Testing Sklansky Strategy

[A_C_Slater]

Those fields are not big enough. You will be shorthanded too often and the blinds will come around faster and eat you up. Stick to the 45+ fields or just the massive MTT's

[ZootMurph]

I think the big problem with the system in online tourneys is the rate at which the blinds move, as compared to a major tournament where you have a LOT of time and hands with a huge chip to blind ratio. THAT is what makes the system usuable.

I really can't see it working in a tournament where you are going to blind out after 100 hands of getting nothing to push.

So, for this system to be MOST effective, you need to start with a deep chip stack and a lot of time to get hands. In online tournaments, especially the small field tourneys, this is not going to be an effective strategy.

Don,

I think you're missing the point of Sklansky's strategy. The whole point of a "move-in or fold" strategy like this is to eliminate the skill needed for post-flop decision making. Sklansky is not saying that this is an optimal strategy for winning tournaments. What he's saying is that a beginner can use this kind of strategy against more experienced players in order to lessen their edge.

Using a strategy like this doesn't teach you anything about how to play NLHE tournaments. I don't know what your current skill level or bankroll are, but I can pretty much guarantee that you will not become a better player (or get better results) by adhering to such a mindless system.

Best of luck in your experiment,
KP

The point of this experiment was not to make me a better player, but rather to help others understand the merits or lack of merits in the system. I have seen several new players try or ask about the system, and I wanted to provide a real look at the system's merits on-line.

I thought I might learn a small amount by playing this system, but I am finding that it is completely mindless and will have you making decisions that do not make sense (see my 1st results page. Also, the robotic nature of the system will not let you develop a feel for the table or a feel for the game in general.

[prana]

i don't think your reason for only playing $1 buyins is correct. These people aren't scared because it is only $1(plus they suck). This strategy relies alot on folding equity as its essence if I am not mistaken and we all know what kind of calls to expect in a $1 buyin tourney.

[stone_7]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't think your reason for only playing $1 buyins is correct. These people aren't scared because it is only $1(plus they suck). This strategy relies alot on folding equity as its essence if I am not mistaken and we all know what kind of calls to expect in a $1 buyin tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree about this method relying on having a large amount of fold equity. By using the size of the pot relative to your stack you are creating in effect a risk/reward ratio. When you push early with AA you have lots of risk (your whole stack) and very little reward (winning 80% or so when you get called or winning the blinds); therefore you will not do it often. At the end of the yourney you are pushing 5bb's with any 2 suited. This is also risky but relative to your stack and the possibility of blinding out the reward is sky high. Using this risk reward ratio vs x number of random hands you can come to a chart that will show risk vs reward. From this chart it is simply a matter of determing thresholds of risk vs reward. Determining this threshold at each point of the tourney is the key to the system as it must balance out the need to play a hand before you get blinded out vs making positive ev moves.


In fact now that I have written this out it seems that it may be possible to tweak the values for a loose tourney where you do not have much fold equity. Without fold equity you could lower the requirement to play any hand by 25% or more. This would mean pushing KK with a larger stack. Because you are more likely to get called the potential reward increases. Furthermore, the risk does not increase much at all as you are only behind to AA which is calling you no matter what in all situations. I am not sure what this would mean for the low end of the spectrum. I think that you would need to raise the requirements for the lower end of the spectrum because you are more likely to see a showdown. Thus you may have to wait until you are shorter to open push any 2 suited cards. This last point may be wrong and I welcome comments on this.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I have decided to take a $50 BR on stars and evaluate the merits of this style.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't bother. It's no better than any other strategy that has you playing by rote. It does not show a positive EV against thinking human beings.

Vince

This strategy would be able to be tested in the deepstack tournaments, no? 5000 starting chips, 30 minute blinds.

[prana]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't think your reason for only playing $1 buyins is correct. These people aren't scared because it is only $1(plus they suck). This strategy relies alot on folding equity as its essence if I am not mistaken and we all know what kind of calls to expect in a $1 buyin tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree about this method relying on having a large amount of fold equity. By using the size of the pot relative to your stack you are creating in effect a risk/reward ratio.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this not a vague definition of folding equity?

[ QUOTE ]
When you push early with AA you have lots of risk (your whole stack) and very little reward (winning 80% or so when you get called or winning the blinds); therefore you will not do it often.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? The first system just had you sit and then start pushing everything down to suited connectors if no one had entered. Let's discuss the "improved system". Sklansky's system has you moving in everytime you have aces. In fact in the improved system that's the only hand you move in if your key number is above 400. This key number is your chip stack divided by the blinds. If no one has entered the pot yet your calculations are done.

Example:WSOP 25-50 blinds, somehow you still have 10000 chips exactly. This number if no one has entered is 10000/75 which equals 133.33. According to his guidelines here are the hands to move all in with: AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AK, AQ or KQ.

If the blinds are 50-100 and no one has entered you get 10000/150 which equals 66.66 which has you pushing with the following: any pair, any ace, KQ, any king suited, and any suited connector with no gap or one gap.

Nowhere at all in the "improved system" is there a wait a few rounds for the blinds to increase at the beginning of tournament rule.

It seems even early this system is pushing for the blinds, i mean look at this range of pushes when opening the pot and you aren't betting your whole stack for value. It's fairly obvious that folding equity is important. This is very interesting when you figure these for a stack of 10,000 and compare the figures to that of a 1500 stack at 50-100.




[ QUOTE ]
In fact now that I have written this out it seems that it may be possible to tweak the values for a loose tourney where you do not have much fold equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it wasn't about folding equity. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
This key number is your chip stack divided by the blinds. If no one has entered the pot yet your calculations are done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you missing some very important calculations in your "key number"? Sounds like you are just using your M as your key number and not sure if that is correct in the strategy. This is quoted from another post on this:

<font color="red"> take your stack (unless you have more chips then the people still left in the hand, then you take the largest stack among them)
and divide that number by the blinds.

then multiply that by the people still left to act.

then multiplay that number by the number of limpers before you. if there is a raise in front of you dont push unless you have ak suited AA or KK.

once you have this number, this is your key number.
</font>