Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles - Page 4

David Sklansky · #31 01-21-2005, 02:50 AM

"If only everyone could be as great as you.
Then the world would be perfect!"

For some reason not everybody realizes this. Can I pay you to get the word out?

TransientR · #32 01-21-2005, 03:36 AM

Pointing out specific demonstrable errors in articles by authors considered experts is not being mean. Its akin to peer review in scientific writing; a way of protecting the integrity of a field of study.

Frank

splashpot · #33 01-21-2005, 07:01 AM

Brier writes:
"Here is something else to think about relative to these two hands. Over time, your opponents will see you making these kinds of raises and reraises and not having a hand to show down. They will notice that you are frequently folding after having shown strength on earlier betting rounds. This means that your goal of eliminating opponents by raising in order to increase the likelihood of winning a hand will be compromised. It also may mean that your bluffs and semibluffs will not be as successful."

Of course he doesn't mention that this can be extremely profitable when your opponents call you down more with mediocre hands. Perfect opportunity to exploit the fundamental theorem of poker.

Leavenfish · #34 01-21-2005, 08:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"If only everyone could be as great as you.
Then the world would be perfect!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Alas though, I would no longer be able to win money at Poker....

---Leavenfish

RollaJ · #35 01-21-2005, 11:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If only everyone could be as great as you.
Then the world would be perfect!

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but game selection would be a real bitch...........
Do you see why? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

jedi · #36 01-21-2005, 12:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"If only everyone could be as great as you.
Then the world would be perfect!"

For some reason not everybody realizes this. Can I pay you to get the word out?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason's still funnier.

MaxPower · #37 01-21-2005, 12:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
S&M promote a similiar strategy in multi-way pots. I think there was a thread a long time ago where Sklansky made the point that if you are in a multiway pot in the big blind, it is better to raise pre-flop with 99 than QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

When your opponents play well and might be limping with decent hands, that might be true. When your opponents limp in with weak hands (as he suggests in the article) you should raise. In SSH they reccommend raising AA-99 in either blind.

MaxPower · #38 01-21-2005, 01:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read Shykovsky's article yet, but from what you quoted, it seems to me what he's saying is your edge with JJ is small preflop and you have no hope of thinning the field. If the flop comes down safe you will have a bigger edge and you can c/r and thin the field then. If it comes down bad, you can get away from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think both his idea of not raising and his reasoning is bad. He seems to think that the only point of raising with a big pair is to thin the field. He also seems to think that you want someone who has limped in with a poor hand to fold to your raise pre-flop.

You have a pot equity advantage pre-flop. Also if your opponents are limping in with weak hands you want to wreck their implied odds by raising. These big pair hands make their money on the early rounds. If you wait until the turn to start showing aggression, you are often going to be putting money in the pot with the worst of it.

flair1239 · #39 01-21-2005, 03:27 PM

I think his error in simple terms is slowplaying in a big pot. Does not cap the flop or three bet the turn, both of which he should do for value if for no other reason.

flair1239 · #40 01-21-2005, 03:44 PM

"As an aside, a typical betting sequence in which you go all the way to the river will result in your putting in more than 14 percent of the money that ends up in the pot. This is due to the fact that not all of your preflop opponents will stay all the way to the river."

This idea overlooks the fact that the play (raising ATs against several limpers is profitable.) in and of itself is profitable. He attaches the potential for bad post-flop decisions as a reason to pass up a play that by itself is profitable.

not sure I said that right. I guess it would be like saying that you should not raise AA before the flop, because you may misplay it afterwards. If the ATs play ends up losing money, does not mean that the mistake was made preflop.