Throw away all your books



Silver Level
Feb 5, 2005
Total posts
Everything you know about poker is flawed. I did not write this, its copy and pasted from FlopTurnRiver. Its the best poker advice i have ever read.

Nick, if you do not sticky this, i will leave this forum forever!!!!


Well, I shouldn't say "destroyed", that was just for an attention catching title.

We all know David Sklansky, the revered math genius and author that created the famous hand rankings we are all so familiar with.

What many poker players fail to realize is that poker is not only a game of math, but a game of luck. The basic premise and underlying theory of Sklansky rankings is that when you have a numerical advantage against an opponent, you have a better chance at winning. This is where he was right, but he missed something else completely that makes his rankings flawed.

Let me show you an example, backed by a real life event.
My brother and I like to play heads up poker against one another and gamble small amounts, like a dollar. It gives us an incentive to play seriously, but at the same time we can gamble and try our luck without risk.

So let's examine the final hand:
I am dealt: 7*6 offsuit
Flop: 358 rainbow - Action, I bet, he reraises, I push (double belly buster).
Turn: 3
River: K
We turn over the cards- he has J*4 offsuit.
You'd figure that since I have at least 7 straight-making cards, and 6 that I can be paired with, I'd have a good chance at winning. But that is not how poker works. He wins with Jack high.

Why did he win? Here is the reason (and the basis of my hypothesis). I did not have numerical advantage. If you view the cards simply as numbers, then you will understand what I mean:

2-10 represent the numbers they are.
Jack = 11
Queen = 12
King = 13
Ace = 14.

To understand numerical advantage multiply the cards by each other.
Thus; A*J = 154, 7*6 = 42, J*4 = 44, Q*K= 156.

In that hand, I would've never won with AJ, despite the fact that Sklansky would consider hand to be dominant over QK. However, if I had QK, I would've won. AJ would've certainly beat J4, and 76 never had a chance against any of the other 3 hands described. This is because of numerical advantage.

Sklansky had it right, but this is where he failed.
A6 is supposedly dominant over K7, but A*6 = 84 and K*7 = 91. A difference of 7 by numerical advantage.
You may be wondering how this is possible, how could K*7 be dominant over A*6?
You are brainwashed by Sklansky and the sheep that treat his books like the Bible and his rankings like the ten commanments!
You are the same person who cusses "HOW THE F*CK DID MY A9 GET BUSTED BY QJ, WTF?!", screams, and throws a fit every time he is "supposed to win" because you had a "dominant hand" (according to Sklansky!)

Poker, at it's very fundamental, is a game of MATH and LUCK.
MATH and LUCK are similar, but very different at the same time.
MATH depends on Raw Numbers, Logic, and Reason to succeed.
LUCK relies on pure Randomness, Chance, and the Synchronicity of numbers to succeed.
Synchronicity is the key word, and I will explain that now.

Synchronicity is where the cards align together harmoniously. K7 is more synchronous than A6 for one simple fact. There is less space between the numbers. The closer the numbers are together, the more chance they have at succeeding, this is the LUCK portion of determing your chance at winning. The joy of luck is that you never know what to expect, it is completely random, and that's what makes poker such a fun game. It really is true that "any two cards can win". However, with credit to math, it is also true that "some two cards are usually alot better than other two cards".

Math and Luck are like Yin and Yang. They both have the potential and ability to f*ck each other. Literally. Sklansky's Math and YoungDro's Luck will never coincide peacefully. They will eternally be at war. They will never win the war, for they are both equal and as powerful as the other. It's 50/50.

Einstein once said "God doesn't play dice with the Universe." Dice is an expression of mathematics (and gambling).
But I propose the question "What if God played dice with the Universe and lost the bet to Randomness?"

I will not lie nor be ashamed to admit that I am a man and believer of God. (Order)
This is why I do not rely on luck to win at poker, I do not chase draws. I rely on pairs.

However, you must also recognize the existence of and believe in Randomness. (Chaos).
Players that are random by nature may be the unnaturally lucky players that always hit their draws that you may have had the misfortune of coming across.

It always seems very "Evil" when you get drawn out on, doesn't it? And doesn't it seem "Good" when your pairs hold up?

This is the conclusion of my philosophy and theory. Hopefully my words have rang true in someone's heart.
I realize that their will be criticism and even people who will try to point out flaws and holes in my own theory.
I realize that my theory is not perfect, and truthfully nothing is perfect due to Order's eternal struggle with Chaos.
There will always be synchronicity to maintain balance so that neither is always dominant over the other.

I understand that I have not taken the Power of Pocket Pairs or Suits into consideration with this theory.
Perhaps I will expound on them at a later date. I am not a math genius, but if you wish to further your understanding on your own, then I'd highly suggest studying about Divine numbers, Prime numbers, Fibonacci sequences, the Golden number, Pi, and other like math concepts that are supernatural and random in nature.

Thank you for reading, and I hope this has enlightened someone.
- 4/16/07 - Copyright
Last edited by a moderator:


Silver Level
Oct 10, 2006
Total posts

1) you and the op are joking, in which case hee hee that's brilliant.


2) I won't go into two.


Silver Level
Dec 13, 2006
Total posts
I was 50-50 on the joke-serious thing but when i read last lines it was clear it was a joke


Silver Level
Apr 6, 2007
Total posts
ROFL. I'll take the joke side as well.

On the other hand, think theres been posts equally out there. On the off chance its serious, I guess the credit debt is sort of explained when looking at the logic behind the theory. Also i'd really like to see a succesfull game strategy based on Fibonacci sequences. Its true, I really would :)

Like this one too though: philthy on getting pairs.