Sklansky NLH Tournament System Math Question

[mottom]

In Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, Sklansky lays out what he calls "The System" for NLH tournaments starting on page 122. He says that when there is no raise in front of you, the system calls for an all-in bet on 13% of the hands. He then says if you can't figure out where he got that, you should stop reading the book, and that you deserve to lose. Well, maybe I deserve to lose, but I don't know where he got the 13%.

The system calls for moving in (with no raise in front) with 35 hands (any pair,Axs,AKo,KQs-54s). 35 hands out of 169 is 20.71%. 13% would only be about 22 hands.

So what am I missing?

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
any pair,Axs,AKo,KQs-54s

[/ QUOTE ]
The frequency with which these hands are dealt is not the same.
There are C(52,2)= 1326 possible hands [Edit: Not 169 if AcKd is distinct from AcKh.]

Any pr: 6*13=78 hands
Axs: 12*4=48 hands
AKo: 12 hands
KQs-54s: 8*4=32 hands

(78+48+12+32)/1326=.128 or 12.8% (about 13%)

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
KQs-54s: 8*4=32 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

damn, you beat me to it, but one little nitpick - there are nine of these hands, not eight (54, 65, 76, 87, 98, T9, JT, QJ, KQ). Including the four more, the final result becomes about 13.1%

[kitaristi0]

[ QUOTE ]
In Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, Sklansky lays out what he calls "The System" for NLH tournaments starting on page 122. He says that when there is no raise in front of you, the system calls for an all-in bet on 13% of the hands. He then says if you can't figure out where he got that, you should stop reading the book, and that you deserve to lose. Well, maybe I deserve to lose, but I don't know where he got the 13%.

The system calls for moving in (with no raise in front) with 35 hands (any pair,Axs,AKo,KQs-54s). 35 hands out of 169 is 20.71%. 13% would only be about 22 hands.

So what am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does he actually say that you deserve to lose or did you just make that up?

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

Does he actually say that you deserve to lose or did you just make that up?

[/ QUOTE ]

"...(If you don't know how I got that, stop reading this book right now. You are not ready for it. You don't know enough about poker. And, you deserve to lose.)" - p. 124 (emphasis mine)

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KQs-54s: 8*4=32 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

damn, you beat me to it, but one little nitpick - there are nine of these hands, not eight (54, 65, 76, 87, 98, T9, JT, QJ, KQ). Including the four more, the final result becomes about 13.1%

[/ QUOTE ]

Counting isn't my strong suit. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

I guess I only deserve to be a small winner....

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

Counting isn't my strong suit. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

I guess I only deserve to be a small winner....

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah man - I can't tell you how many huge pots I've lost because I forgot that 54-KQ is nine hands and not eight [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[mottom]

Thanks for the responses. I suppose none of this makes any difference as to the effectiveness of the strategy, but I was just wondering. Guess I'm used to just doing the math with 169 hands.