"Sklansky Ate My Brain"

Has anyone read both Part I and Part II of this article ("Sklansky Ate my Brain"):

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

Well written and some excellent food for thought. (Just as an example, I like what he said about (not automatically) folding KQo pre-flop to a raise and re-raise in every game situation ... that really would be brain-dead if you ask me)

To me, the bottom line messages are:

- develop your own style (but you'd be crazy to not ride of the back of collective poker knowledge),

- everything is situational,

- don't follow what you read in a book like a dumb automaton (understand the concepts at work in each hand quiz for example, but don't necessarily play the hand the exact same way all the time ... a bot can do that better and more consistently than you and I ever will),

- you can't play poker by hard and fast rules rules like "if given this and that, then you MUST do this"

Don't get me and the author of the article wrong, Sklansky has rather brilliantly, IMHO, laid it all out for us. You can't ignore the theoretical underpinnings of the game; you have to understand the concepts well. Fundamental Theorem, EV, pot-equity, odds. etc. BUT, if you never play AJo in early position just because Sklansky, or Warren, or Miller, or Harrington wrote that some where, you are just plain missing out.

I always thought that was what made TOP so great, he doesnt preach to you, or give you hard fast rules. He just points out the questions you should be asking yourself. He always seems to make me think, instead of trying to tell me what to do.

The author of that article doesn't have a clue.

Nowhere in HFAP does it say, "if you do everything I say, you'll win big." Last I checked, none of his books, said anything like that.

As a matter of fact, HFAP isn't even targetted at home games, online games or low limit games. Not to mention the fact that the author seemed to have read the book when he knew relatively little about the game.

Much of Sklansky is situation specific, so it's pretty ludicrous to do as this guy did and take it all word for word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montimus

The author of that article doesn't have a clue.

Nowhere in HFAP does it say, "if you do everything I say, you'll win big." Last I checked, none of his books, said anything like that.

As a matter of fact, HFAP isn't even targetted at home games, online games or low limit games. Not to mention the fact that the author seemed to have read the book when he knew relatively little about the game.

Much of Sklansky is situation specific, so it's pretty ludicrous to do as this guy did and take it all word for word.

---

I disagree with just about everything here.

SSH all but blatently states you'll kick major ass if you follow the book. Hefap doesnt target any type of game other than Medium stakes tables, those tables inhabited by advanced players.

And Sklansky purposefully makes his examples so they are applied to topics in general. I didnt read the above article, but i'im just responding to your reaction.

Sklansky gives you the tools - but you need to then apply the theory in the real world. This means adjusting to the table, getting reads, etc.

So it the takeaway isn't fold AJ always in EP. It's that AJ is a serious dog to a dominating hand. You need to know those odds and play accordingly based on your environment.

I think saying the author doesn't have a clue is very incorrect. Maybe you didn't like his Slansky bashing but the author made a lot of good points. He also still held Slansky in high esteem but only pointed out that poker isn't rigid and forumlated.

Perhaps you should step forward and admit you have a huge crush on Slansky. :roll:

This is the most misleading and inaccurate series of articles I think I've ever read. To suggest that HEPFAP is 'prescriptive' is totally untrue. In fact the strength of the book is that it encourages a flexible approach. It isn't prescriptive at all. To suggest that Sklansky couldn't beat games as soft as this is frankly nonsense.

HEPFAP was written assuming middle limit games with players who play well after the flop. This is clearly not the type of game the author is talking about.

There are many other misrepresentations and misunderstandings in the article, but I don't want to waste my time going through them.

RiverMonkey, the article talks about KQ suited, not KQ offsuit. The way it should be played depends on the tightness/aggressiveness of the table, the tightness of the raiser and your position, among other things. The only time Sklanksy recommends folding this is if you are in early position and a raised on your right by a rock in a tight aggressive game. In typical or loose games he says to call.

By the way, routinely calling raises with dominated offsuit hands like KQo is a huge mistake, even in loose games.

Any good player, Sklansky included, is adaptive. When you first sit down at a table you should respect raises and especially re-raises, assuming your opponents to be competent players. If they turn out to be maniacs, you make a note of it and play them accordingly. I don't think Sklansky ever has said his advice applies to every poker game ever played. Some of his books make certain assumptions - that the game is good and reasonably tight - which means even if you're a Sklansky acolyte, you still have to adjust to the game you're in, instead of playing the game you wish you were in.

I hope people don't misunderstand the intent of my post.

I'm not agreeing with everything that author wrote, I just thought it was a good thought provoking article with a clever title, and that others would enjoy and benefit from reading it too.

I don't quite have a crush on Sklansky (shit, have you seen his picture ;) ), but I completely respect his work. I think the author does too.

I just liked how the author of those articles was advocating outside-the-box thinking.

I was not trying to advocate playing AJo, AQs or AQo in any specific way. Crap, I didn't even describe a contextual game situation; which, I don't think anyone can disgree, is absolutely necessary to be able to evaluate their playability or how to play them.

What I'm advocating is reading these articles and taking away from it what you will. I just see many players that read something some where and they religiously advocate always playing a certain hand a certain way irrespective of the game situation.

I hear statements like:

- AK is a drawing hand, you can't raise with that
- I never play any PP lower than TT unless I'm on the button
- I read on the Internet that you should always fold JTo

all the time. These statements are meaningless without appropriate context. The people making these comments miss the key points that Sklansky brilliantly lays out in his books. In order to understand what a correct play is, you need way more information (reads, table texture, # of opponents, position, the list goes on and on) in order to evaluate its EV.

Dalecooper .... BTW, I love what you've done with your avatar. Nice work!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RiverMonkey

Dalecooper .... BTW, I love what you've done with your avatar. Nice work!

---

Why thank you.

Thanks for the link. The author has an interesting point of view. I read some of Sklansky's comments on Jones' book, on the 2+2 forums, and not only did Sklansky come off as being rather dogmatic (as does Miller), but downright impolite to a visiting author. Whether or not Sklansky's books create robots, it sure appears like that is what he would like to do.

Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montimus

The author of that article doesn't have a clue.

Nowhere in HFAP does it say, "if you do everything I say, you'll win big." Last I checked, none of his books, said anything like that.

As a matter of fact, HFAP isn't even targetted at home games, online games or low limit games. Not to mention the fact that the author seemed to have read the book when he knew relatively little about the game.

Much of Sklansky is situation specific, so it's pretty ludicrous to do as this guy did and take it all word for word.

---

I disagree with just about everything here.

SSH all but blatently states you'll kick major ass if you follow the book. Hefap doesnt target any type of game other than Medium stakes tables, those tables inhabited by advanced players.

And Sklansky purposefully makes his examples so they are applied to topics in general. I didnt read the above article, but i'im just responding to your reaction.

---

I think you missed my point about taking Sklansky word for word. Sklansky never says, "if you raise aces 4 bucks on the flop and go all-in on the flop, you'll win every time." He suggests strategies that, when applied in the correct situations, work. That's really what most poker books do.

I believe the author of the article in question thought he was supposed take Sklansky word-for-word and would become a pro after reading HEFAP, and that's not how you're supposed to interpret any poker literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

I think saying the author doesn't have a clue is very incorrect. Maybe you didn't like his Slansky bashing but the author made a lot of good points. He also still held Slansky in high esteem but only pointed out that poker isn't rigid and forumlated.

---

And the author misinterpretted Sklansky's writing as being rigid and formulated. It you read it at face value, it isn't.

After playing for about a year or so, HEFAP was the first book I read. It certainly increased the level of my game tremendously, and I primarily play NL rather than limit. How can that be you ask? Because I didn't take his book as strict rules and guidelines but as general advice.

For example, the first few sections in HEFAP talk about position and what types of hands to play from what position. Do I play exactly as he says? Nope...but has my position play become better because Sklansky helped me think more critically about it? Certainly.

That's the problem here...the author seemed to think that if he played strict Sklansky style, that he'd be a pro, and that's ignorant.

The only time Sklansky states "Do this and don't do anything else ever!" is when he's outlining "the system" in tournament strategy for advanced players and that system was designed for a girl that's never played before, specifically its designed to involve no thought whatsoever. Personally I think that article is not too far from junk; 70% of it is anecdotal garbage followed up by "Don't believe everything you read, yo!"

Yeah, I agree that I don't think this article gave all that good of advice.

Just wanted to point out that Sklansky is absolutely correct about KQ and AJ in tight games. They're basically garbage hands when there's a raise in front of you from a tight player in early position, or if you're reraised with them. Only the fish play them for big raises in most of the games I play in, as they're dominated by the majority of hands that'll raise from early position or reraise.

Overvaluing AJ use to be a problem of mine, but I barely see it as being better than AT now, which I've always disliked.

"And you may notice that his skin has turned quite red (especially if he's Asian)"
THE AUTHORS A RACIST!!!! DAMN HIM!!!!!!
=D, just kidding.

SKalanskys smart, but hes so damn egotistical its annoying.... "Do you see why?"

face a raise and a reraise preflop with KQo, im mucking this hand, too high of a chance your nutted, i'll hold off and find a better place to put in my money.



now if people are raising preflop with 34s then ya i'll play it... otherwise its a no brainer muck.


and on sklansky books, they are merely a great line to follow to be successful, but of course you can add whatever style you want on top of it, but its not an end all be all guide to playing poker, its just optimium strategy and ideas for players to follow.. if you pick up better strats on the way, great, dont diss his book, its accomplishing what it was written for.

and for his small stakes holdem book he did with mason, i dont think you can find better ideas for that type of game play anywhere.

you guys should have watched the Poker Superstars tourney, the one on FSN. David Sklankzy did some pretty "non-sklanzky" moves, and took 1st. One stand out hand was him trapping Johnny Chan who had TT, with AA.

yeah didnt he get AA 6 times that round? shit i could win if i got cards like that

Sklansky had AA 5-6 times in round one, although I think he had it beat twice.

Round 2 was the A A vs 10 10 'trap hand' - although if you think this is good play... meh. Any moron could have gotten Chan's money there, no way you fold 10 10 pre flop with the blinds they play, and post flop anyone would move in on an 8 high board with two flush cards.

"FTR Ate My Brain."

"Thus a hand like 3-4 suited can go up tremendously in value because, most of the time, the majority of the hands will be congregated at the higher end of the deck, leaving your cards live."

What inane logic. Sounds like something one of the boneheads at my home game would say. Along with "I hate JJ, I always lose" and "You folded AT? Are you crazy? It wasn't raised you know." "But it was S00TED!!1"

Okay, they don't say the last one. I wish.

evman, there are times when that very argument is true. I think it was Aokrongly - one of our resident pros - who posted about not using auto-action buttons for this very reason. He talked about a hand late into a tourney wherein over half the table called the pfr. He was in late position with low cards (I think connected...not even sure if they were suited, but I suspect so) and called as well, just because the opps were likely conflicting with each other's hands. Sure enough - he caught a pair and took down a pretty decent sized pot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

evman, there are times when that very argument is true. I think it was Aokrongly - one of our resident pros - who posted about not using auto-action buttons for this very reason. He talked about a hand late into a tourney wherein over half the table called the pfr. He was in late position with low cards (I think connected...not even sure if they were suited, but I suspect so) and called as well, just because the opps were likely conflicting with each other's hands. Sure enough - he caught a pair and took down a pretty decent sized pot.

---

That is not what the guy is saying though. What you are saying at least makes SOME sense. Everyone calls so you assume they have something and now your low cards look a little better, because you have some evidence of it. It's still a little sketchy, but not too bad.

What the guy is saying is that because people only play good cards, your bad cards are suddenly good. Not a specific situation, but in a general sense. As if he is playing with a stacked deck that only deals good cards but deals fair communities. Just because your opponents only play good cards doesn't mean low cards have a better chance of hitting the flop.

Actually, I can see what he's saying there as well... It kinda fits Rippy's style of play (see above). Essentially, if you see a flop, it's easy to know if it hits you that it doesn't hit anyone else. So you can bet with as low as bottom pair on the right board and still be betting for value.

What would the right board be when you're holding 34o? 8 5 3? If you win this pot it's because your oppenents miss and you bet, not because you happened to pair. Playing two blanks has the same effect. How often do you get called all the way down with A high? The pair is useless and will only get you in trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drmcboy

What would the right board be when you're holding 34o? 8 5 3? If you win this pot it's because your oppenents miss and you bet, not because you happened to pair. Playing two blanks has the same effect. How often do you get called all the way down with A high? The pair is useless and will only get you in trouble.

---

Tell that to Rippy.

People frequently play hands like AK/AQ aggressively post flop when they think no one hit. If you actually have something on that blank board, it can be quite profitable.

That said, I'm not recommending this style of play. Your post flop skills have to be awesome for it to work out. Mine are no where near good enough yet.