Sklansky and the System

[SoBeDude]

Exactly my point and well said Chris,

-Scott

[SoBeDude]

Once again well said,

If you watch the WPT, you have seen a few players who seemed to be all-in or folding. And you saw the rest of the table happy to muck and avoid this player.

So he won the blinds/antes. He's never going to get anywhere because the opponents simply avoided him. And their stack actually continued to decrease in relation to the blinds (their stack stayed pretty much the same, but the blinds kept going up). Eventually they died a quick and deserving death.

Of course when you're short stacked, you need to take all-in chances, thats the nature of the game. But a smart, good player with chip-depth avoids all-ins against bigger stacks at ALL COSTS.

-Scott

[daryn]

if i remember correctly there was one old dude with a hat.. i think he was a dentist? we made it to the final table and didn't really have that big a stack, but he would either go all in or fold preflop... and nobody was calling him. mike sexton made a comment that we had never even seen a hand of his show down at all at the final table. actually, the ONLY hand he showed down at the final table, was the hand where someone called him and he busted out. lucky for him it was heads up by then.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again well said,

If you watch the WPT, you have seen a few players who seemed to be all-in or folding. And you saw the rest of the table happy to muck and avoid this player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the players I saw doing this were making the correct play for their stack. Only 1 player that I remember making too big an all-in overbet preflop. In the X22 game, the dentist I think, and he wasn't that far wrong.

Care to post any examples of what you are on about?

[ QUOTE ]
So he won the blinds/antes. He's never going to get anywhere because the opponents simply avoided him.

[/ QUOTE ]

The blinds and antes for most of the stacks I saw doing this is a good win.

[ QUOTE ]
But a smart, good player with chip-depth avoids all-ins against bigger stacks at ALL COSTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

All costs? You just talking final table play now, where they are both huge stacks? If so, then I agree, when it's you bullying him. If in general, I know plenty of good players that disagree. 'At all costs' is too strongly worded when talking generally.

Had you even any idea about the meaning of my post that you replied to when calling me a fish? I suspect not.

[JohnG]

Nothing I have said in this thread was related to 'the system', or 'small bet' poker. My only real comment was that:

"Plenty of tournament situations exist where you do not know it's a coinflip until the cards are actually turned over. Before that point, you may just as likely be a big favourite."

For this, I got called an idiot by some guy that obviously doesn't know what situations I was referring to. I gather he viewed it out of context or through a weak tight filter.

Most of these preflop tournament situations I was referring to will be on shallow money, hence the shallow money and deep money stuff in my reply to this guy.

But anyway, on the subject of small bet/system:

Firstly, I am not sure what other people mean when they refer to 'small bet'. I am not sure what context they use it in. I know what it means to me, but that doesn't mean we will be talking about the same thing in the same context, so I will mention a few.

[ QUOTE ]
And this is exactly the problem with "The System." It makes no distinction in the depth of the money, in where you stand in a tournament relative to the bubble, what the quality of your opponents are, etc. It simply gives a list of hands that you'll play, according to your position and what's happened ahead of you, and on any hand you play, you move all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe there was the advice to wait until the dead money was worth stealing. Which infers that the money will be approaching shallow rather than being deep.

As for the rest of it, it was a guide for novices to minimise the edge of the better players. It wasn't a guide to winning tournaments and being the next superstar. It's a
starting point. An experiment. An illustration of how silly tournaments are in identifying the best players.

I'm sure it can be refined for a more serious player. Sklansky himself has refined it in a card player article.

Changing the no-limit to pot limit instead would only make a difference in the deep money stage. But then you would not get these idiot players entering for long. The fields would be smaller. Less money. A good players edge would be less over the average field quality.

It isn't really an hardship playing an all-in or fold player in the deep money part of a no limit tourney. In the later shallow money stages, the few that get there are often making the correct play. Playing small bet against them in the shallow money stages doesn't work as they won't let you. And if the pros keep folding, then the novice is outplaying and beating the pro. Who has the edge? Not the pro if he keeps folding without AA on shallow money

So the better player only benefits from small bet poker on shallow money if the inferior opponent lets him. Hence the media trying to influence this style.

I think that on shallow money, if we bet/raise it should be the same amount in a tournament as it would be in a cash game under the exact same blinds/stacks/dynamics. Small bet does not work on shallow money regardless of the quality of the opponent, (assuming you would not make the exact same small bet in a cash game. If you would, then obviously it would be correct in a tourney also).

Having said that, I dont think small bet poker refers to shallow money play anyway. I just included it in case other people did.

I think small bet poker is just another term for the desire not to have to risk their whole stack when on deeper money against inferior players. To not play big pots. In which case, again, it is in the superior players interests to influence the inferior players to play this strategy also. Hence all the weak tight advice- gotta survive, only get it allin with the nuts, play small bet poker, small pot poker, avoid coin flips etc. They want you to fold to their bets. It's that simple. All the advice is true in a way, but they give only enough information for it to be misunderstood and misapplied.

[ QUOTE ]
And that's why skilled players prefer small-bet tournament poker. With more decisions to make, their skill advantage is magnified, and their risks minimized.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know a few skilled players. I am sure a few of them do prefer 'small bet' poker where all their chips are never at risk. In fact, just about every tourney player would prefer their entire stack not to be at risk. However, we don't always get what we want, and in that case none of them will then shy away from putting all their chips in if it is correct to do so. That's because there is a big difference between a desire to play small bet poker to not risk all our chips, and actually refusing to put our chips at risk should the situation dictate it being the correct play. I believe the actual play of a lot of the best tournament players throughout the past 30 years will support this view.

On deep money, our stack will often not be at risk, and if it is, a skilled player will usually have the best of it.

On shallow money, it is often correct to put all your chips at risk. Shallow money play is risky. That's the nature of the game. If these skilled players don't like the fact their chips are at risk then these so called skilled players will have no problem playing the deeper money cash games instead. After all, it's where the money is for the really skilled.

This small bet expression is just another slogan like 'gotta survive to win'. It's media bullshit designed to mislead. Just a little bit of info so people can misapply it for the pros benefit. My advice to you is don't fall for the hype. It's what they want.

[CrisBrown]

Hi JohnG,

By "small bet poker" I refer to making 3-5xBB or pot-sized bets/raises on your strong hands, rather than moving all-in, unless the normal bet -- or a pre-flop call -- would be more than 1/3 of your stack.

If the pot-sized bet/call would be more than 1/3 of your stack, then the correct play is to move all-in (or fold), because if you bet the lesser amount and are called, you won't have enough chips left to make a pot-sized bet at the flop, meaning you can't deny an opponent proper pot odds to draw at a straight or flush.

It also means not calling yourself all-in pre-flop with only marginal hands (QQ, JJ, even AK at higher buy-ins), because even if you are ahead in the hand (vs. an underpair or vs. overcards), the short sides of those odds do add up, and they add up a lot faster than people realize. E.g.: if you are all-in three times as a 3:1 favorite, your probability of winning all three pots is only 42%. Statistically, more often than not, you'll lose one of the three pots.

That's not to say you should never go all-in. As I said, if a standard bet/raise/call would be more than 1/3 of your stack, the correct play is to move all-in or fold right on the spot. And there are times when your hand plus the board makes all-in the right move, either because you have the nuts and you think your opponent will call, or if you sense weakness in your opponent and are sure he won't call (the "big bluff").

More often than not, though, you can get more money for a strong hand by not moving all-in, precisely because good players will fold to an all-in bet unless they either have the best hand or have you covered and are getting good pot odds for the call. It always amazes me to see a player flop the nut flush (or, worse, top boat or quads) and move all-in at the flop ... guaranteeing they'll win nothing but the pre-flop money. Even if you don't want to check-call because you don't think opponents will bet into you, you could probably sell the hand for a smaller bet and increase your profit on the hand.

That is "small bet poker," as I use the phrase. It's not about winning small pots. Often the "small bet" approach will win a bigger pot than a pre-flop all-in would have. And of course the "small bet" approach gives you a greater edge if you're a good player- and hand-reader, because you have the opportunity to get away from a hand gone bad, or bluff from the board when you sense weakness. You can't do either if you're all-in pre-flop on every hand you play.

Sklansky's "System" was an intellectual exercise, offered for two reasons: (a) as an entry-level strategy for a raw beginner or someone who knows he is hopelessly out-classed; and, more important I suspect, (b) Sklansky is not a good NLHE player, so he'd like to prove it can be beaten by a mindless "System" player, thus debunking its reputation as the "Cadillac of Poker," and displacing it as the format by which the World Champion is determined.

Cris

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
By "small bet poker" I refer to making 3-5xBB or pot-sized bets/raises on your strong hands, rather than moving all-in, unless the normal bet -- or a pre-flop call -- would be more than 1/3 of your stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, OK. To me, that would just be normal poker. The correct bet size to make in general.


[ QUOTE ]
It also means not calling yourself all-in pre-flop with only marginal hands (QQ, JJ, even AK at higher buy-ins), because even if you are ahead in the hand (vs. an underpair or vs. overcards), the short sides of those odds do add up, and they add up a lot faster than people realize.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what my original post was referring to. That there are plenty of tournament situations where you do not know it is a coinflip before the cards are turned over, (or a big dog). You could just as likely be a big favourite. Obviously most of these situations will be on shallow money play.

Unless I was getting 2-1 on my all-in call, I would be folding unless I was just as likely to have my opponent buried as they are to have me buried. The better read I have on the opponent, the more accurate my decision.

If it's a situation where I think it's heads I'm buried, tails we take a race, then I fold unless getting 2-1 pot odds on the all-in call. Of course, if I know 100% sure it's a race, then I call.

The times I make the all-in call for all my chips when getting less than 2-1 will be when I think it's heads I'm buried, tails they are buried. This will be the type of situation where I may end up in a coinflip when they turn their cards over.

[ QUOTE ]
More often than not, though, you can get more money for a strong hand by not moving all-in, precisely because good players will fold to an all-in bet unless they either have the best hand or have you covered and are getting good pot odds for the call. It always amazes me to see a player flop the nut flush (or, worse, top boat or quads) and move all-in at the flop ... guaranteeing they'll win nothing but the pre-flop money. Even if you don't want to check-call because you don't think opponents will bet into you, you could probably sell the hand for a smaller bet and increase your profit on the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't know how big an all-in overbet you are talking here, but ultimately the way to play it depends on how you play other hands in this situation.

However, for a poor player, always moving all-in regardless will not be that bad an idea, as they will not be buried if they happen to be called, assuming it's the nut flush or a big draw. Obviously not a good idea for a knowledgable player, but it does negate the good players edge to a large degree when an inferior player does this, if the money is not hugely deep. i.e. the pot is worth stealing, otherwise the check-raise all-in would be best for them.

[ QUOTE ]
That is "small bet poker," as I use the phrase. It's not about winning small pots. Often the "small bet" approach will win a bigger pot than a pre-flop all-in would have. And of course the "small bet" approach gives you a greater edge if you're a good player- and hand-reader, because you have the opportunity to get away from a hand gone bad, or bluff from the board when you sense weakness. You can't do either if you're all-in pre-flop on every hand you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, now I know what you mean by small bet, I pretty much agree with you. Your definition of small bet is what I consider normal bet. The generally correct bet.

For me, whether an all-in bet is too big an overbet depends on the nature of my hand and what my opponent will do with various hands. In many situations that will be how he reacts with hands I have buried.

When I have a hand like top pair on flop or a pp or big ace preflop, I basically want my opponent to make mistakes that will double me through, and by mistakes I mean with hands that I have buried. So when I have a hand like that, how he reacts with dominated hands is the key bit of info.

Generally, regrdless of the nature of my hand, if the all-in helps him play correctly so that he will not make a mistake, then it's too big an overbet.

This is why with top pair or an overpair on the flop, I will not normally be moving all-in if it would be for more than 2X the pot. Likewise I would not normally call an all-in with this type of hand for a bigger overbet than that. For me to move all-in for a bigger obverbet post flop, I would normally have a big draw or a big made hand.

[ QUOTE ]
(b) Sklansky is not a good NLHE player, so he'd like to prove it can be beaten by a mindless "System" player, thus debunking its reputation as the "Cadillac of Poker," and displacing it as the format by which the World Champion is determined.

[/ QUOTE ]

For this to be true, you have to make the mistake of thinking the WSOP 10k event is about identifying the best player and crowning them world champion. It isn't in my opinion. It's about promotion and making money. I would think Sklansky knows that. But he could be making that proof from an intelectual theory point of view. i.e what would be the best tournament game to identify the best player, or give the best player the greatest edge. But it will only ever be theory, and no traditional tournament whatever the game would ever identify the best player.

Tournament no-limit was never the cadillac of poker. That expression was really referring to deep money no limit, which is mostly cash play. Although the expression was used to hype the tournaments. But it's just hype for the suckers. All the media is. Maybe hype is what Sklansky likes to attack.