Why didn't Sklansky cover Inflection Points?

[cero_z]

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering today why TPFAP had basically nothing on inflection points with respect to your stack:starting pot size. Specifically, Harrington's advice to push when first in with relatively weak holdings when in the "Orange Zone" to keep from slipping into the "Red Zone" seems like exactly the kind of adjustment a winning cash game player might not know to make in a tournament.

Noting and explaining these adjustments is ostensibly the purpose of Sklansky's book. So, why do you think he didn't mention them? I can think of a few reasons; what do you think?

[Chairman Wood]

??? Why don't you share your reasons? My guess is he hadn't thought of them yet.

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi everyone,

I was just wondering today why TPFAP had basically nothing on inflection points with respect to your stack:starting pot size. Specifically, Harrington's advice to push when first in with relatively weak holdings when in the "Orange Zone" to keep from slipping into the "Red Zone" seems like exactly the kind of adjustment a winning cash game player might not know to make in a tournament.

Noting and explaining these adjustments is ostensibly the purpose of Sklansky's book. So, why do you think he didn't mention them? I can think of a few reasons; what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, inflection points were touted as one of the reasons that HOH was supposed to be so good. Asking why Sklansky didnt cover inflection points is like asking why Newton didn't cover Quantum Mechanics. Do you see why?

Greg

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi everyone,

I was just wondering today why TPFAP had basically nothing on inflection points with respect to your stack:starting pot size. Specifically, Harrington's advice to push when first in with relatively weak holdings when in the "Orange Zone" to keep from slipping into the "Red Zone" seems like exactly the kind of adjustment a winning cash game player might not know to make in a tournament.

Noting and explaining these adjustments is ostensibly the purpose of Sklansky's book. So, why do you think he didn't mention them? I can think of a few reasons; what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of "M" is central to Sklansky's revised all-in "system."

[cero_z]

My guesses are, in order,

a)He hadn't thought of them/didn't understand them thoroughly,

b)He had HOH in the works already, and didn't want to steal its thunder,

c)He doesn't agree with Harrington's take on them at least partially.

As far as "The system" covering inflection points, this is only true in a very limited scope.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, inflection points were touted as one of the reasons that HOH was supposed to be so good. Asking why Sklansky didnt cover inflection points is like asking why Newton didn't cover Quantum Mechanics. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Inflection points were roughly understood by tournament players before the publication of TPFAP if I read correctly between the lines in HOH 2. It hadn't been formalized and put into print though.

[BillUCF]

Because he got an F in calculus.

[Beavis68]

Inflection points definitely were discussed before harrington, but his is the most thorough. Before it was the 6-10BB rule.

Wasn't Sklansky book mostly about limit tournaments?