Sklansky and the System

[kamelion44]

I just finished up a big multi-table No Limit Hold 'Em tournament. What are your opinions of the Sklansky System that is put forth in Tournament Poker for Advanced Players? I'm referring to the all-in or fold system. I used the revised system for much of the tournament, and I finished 6th, my highest ever for that large a tournament. Does Skylansky himself still stand by this system? Are there further writings and refinements of it? Thanks.

[whiskeytown]

I think those two pages of his book get WAY too much friggen credit, and only an amateur who has no idea how to play the game should resort to such a tactic, as he designed it to be. How can you get a 200 page book, and devote so much friggen crap to just two pages of it is totally beyond me...

Seriously, there's a funny article in Cardplayer about how to deal with these one trick ponies - (all-in pushers and that's the only thing they know how to do)- there's also talk about PL becoming the new Cadliac of poker due to the number of morons who just push all in all the time in NL -

The System did serious damage to a lot of people's games - who wants to spend hours working on their game, read skills, when they can just have a set of defined rules that let them push all in - morons, I say...Morons...

but that's not David's fault...not like he didn't write 198 other pages that include good poker knowledge.

RB

[daveymck]

Dont know if I have a later edition of the book or not but there is at least a chapter on the system, its definatley more thna 2 pages.

Its a section I havent spent much time on as in a way I didnt understand its inclusion, the book is meant to help good players develop good tournament strategy and in a way that flies in the face of all the other teaching in the book.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Does Skylansky himself still stand by this system?

Just be clear on one thing. Sklansky designed the system to be used by a player with ZERO POKER EXPERIENCE. It isn't intended to be used by good players. If you're at a point where you undersatnd why you bet certain hands certain ways at NL, *and* you have at least a moderate capability of putting opponents on hands, the system is not for you.

[the life]

HEY kamelion44,

I think the system needs a little more work before it is playable by a good poker player. I dont think that this system will work for an on-line poker turnament but does have the possibilty to work at a high entry NLH live game.

bye bye

[Lost Wages]

Note that "The System" was designed to be used by an amateur when playing against professionals. It loses most of it's value in idiot filled on-line games where your all-ins are likely to be called a lot. Even if you are a favorite sooner or later someone will suckout on you.

Lost Wages

[SoBeDude]

Any serious poker player subscribes to the theory of small bet tourney poker.

Its never good to get all your chips in the middle unless you have the nuts.

Even QQ is basically a coin flip to AK, so how many times can you flip the coin before you lose? And remember just ONE all-in loss all-in means you get up from the table.

-Scott

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Its a section I havent spent much time on as in a way I didnt understand its inclusion, the book is meant to help good players develop good tournament strategy and in a way that flies in the face of all the other teaching in the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of good tournament strategy would be understanding other players gameplans, i suggest you don't skim it if only to give you some insight if you run into a player using this system

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Its never good to get all your chips in the middle unless you have the nuts.

But this advice is only valid if your stack is deep enough to bet properly without committing all your chips. You can't repeatedly pass up +EV situations just because you don't have the nuts and the proper bet commits all your chips.

Example, blinds are 200/400 a25 and you're still 10 places from the money. You have 3000 in chips. Folded to you 2 places off the button with QQ. Your only reasonable play is all-in.

[PlayerA]

What makes the system interesting is the question of its viability. If the system or a refinement thereof is viable, then it tosses out the notion that NL should determine the world champion (which is part of Sklasky's point). It gets attention because people want to know if it is possible to overcome skill with a mindless system. At the time of writing it, it was an open question. It may still be open, I don't know (not keeping up with it). If it is possible to have a system for which there is no defense except to play the system to negate it's advantage, then one would be a moron not to use it. I've never used the system nor do I have any immediate plans to do so. However, I am addressing the issue of why it is interesting.