David Sklansky, Cannibal

[eddiefrom]

Or so the title of the article would have you believe.

http://www.pokersavvy.com/article/wildholdemi.html

This article seems to address, at least partially, the difficulties I've had with Holdem for Advanced Players.

I'm fairly new to the threads, but do people agree that for the most part, playing Sklansky-tight is often (ie, usually) a mistake. For starters, I'd hate to think how much smaller my bankroll would be if I didn't play low-medium pair in early position. The implied odds on sets are just too great in the games I play in.

ed

[Mangatang]

HPFAP recommends playing small pocket pairs in early position in a loose (weak) game. So what's the problem?

[squiffy]

The games he is describing in the article sound like wild low-limit type games. Sklansky expressly states in his book that it is intended for middle to high limit. That's a huge difference.

You state that the games you play in allow you to make money with low pocket pairs from early position. First, unless you have long-term pokertracker data, that is a guess, and not a fact. Second, if it is true, then it is not the kind of game Sklansky was focusing on.

[WillMagic]

I read that article. The author completely ignored Sklansky's section on loose games, and the fact that it says in the text specifically that the advice is geared for 10/20 and above.

Will

[Nottom]

If you are playing so tight that you are killing the action, then you need to loosen up. HEFAP recommends raising with something like 76s, hope that you get to showdown so people will see that a raise isn't always a monster and rags don't mean you missed.

The loose and wild game sections also contain a lot of advice that people always seem to forget. I think a lot of people stop reading after the preflop section of HEFAP, that would certainly explain why they think S&M advocate playing the way they think they should.

[pudley4]

The author obviously didn't understand HPFAP (He must have skipped the Loose Games section). And it's pretty safe to say he didn't read/comprehend Theory of Poker, either.

Here he is giving a preview of his advice when playing aggressive maniacs:

[ QUOTE ]
In Kamikaze poker (his term, yet to be clearly defined), you have to be willing to play smaller cards, a hand like 6-7 suited, in almost any position. Because in Kamikaze poker, what's most important is reading the maniac

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, let's play 67s for 4 bets preflop... [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[Bokonon]

Hilarious article! Though I very much doubt that at Club X,
"[Slansky would] gnaw his own arms off and run screaming around the card room, blood gushing from his useless shoulders."

But his general point -- book larnin' re the play of advanced players isn't exceedingly useful at a table full of maniacs -- is well taken, and if he can give useful advice about types of maniacs and reading their play, so much the better! I'll be interested in what he says about Part II.

His implication that Slansky's advice is wrong is incorrect, of course; it's not Slansky's fault that the author was inclined to utilize certain plays regardless of the table setting. But I think he's right that Slansky hasn't written the book on what to do at a table with people who open-raise with A4o. Though he's said a few things.

Me, I'd just play super-tight and play only Group 1 hands, high suited connectors (maybe -- though all the raising would probably kill the implied odds for these hands) and all pocket pairs. Not as though I'm going to be bored folding [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[Come to think of it, there's a bit of a contradiction there. If they really are all maniacs, then how is he ever open-raising in late position with QQ?)

[CORed]

The basic problem is that you can't play "by the book", any book, if the advice in the book is intended for a different type of game than the one you are playing. If you use the advice in Lee Jones' WWLLHE in a Party 2/4 or lower game, you will probably do fairly well. If you use that same advice in a Party 10/20 six handed game, you will get killed. In defense of HPFAP, it does give decent advice on adjusting to loose, short-handed and wild games. However, in poker, there is just no substitute for thinking and observing your opponents. If an opponent only raises the turn with a monster, it makes sense to fold top-pair top-kicker to that raise. However, any non-brain-dead opponent who sees you make that fold a few times is likely to try to bluff you, and a loose agressive opponent may make that raise with little or nothing, so sometimes you have to call the raise and the river bet and force a showdown. If you don't adjust your play to your opponents, and notice when they adjust their play to yours, you will never have much success against anybody but clueless calling stations. Also, in defense of David Sklansky, TOP is an essential book in any poker player's library, because it lays the foundation for how to think about the game.

In summary, Poker is not Blackjack. There is no single, fixed strategy that will beat the game.

[ChipWrecked]

Yeah, let's play 67s for 4 bets preflop...

Um, hmm. In Cali LL games, this isn't as dumb as it might sound. In late position, if I can trap callers, then hell yeah, I'm going to cap it. Yes, the variance is huge; but... you are getting the odds with six or seven opponents. If you miss, you are still creating action and might be perceived as a maniac. And when you hit, well, those $200 pots in a 4/8 game kick ass. I did this with real crap last night, 24s on the button in a pre-flop capped family pot. Spiked the straight flush at the river and got paid off huge by a wild young guy w/ the Ace high flush. Gained a lot of ground with that pot alone (not to mention the extra $100 for that shift's high hand jackpot).

[MaxPower]

To be fair, the loose games section was added in the 21st Century edition, so the author may have initially read an earlier edition of the book.

Still, this article doesn't tell me much. All he is saying is that you have to adjust your strategy based on your opponents.

Loose aggressive players may be winners, but they will never win as much as tight-aggressive players whether in a Las Vegas style game or the typical games played in NYC clubs.