Blog from someone who knocked out Sklansky

[disjunction]

I ran this once on a 10-person table, 9-left to act, but sadly I've forgotten the result. If you're interested I can run it again probably tomorrow for the exact situation.

My vague faulty memory agrees that he made the wrong play if only AJo would fold, but both of those can't be right because a Nobel Laureate like Mr. Sklansky wouldn't get something simple like this wrong.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I know Sklanksy is the math wiz, but I don't see how he is getting the odds to push from 2nd position for 14xBB with AT. If it was ATs, that would be a little better. There is too much chance of running into a big hand like he did. Maybe the WSOP is tighter than the tournaments I play in, but I don't see how a hand that dominates you is going to fold to the overbet push, except for maybe AJo. I would fold AT here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know many from the MTT forum who would push ATo UTG w/ 14BB's even with antes.

I'd rather push first in with a deuce and an uno card in LP than push ATo UTG.

Regards,
Woodguy

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
I ran this once on a 10-person table, 9-left to act, but sadly I've forgotten the result. If you're interested I can run it again probably tomorrow for the exact situation.

My vague faulty memory agrees that he made the wrong play if only AJo would fold, but both of those can't be right because a Nobel Laureate like Mr. Sklansky wouldn't get something simple like this wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Gocee, ATs has a small equity edge against 8 random hands - it expects to win 7.79% more than its fair share of pots. Taking away suitedness brings this down to 3.99% These obviously aren't exhaustive in determining whether it was a good play or not - I just mentioned it to give an idea of how ATo sees to fair against the as-yet-unseen competition.

My guess is either a) some detail of the play got lost in the communication from the table to here, b) it was a play based on image+position, or c) maybe he just wanted to go home.

[betgo]

I have to assume that the report was incorrect. Maybe the blinds were higher or Sklansky was in later position. That would make it the kind of EV+ play Sklansky would make. It just seems real unlikely that the expert in poker theory and odds would make a mistake like this.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]


My guess is either a) some detail of the play got lost in the communication from the table to here, b) it was a play based on image+position, or c) maybe he just wanted to go home.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd pick (a) right now.

The simulation I'm capable of running would determine the chance that no player behind has AA-JJ, AK, or AQ. You pick up the blinds those times. The rest of the time, you assume one caller and run ATo against that range of hands and find its winning %. Add the EVs together and you know whether the play was correct given that range of calling hands.