Playing against a Sklansky Disciple

[Yawkey]

I've been playing in a regular game for about a year now (tourney between 8 and 12 people usually). I consistantly finish in the top two, playing moderately tight while the first 5-6 players go out and then I loosen way up and play very agressive. It's a pretty average game, a couple guys are consistant winners, a couple guys who know a bit and hit the money everyonce in a while, and a couple fish giving their money away every week. Now the guy in question shows up about once a month or so, the first time I played against him I assumed he was just lucky. The second time I played him I got the distinct impression that Sklansky's Theory of Poker had crossed his nose. Last week he showed up again (probably the 4th or 5th time I've played him now), he got lucky and busted me on the bubble so now I'm looking for vengence (runner-runner straight after calling my all-in A-K vs. A-6 on the flop, board comes A85 9 7). As this is a 'freindly' game I poked around for some information as to what he's studied, sure enough Sklansky was his favorite.

So what I'm looking for is the best ways to play against players relying mainly on Sklansky's TOP. I own the book however it has been awhile since I've read it, so if you can think of any sections/pages in particular I should browse because they are important concepts this guy uses it would be helpful.

Thanks

[Onaflag]

Okay, let me get this straight. There is a Sklansky follower you'd like to beat and want to know, from Sklansky followers, how to beat him. I'm going to go out on a limb here and recommend you become a Sklansky follower. How's that?

Onaflag........

[Yawkey]

Close, lets rephrase the question, as a Sklansky follower what types of (good) players give you the most trouble? Right now I would classify myself as a Doyle Brunson follower, and I find it to be profitable for me. So the other thing I am looking for is like a Cliff's Notes on TOP to point out what you have found playing with his style as some of his most important points. This way I can continue to play my regualar game that works against most of the guys I play with, yet have an understanding of where this one guy who I play with every once in awhile is coming from.

[smokingrobot]

I recommend Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, specificaly the passages rearding the philosopher and the philosophical worker.

To break it down by example, you have your Platos (philosopher) and your Kants (philosophical worker).

I think that would help.

After that, i'd read all of TOP as I dont think there are specific sections regarding how to crack the Sklansky system.

[Yawkey]

Haha, ok that's probably a better book to ask for Cliff's notes on. Fine I'll go re-read the whole book, cause poker was cancelled tonight [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img], I suppose if my TOP book looked as worn as my SS books I wouldn't have this problem. Anyone have any favorite sections I should pay special attention to?

There is no "Sklansky Way." In his book he discusses using math to help with decisions to be made in a poker game. It isn't a "Sklansky Way," or if you follow it you will be a "Sklansky follower." There is not a good poker player out there that does not take pot odds, implied odds, bluffing odds, etc. into consideration.

No offense to you, but if you had played with this guy and just thought he was winning by "luck," then you should probably read a lot of your books over again. As Doyle said, "if you cannot identify the fish at the game it is probably you." I am not saying you are THE fish at the table, but if you are playing w/ these guys consistently you should really know not only who is good and bad, but play styles, tells, etc. as well.

[Yawkey]

Hold your horses RikDayToN, there is most certainly a difference between players who have only read Sklansky vs. players who have only read Brunson. The players who have just read Brunson tend to be more agressive and a bit looser than the players who have only read Sklansky. Also, Sklansky stresses the math aspect of the game and therefore more hands are played a bit mechanically, also the Fundamental Theorem of Poker naturally makes people tighten up. Although the math is in there, Brunson stresses gambling and play with feelings over the math (playing rushes and the ESP section in SS1 are good examples). Certainly there is something to be said about both authors, and it's not hard to see how a player could lean to one style or another.

Now the very first time I played against this guy, who was playing in a live game for either his first or second time, he was very passive only called and seemed to always hit on the turn or river yet never raised. He finished in the top half, but didn't hold up against the better players in the end. Based upon this, luck is certainly a valid assumption. Granted this was probably a year ago and if I miss read him at that point I can accept that. As for knowing my opponents now, after only playing with him just one more time I was immediatly able to tell you exactly which book he gained his poker knowledge from (this was only verified last week). Do you really think I would consistantly finish in the top two of this game if I didn't know my opponents extremely well. So now I have a new challenge against a player I rarely see, and I'm seeking a little advice. Now I came to a forum where I know a lot of users have read and swear by TOP, my actions in seeking advice here alone should be enough to keep the question of my playing ability out of the discussion (I know I'm not world class, that's why I'm asking questions).

So I've identified a solid player who generally plays tight, he has a good understanding of pot odds. He generally hangs back while the first half of the tourney falls out and although still tight plays more agressive as the numbers wind down. I generally have a good read on him (e.g. my AK vs. his A6 I had nailed on the flop hence the all-in). How do I get the most money from him?

[FourNickel]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Sklansky stresses the math aspect of the game and therefore more hands are played a bit mechanically, also the Fundamental Theorem of Poker naturally makes people tighten up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am trying hard not to be a smart ass but dont take this personally: read some Sklansky before you make assumptions, naturally this is 100% incorrect.

[Yawkey]

Which part are you disagreeing with, the stressing of Math, or Fundamental Theorem of Poker tightening up players.

Math: Four of the first seven chapters in TOP, are on the math aspect. Every section in the book is bombarded with math aspects, it reminds me of complex algorithms and therefore looks mechanic.

FTP: After I read this chapter in the book(yes, I have read the whole book), my natural reaction was to tighten up. This guy plays tight, and most of the usefull advice found on this board suggest playing tight in more situations than not and refernce Sklansky.

[bernie]

Maybe you should read a few other books.

It might be that alot more than just TOP crossed under his nose.

The whole premise of this thread is just a titch ridiculous.

Unless this is a troll post, it's obvious you have a lot to learn about this game.

b