Playing against a Sklansky Disciple

[gergery]

The way to beat the math/Sklansky types is thru leveraging your assymetric information. You know what hand you have and they just put you on a range.

[varoadstter]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like he's read Dan Harrington's books as well, but I digress.

Setting aside your categorizations about a "Sklansky" disciple and their basis in fact perhaps there are a few things you could try.

Brunson will make plays, even outrageous plays, that the mathematically-thinking player would not make. Now, this is credible advice in a cash game setting since you can rebuy but in a freezout tournament I would categorize it as suboptimal. Many people who tout Sklansky also are capable of making "big laydowns". With an exceptional read and a perfect situation you probably could make a Brunsonesque move into him and hit the payoff with a big laydown. Other than that, I think you'll just have to acknowledge that what Brunson advocates has more to do with nerve, feel, and experience than it does with mathematical fundamentals. The fundamentals are always there whether we understand them or not (as they constitute reality) but being able to adequately carry through with Brunson's ideas is something that only a few people can really pull off.

A poor analogy but perhaps it will add to this discussion:

Brunson is kinda like poker's version of John Daly (the golfer). He's got an ability to hit a golf ball farther than just about anyone but it comes with a significant risk of making a huge error. On the days when he's "feeling it" (of which there haven't been any in years), John Daly can use that advantage to win a tournament.

I would liken Sklansky to someone like Fred Couples. He's got a fundamentally correct swing, understands shot making for all aspects of the game, and works tirelessly to improve on his flaws. Couples has "low variance" - he is constantly there in the hunt for a tournament win week after week.

It's not a perfect analogy, like I said. Brunson is more talented in relation to his peers than Daly is to his.

Now, all that being said, I would actually recommend Harrington on Holdem I and II. Tournaments are a different animal than cash games in that they have a lot of additional factors to consider beyond just pot odds and whatnot.

Good luck.

Everyone is missing the most important point. YOU HAD HIM DOMINATED... he put all his money in with A-6 vs. A-K. Assuming you played this hand with some descency... i.e. raised before the flop. Showed aggression on the flop. Who cares... he got lucky... he's not playing a strategy.

However, if you limped with your AK, didn't show aggression, or otherwise tipped him of to the fact that his A6 was good. The loss was your fault.

About two years ago I quit worrying about the exact "style" of how others played... and focues on my skills, style, and reads... needless to say "my profits are way up".

[erby]

[ QUOTE ]
he got lucky and busted me on the bubble so now I'm looking for vengence (runner-runner straight after calling my all-in A-K vs. A-6 on the flop, board comes A85 9 7).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm...this sounds more like a Doyle move on his part than a Sklansky move. I even think Sklansky stated in your SS that A-X suited is one of the most overrated hands in hold-em...specifically for the reason that he was in such bad shape here.

ERBY [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Yawkey]

I mentioned this earlier in response to Troy, but this was late in the tourney, with only four players and very high blinds. I had been playing very loose and agressive at this point because we were on the bubble and the other guys had tightened up. This hand was really the only mistake I saw him make the whole night, and is a bad example as to the style of his play. Also you have to take into consideration the fatigue factor as this was a pretty evenly matched game that was lasting much longer than usual for us.

[einbert]

"The great thing about this strategy is that even if you knew exactly what I was doing, you couldn't do anything about it."

- David Sklansky, TOP

Taken a little out of context (it was on game theory), but I like how it applies to this situation.