Playing against a Sklansky Disciple

[Yawkey]

Hold your horses RikDayToN, there is most certainly a difference between players who have only read Sklansky vs. players who have only read Brunson. The players who have just read Brunson tend to be more agressive and a bit looser than the players who have only read Sklansky. Also, Sklansky stresses the math aspect of the game and therefore more hands are played a bit mechanically, also the Fundamental Theorem of Poker naturally makes people tighten up. Although the math is in there, Brunson stresses gambling and play with feelings over the math (playing rushes and the ESP section in SS1 are good examples). Certainly there is something to be said about both authors, and it's not hard to see how a player could lean to one style or another.

Now the very first time I played against this guy, who was playing in a live game for either his first or second time, he was very passive only called and seemed to always hit on the turn or river yet never raised. He finished in the top half, but didn't hold up against the better players in the end. Based upon this, luck is certainly a valid assumption. Granted this was probably a year ago and if I miss read him at that point I can accept that. As for knowing my opponents now, after only playing with him just one more time I was immediatly able to tell you exactly which book he gained his poker knowledge from (this was only verified last week). Do you really think I would consistantly finish in the top two of this game if I didn't know my opponents extremely well. So now I have a new challenge against a player I rarely see, and I'm seeking a little advice. Now I came to a forum where I know a lot of users have read and swear by TOP, my actions in seeking advice here alone should be enough to keep the question of my playing ability out of the discussion (I know I'm not world class, that's why I'm asking questions).

So I've identified a solid player who generally plays tight, he has a good understanding of pot odds. He generally hangs back while the first half of the tourney falls out and although still tight plays more agressive as the numbers wind down. I generally have a good read on him (e.g. my AK vs. his A6 I had nailed on the flop hence the all-in). How do I get the most money from him?

[FourNickel]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Sklansky stresses the math aspect of the game and therefore more hands are played a bit mechanically, also the Fundamental Theorem of Poker naturally makes people tighten up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am trying hard not to be a smart ass but dont take this personally: read some Sklansky before you make assumptions, naturally this is 100% incorrect.

[Yawkey]

Which part are you disagreeing with, the stressing of Math, or Fundamental Theorem of Poker tightening up players.

Math: Four of the first seven chapters in TOP, are on the math aspect. Every section in the book is bombarded with math aspects, it reminds me of complex algorithms and therefore looks mechanic.

FTP: After I read this chapter in the book(yes, I have read the whole book), my natural reaction was to tighten up. This guy plays tight, and most of the usefull advice found on this board suggest playing tight in more situations than not and refernce Sklansky.

[bernie]

Maybe you should read a few other books.

It might be that alot more than just TOP crossed under his nose.

The whole premise of this thread is just a titch ridiculous.

Unless this is a troll post, it's obvious you have a lot to learn about this game.

b

[lehighguy]

Tournament play is different then cash game play.

Fold equity is a diffucult concept to judge, and hard to do so solely with math.

As in his arguements about math/science/philosophy it has more to do with process then making value judgements. So with his theory of poker.

The nature of games these days can reward tight play. Simply put, you don't need to understand fold equity well enough to make a huge roll. There are just too many fish who play too loose. Perhaps as games tighten the EV of learning more about reading people will increase and more will pay greater attention to that sort of game.

If you want to beat a tight ABC poker player you do it slowly by learning his patterns. After all, he goes from A to B to C. How hard can that be. Don't expect to earn money fast, just chip away at him.

Tournaments, the very late stages, are about push/fold all-ins. You'll find people on this forum VERY well versed in such strategy as it is extremely mathematical.

The weakest point in my game is when my stack is 20-30 times the BB. You can get yourself into a lot of trouble there because most EV takes place postflop, and yet you have little room to manuever, you get trapped easily.

[Shandrax]

The way is see it is that Sklansky describes the technical part of poker to perfection. As long as you are technically superior to your opponents you will win, simply because they make more mistakes which add all up to your profit.

As soon as you get to a level where players don't make technical mistakes anymore (obviously a very high level), it is all about psychology and when to do the "wrong" thing at the "right" moment.

The game of poker played without mistakes should be very close (if not) a zero-sum game where only the cards decide the winner on a given day (rake always wins of course). If the very same guys play each other for years without anyone going broke, this only confirms my theory. They could play Roshambo as well.

[troy5168]

okay, if he's getting all his chips in with A-6 and winning by drawing out to a str8 please show me where Sklansky would advocate such a thing? Sounds more like a Brunson
10-2 move to me.

[Shandrax]

If I remember correctly then Brunson's 10-2 were played heads-up. In the endgame you play almost every hand in the small blind and you call with every hand in the big blind. I am sure you will hardly see him play 10-2 on a full table unless he feels that he has to prove something in front of the camera.

Also winning by handing a bad beat to someone or mastering the art of drawing out is not covered in any Sklansky work, because if you play well, you will be the favorite in the showdown. That's what good poker is all about.

If you lose to some idiot who manages to turn 7-2o into a full house, that's simply tough luck and not the work of a poker genius.

[wmspringer]

[ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly then Brunson's 10-2 were played heads-up. In the endgame you play almost every hand in the small blind and you call with every hand in the big blind. I am sure you will hardly see him play 10-2 on a full table unless he feels that he has to prove something in front of the camera.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funnily enough, a couple days ago I was watching Brunson raise preflop with T2 on WPT :-)

(He ended up folding to a reraise)

[Yawkey]

[ QUOTE ]
okay, if he's getting all his chips in with A-6 and winning by drawing out to a str8 please show me where Sklansky would advocate such a thing? Sounds more like a Brunson
10-2 move to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, good question. This was in the late stages of the game with only four players, blinds were quite high for our stacks. I was throwing money at pretty much everyother pot, because the game had tightened up since we were on the bubble at this point. So it was reasonable for him to peg me as a loose overagressive player with nothing more than middle pair. This was literally the only mistake I saw him make the whole night, and as it turns out it didn't work out too bad for him.