they "get better." (Although they do this more often than you'd think, given the awfulness of some of the plays you see). Second, the most common, immediate way they tend to "get better" is to fold to your bets or raises. If you're playing at a proper level of aggression you should tend to welcome their folds.

Third, most new players struggle with basic strategy, which means they're already varying their play by virtue of not knowing what to do all the time. They lack consistency already. Most would be better off trying to play optimally more often rather than "occasionally" departing from a style they haven't mastered yet.

Fourth, and this is killer, most new players confuse "switching gears" with steaming, if only a bit, and end up justifiying bad plays on the grounds of deception, variability, flexibility or some other euphemism for impatience or fear. It's disasterous because if 5% or so of your plays after the flop go from B+ and better to C+ and below, you can switch from winning a little to losing a lot (or breaking even for 1,000 hour stretches). I include in this category failing to play back with a strong hand against a loose-aggressive-tenacious player with a big hand on the dubious grounds that he might fold when in fact you're really just worried about how much money you're risking.

Here's the test: if you're not well aware of what particular opponents think about how you tend to play, and how they'll react given the range of likely hands the hold in response to your play, forget about varying your play. If you are this aware, look for situations where you can realisitically use your image to your advantage. Examples include raising earlier than usual with very big hands when your opponents see only garbage on the board (e.g., 533 and you have K3 or 55, and your opponent will tend to play back or at least call), slowplaying until the river with solid but not great hands heads-up against players who may well be leading with little or nothing and raising very weak draws on the turn when a scarecard arrives. Big no-no: calling with bad hands that no one will ever see unless a miracle happens on the grounds that they might be in for a big surprise.