TPFAP contradicts HOH v. 2 ?

[Jack Fate]

perhaps this has been posted before, but the search function here sucks so forgive me.

on page 68 of TPFAP, Sklansky says "If you are forced to literally throw all your hands away until the last hand where you are forced all-in, it is not so terrible. To give up sooner than that and play a very bad hand is a big mistake."

Yet in HOH v. 2 on page 143, Harrington advices pushing all-in with T6o and an M of 2 even though he could wait 6 more hands before the blinds come and hope to pick up something better than ten high.

So is this a contradiction and Sklansky now admits that he is wrong or is there a way to interpret these two ideas so that both are right?

[Easy E]

I think you're missing some context from the TPFAP quote

[wpr101]

I do think they contradict each other in many places. I've read both and they don't seem to give the same advice in certain places. For example Sklanksy emphasizes getting into the money. Whereas Harrington at one point says you should play to win. Harrington gives the example you're the chip leader and theres 40 people left and recommends playing your normal game. I guess a mix of both is preferable.

[daveymck]

Personally I would be more inclined to listen to Harrington.

[fryKing]

I think TFPAP's advice is applicable to limit poker, where you do not gain (much) fold equity from having a larger stack.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps this has been posted before, but the search function here sucks so forgive me.

on page 68 of TPFAP, Sklansky says "If you are forced to literally throw all your hands away until the last hand where you are forced all-in, it is not so terrible. To give up sooner than that and play a very bad hand is a big mistake."

Yet in HOH v. 2 on page 143, Harrington advices pushing all-in with T6o and an M of 2 even though he could wait 6 more hands before the blinds come and hope to pick up something better than ten high.

So is this a contradiction and Sklansky now admits that he is wrong or is there a way to interpret these two ideas so that both are right?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's fairly easy to reconcile the two. T6o does not fit Sklansky's definition of a very bad hand.

The very next page after the one you cited, he describes a situation in which you should definitely call all-in with 32o.

A few pages later, he gives T4o as the minimum hand if your opponent raises enough to put you all-in while holding a random hand when you are getting 3-to-2 odds to call.

[David Sklansky]

I was talking about limit poker, especially a stud game with antes. See the difference?