TPFAP 1st Edition vs 2nd

[RowdyZ]

I seem to remember MAson posting that the 2nd edition had some changes, most notably an expanded section on the System. With all this talk of Kill Phil being based on the System I was wondering what extra material was in the 2nd edition.

RZ

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to remember Mason posting that the 2nd edition had some changes, most notably an expanded section on the System. With all this talk of Kill Phil being based on the System I was wondering what extra material was in the 2nd edition.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you know, in TPFAP David Sklansky outlines an all-in system ("System 1") for NLHE tournaments. System 1 was devised for a first-timer playing the WSOP main event. It consisted of 3 instructions:

1. Fold everything except AA in the first 4 levels when the blinds are tiny. Move in with AA.

After that, the player was told:

2. If the pot is raised in front of you, re-raise all-in with AA-KK and AKs. Fold everything else.

3. If no one has entered the pot, raise all-in with AA-22, AXs, AKo and suited connectors down to 54s. Fold everything else.

There are several problems with System 1. First, it does not take into account position. You are supposed to go all in with 54s or 22 under the gun any time after the fourth level. Second, except for the instruction to fold everything except Aces in the beginning, it does not account for the size of the blinds compared to the size of your stack. You could be going all-in with 54s with a comfortable stack 40 times the blinds and antes. Third, it wholly fails to address limpers in front of you.

Sklansky attempts correct these problems in the second edition of TPFAP in what I will call System 2. In raised pots, System 2 mirrors System 1: re-raise AA-KK and AKs, and fold eveything else.

For unraised pots, System 2 asks you to divide the blinds and antes into your stack. This number is then multiplied by the number of players remaining to act. This is your key number if no one has limped ahead of you. If there are limpers, the key number is then multiplied the number of limpers + 1. You compare the final key number to a chart indicating the hands with which to move all-in:

400+ AA
200-400 AA-KK
150-200 AA-QQ, AK
100-150 AA-TT, AK-AQ, KQ
80-100 Any pair, AK-AQ, KQ, any Axs, any 0-gap suited connector to 54
60-80 Any pair, any ace, KQ, any Kxs, any 0-gap and 1-gap suited connector
40-60 All of the above plus any K
20-40 All of the above plus any 2 suited cards
0-19 Any two cards

Note that the move-in hands in System 1 generally correspond with the 80-100 level of System 2, but System 2 adds AQ and KQ to the mix. In fact, AQ and KQ are added to the 100-150 level, ahead of Axs and suited connectors to 54s. Between System 1 and System 2, AQ and KQ apparently got a promotion in Sklansky's eyes.

You will notice that the problems in System 1, i.e. position, stack-to-blind ratio and limpers, are all addressed in System 2.

But System 2 raises problems of its own. Say you have a stack 19 x blinds + antes and are UTG with 9 players left to act. You are instructed to go all in with AA-QQ + AK and fold the rest. With that same stack folded to you in the small blind with 1 player to act, you are supposed to go all in with any 2 cards!

This simply cannot be correct strategy. Too often, you will cripple yourself in late position with inadequate hand values. Harrington says as much in HOH2 in the zone discussion. With a stack 20 x blinds + antes, Harrington is content to wait on good cards. Between 10-20 x blinds + antes, he starts to play more aggressively. He is more aggressive still between 5-10 x blinds + antes. Only when he drops below 5 x blinds + antes would he consider moving all in with any 2 cards.

Another problem is facing an early limper. System 2 makes no differentiation between early limpers and late limpers. Early limpers often have strong hands, and Sklansky himself points out how the Gap concept applies when facing an early limper in his Limping section of TPFAP.

Finally, System 2 is simply too complicated an equation to perform each and every hand under the pressure of tournament poker.

Kill Phil solves the problems of System 2. You don't have to perform an equation every hand. Just every level or significant change in your stack. It's based more on Harrington-like "zones."

I also think Kill Phil's hand ranges are superior to System 2. Sklansky overvalues KQ, and does not differentiate between 99 and 22 or AJ and A2.