GrannyMae
05-23-2004, 10:22 PM
i actually used it in a 4 person NL sNg at stars a bit ago because i was late for dinner. i ended up winning it quite easily. it is now time for dinner.
http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/x/foodman.gif
btw, i will never use it again. it really is boring if you ask me
Jimbo
05-23-2004, 10:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think someone out there tried it? Is going to try it? It would make for quite an expensive experiment!
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes I have it on good authority that Men the Master and Chris Moneymaker used it this year. Their results weren't so good but watch out next year when they try using it against Phil Helmuth, sparks are sure to fly. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Jimbo
ZeeJustin
05-23-2004, 10:38 PM
This strategy would not work for a tourney like the WSOP main event. You start with 100 big blinds, which means you are very rarely going all-in at the beginning. Your stack will just blind down unless you are lucky enough to get called with one of your shoves.
ZeeJustin
05-23-2004, 10:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
750 players were eliminated the first day (out of about 1300) so somebody is calling..
[/ QUOTE ]
On party, you lose half the field in an hour. It took them 10 hours.
William
05-23-2004, 11:01 PM
On party, you lose half the field in an hour. It took them 10 hours.
On party you start with 1000 chips and the levels increase every 15/20 minutes. Here they got 100 minutes and 10.000 chips
AAmaz0n
05-24-2004, 02:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think the modified system adjusts for relative blind size-I just checked, it does.
Regards
[/ QUOTE ]
Is there a link for the modified version of the System? I only have seen the basic version in the book.
thanks,
Shauna
Mike Haven
05-24-2004, 03:20 PM
Improving the ‘System’
In my book Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, I recount an experience I had regarding the World Series of Poker $10,000 championship event. A wealthy casino owner wanted to give his daughter a thrill by staking her in the tournament. Unfortunately, she had never played a hand of poker of any type.
I was given the assignment to prepare her in only a few hours. It seemed like an impossible task, but I got a flash of inspiration. I realized that no-limit hold’em allowed for a very simple strategy that wasn’t all that bad — namely, either folding or moving in before the flop. Considering the tremendous pressure this would put on other players, especially in a tournament, I thought I might just be able to devise a method that would at least give her a chance.
My book describes the “system” in more detail, but essentially I had her moving in with any pair, any suited connector, and A-K. Everything else she folded. The day before the big tournament, the casino owner finished in fifth place in a smaller no-limit event by following the same system. Unfortunately, in his daughter’s case, she ran into pocket aces late on the first day’s play and was eliminated, after holding her own for six hours.
The reason why this simple system has a chance is twofold. First, most opponents will not jeopardize their whole stack in close situations (for example, with two jacks or A-Q), thereby allowing the system player to steal lots of small pots. The other reason is that I chose hands that had a decent chance of winning when they were called.
But this simple system had at least two obvious problems. It did not take into account stack size versus blind size, and it did not take into account how many players were yet to act. If the rest of the table merely waited for aces, that would probably be good enough to thwart the system at the beginning of the tournament, when moving in was risking so much to win so little. Conversely, if the system player was lucky enough to reach the final five, she would be folding so many hands that the blinds would eat her up even if she was never called.
There was no way I had time to teach that girl anything other than the simplest system, drawbacks and all. However, I realized that I could easily improve the system to avoid lots of these drawbacks. I wasn’t willing to do the advanced analysis to make a move-or-fold system anywhere near perfect (I invite others to improve the system further). But, I realized that some reasonable rules of hand selection that take stack size and position into account would go a long way toward making system players much harder to contend with.
Before explaining the improved system, I must point out that there is one situation it doesn’t cover. I speak of the times you are in the big blind and nobody raises. You might also include the times you are in the small blind and decide to flick in a chip to call. What you do in these situations is up to you. If you think you play well, go ahead and play it normally. (But if you lose lots of chips on those hands, you will always wonder what would have happened if you didn’t.) If you choose to go to the other extreme, you could move in if the flop gives you the nuts (or perhaps top set), and check-fold if it doesn’t. An in-between strategy would be to play cautiously, not risking a lot of chips, saving your stack for the system.
Like the original, the improved system has you either moving in or folding with every starting hand. But unlike the original system, the hands with which you move in will depend on various factors. I have combined those factors into one key number. After you calculate that key number, you will know with which hands to move in.
Here’s how you get that key number: First, divide the total amount of the blinds into the amount of your stack. If the blinds were $100-$200 and your stack was $6,000, that would give you a result of 20. It’s an important result, because it’s the odds you are laying to pick up the blinds: 6,000-to-300 is 20-to-1. Important exception: If no one still in the hand has as many chips as you, use the biggest stack among them. That should be obvious, since your risk is no longer your whole stack.
After you have done this division problem, multiply your result by the number of players, including the blinds, yet to act. So, if you were one to the right of the button in the previous example, you would multiply by 3 and get a key number of 60.
When there have been no players entering the pot in front of you, you are done with the calculation. (When someone has already raised in front of you, reraise all in with aces, kings, or A-K suited. Otherwise, fold.) If there are limpers in front of you, multiply the key number by the number of limpers plus one. In our example, if there were two limpers, the key number would now be 180.
Here’s how to use the key number to decide whether to move in:
• If the key number is 400 or more, move in only with two aces.
• If the key number is between 200 and 400, move in with A-A or K-K.
• If the key number is between 150 and 200, move in with A-A, K-K, Q-Q, or A-K.
• If the key number is between 100 and 150, move in with A-A, K-K, Q-Q, J-J, 10-10, A-K, A-Q, or K-Q
• If the key number is between 80 and 100, move in with any pair, A-K, A-Q, K-Q, any ace suited, and any no gap suited connector down to 5-4.
• If the key number is between 60 and 80, move in with any pair, any ace, K-Q, any king suited, and any suited connector with no gap or one gap.
• If the key number is between 40 and 60, move in with all of the above, plus any king.
• If the key number is between 20 and 40, move in with all of the above, plus any two suited cards.
• If the key number is less than 20, raise with any two cards.
Let me reiterate that the above guidelines are very far from perfect. A deep analysis, perhaps with the aid of a computer, would result in more precise and accurate criteria. But what I have suggested here ought to do surprisingly well. The biggest problem I can see would occur if you have frequent raisers on your right. In that case, you would need to reraise all in with more than the three hands I recommended.
Let’s try a couple of sample hands. The blinds are $300-$500. Your stack is $17,000. A player with $12,000 limps in. You are two to the right of the button. The four players yet to act have about 10 grand each. You have two sixes. Should you move in?
Let’s calculate the key number. First, notice that the stack size to use is not yours, but the largest of the others, $12,000 in this case. Dividing $800 into that number gives us 15. Multiplying by four players yet to act gives us 60. Multiplying that by 2 (due to the one limper) yields 120. That’s too high to raise, since the key number needs to be 100 or less. Notice, however, that if there was one fewer player behind you, you should raise; or, if your stack was less than $10,000 (10,000 divided by 8 = 12.5 x 4 x 2 = 100).
Here’s a second example. It’s ninehanded, and the blinds are $100-$200. First, three players fold. You’ve got $10,000 and some players behind you have more. Should you move in with A-K?
This is simple. Divide 300 into 10,000 to get 33.33. Multiply by the five players yet to act to get a key number of 166.7. Check the key number table. Put the chips in (but you wouldn’t from under the gun).
Again, there is no question that this new system could be improved upon. I’d love to see someone do it. But even without those further improvements, I guarantee that it will give tournament pros fits. If you use it, I will be pulling for you.
DS
***************************************
Here are my own amendments:
i find it is quite difficult to make the necessary calculations at the table, and therefore i have simplified the revised System so that i need to know little except where i am sitting in relation to the Dealer, and whether i am first in, behind limpers, or behind raisers
if you "can't play NL" i think it is reasonable to say that you have little chance to win a tournament
with this simplified System, plus a bit of common sense, i believe there is an increased chance to do better than you would without using it
so, for what it's worth, here it is - make any amendments you feel might help you in particular "odd" circumstances that might arise
you should receive a potentially playable hand about once every two rounds, but unfortunately numbers of these will have to be mucked, depending on what has happened already in the hand or where you are sitting
i call EP seats 3 and 4, MP seats 5, 6 and 7, and LP seats 8 and 9 - on short tables, work backwards from the Dealer in seat 10 to determine position
to open in EP:
raise all in with AA or KK
to open in MP:
raise all in with AA, AKs, KK, or QQ
to open in LP or SB:
raise all in with AA, AK, AQs, KK, KQs, QQ, or JJ
after limpers:
in EP:
raise all in with AA or KK
in any other position:
raise all in with AA, AKs, KK, or QQ
after one raiser:
reraise all in with AA or KK
after two or more raisers:
reraise all in with AA
you will have a few free plays from the BB - may the flop be with you!
you may wish to open-limp from the SB on occasion - may the flop be with you!
if you last long enough for the blinds to start damaging your stack you can consider adding AQ, AJs, KQ, and TT to your LP all in hands
good luck
mh
Sloats
05-24-2004, 03:36 PM
Now Mike, if you would just post the rest of the book, I would have spend $40 in vain.....
chson
06-16-2004, 12:09 PM
Does anybody have any ideas on how antes would factor into the equation of determing the initial number? For example, if the blinds were 100/200 with a 25 ante, would you do:
(stack/325) or ((stack)/(25*number of players))?
Mike Haven
06-16-2004, 03:23 PM
If the blinds were $100-$200 and your stack was $6,000, that would give you a result of 20. It’s an important result, because it’s the odds you are laying to pick up the blinds: 6,000-to-300 is 20-to-1.
you are trying to find the odds you are "laying to pick up the blinds", so with antes you are trying to find the odds you are "laying to pick up the blinds plus the antes"
therefore, you would use [(stack)]/[(blinds) + {(ante) x (number of players)}]
driller
06-17-2004, 07:19 PM
Actually I think the original form of the system was developed for the daughter of a friend of Sklansky's who wanted to play in the main event, but had never played before. It was intended to be used from the beginning.
Sklansky pointed out that the system (to the extent that it worked)showed an inherent weakness in no-limit, in that you could nullify the prowess of a pro by going all in and forcing him to gamble rather than use his card skills and people reading ability.
Andrew Glazer in the June 4 issue of cardplayer http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14041
said essentially the same thing, though he didn't mention "the system".
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.