Back to Books: The Theory of Poker (Sklansky)

[scubed]

Understanding (and remembering) the difference between effective, implied and reversed implied odds is difficult! I'm trying to sort it all out - but unsure if I've understand and then interpreted correctly. Following is my working list that I'd like to make better so that it sticks to my memory and I can put the information to use.

• Effective Odds: When I make a call now taking into consideration the pot odds of the future betting rounds (amount I will win or lose).
• Implied Odds: When I win the maximum (stack my opponent who has equal or more chips than me) if I hit my draw.
• Reverse Implied Odds: When I lose the maximum (get stacked) with a marginal (second best) hand.

Are the above simplified definitions correct? Does anyone have a method that they use to remember the difference between the three and how to apply each?

 

[SirLax]

Totally agree with the tips here. If anyone can send me links in the forum with additional articles that will help me improve my game I will greatly appreciate

 

[willko01000]

Nice

Just reading a few of the quotes here I find very inspiring and realise that this could be the key to getting a better hold on my skill set and consistent results.

Thanks for the heads up on this I will be checking out the book!

Good luck at the tables!

 

[AlexTheOwl]

Understanding (and remembering) the difference between effective, implied and reversed implied odds is difficult! I'm trying to sort it all out - but unsure if I've understand and then interpreted correctly. Following is my working list that I'd like to make better so that it sticks to my memory and I can put the information to use.

• Effective Odds: When I make a call now taking into consideration the pot odds of the future betting rounds (amount I will win or lose).
• Implied Odds: When I win the maximum (stack my opponent who has equal or more chips than me) if I hit my draw.
• Reverse Implied Odds: When I lose the maximum (get stacked) with a marginal (second best) hand.

Are the above simplified definitions correct? Does anyone have a method that they use to remember the difference between the three and how to apply each?

You are in the right neighborhood with all of those, but not quite at the proper destinations. Think about how your definitions differ from Sklansky's definitions that you quote in this thread.

For example, in your effective odds definition, I am not sure if you think "pot odds" and potential win or loss are the same thing?
Potential win or loss is more of an implied odds / reverse implied odds concept.
For effective odds, you should be thinking about what is likely to happen on the next street: What equity are you likely to have? Will your opponent bet? How much? How will your equity compare to your pot odds then? Will you have to fold? If yes, then is it still profitable to make or call a bet on the flop, planning to fold if the turn is not a good card for you?

Sklansky's definitions don't mention losing or winning the maximum, or getting stacked. Implied odds and reverse implied odds do not only apply to those situations. It's about how many BB you realistically expect to win or lose, not about going all in. Does your opponent have a deep stack? If you are lucky enough to hit your draw, are they likely to just fold when you bet? Are you in a situation where you are likely to end up having invested a lot of BB with the second-best hand?

 

[scubed]

For example, in your effective odds definition, I am not sure if you think "pot odds" and potential win or loss are the same thing?
Potential win or loss is more of an implied odds / reverse implied odds concept.
For effective odds, you should be thinking about what is likely to happen on the next street: What equity are you likely to have? Will your opponent bet? How much? How will your equity compare to your pot odds then? Will you have to fold? If yes, then is it still profitable to make or call a bet on the flop, planning to fold if the turn is not a good card for you?

Hi AlexTheOwl - in thinking about your comments with Effective Odds, i realize that I'm not quite hitting the mark. I've started a thread at 2+2 and PMd David Sklansky on FaceBook asking him to participate in the thread. Someone replied on Facebook and asked for a link. Keeping my fingers crossed that Mr. Sklansky is willing to take the time to teach this concept and endure all of my questions!

I'll update this thread with any information I get!

 

[AlexTheOwl]

Cool, good luck with that!

 

[scubed]

Chapter 08: The Value of Deception

The Theory of Poker, David Sklansky
Chapter 08: The Value of Deception

Deception (disguising the hand) is a technique for maximizing profit of poker hands.

When to use deception...

• With better opponents because "trickiness" is required to confuse them
• In early (cheap) rounds of betting because when the pot grows large players (both good and bad) are less likely to fold
• When less players are in the pot because multi-way action is more risk and less value (getting outdrawn)

Protecting small pots is expensive (especially with a marginal hand) because to win them a larger bet is necessary. Do NOT be concerned about protecting the pot with a great hand - determine the line that will get paid off on a LARGE bet (thus winning a large pot).

Consider these deception strategies...

• Checking a big hand early (to give impression of marginal hand) hoping to win big bets (big pot) later
• Betting with a weaker hand (to give impression of big hand) hoping an opponent will check later (free card)

Disguise (use deception) to maximize profit against better players OR in small pots. Play normal to minimize loss against worse (bad) players OR in large pots.

 

[scubed]

Consider these deception strategies...

• Checking a big hand early (to give impression of marginal hand) hoping to win big bets (big pot) later

I have not performed deep analysis of my poker records to determine "if" I am successful winning bigger pots when I slow-play. That said, I personally can remember a ton of times that slow-playing a big hand got me into trouble, sometimes got me pot committed and busted out!

Do you feel that you are more successful winning big pots by slow-playing big hands? Do you have any data (that you are willing to share) about your poker hands to back up your feeling?

 

[scubed]

Chapter 09: Win the Big Pots Right Away

The Theory Of Poker, David Sklansky
Chapter 09: Win the Big Pots Right Away

When a player is in a had where the pot that has become large, he should strive to win the pot right away.

When a player has the best hand...
The larger the pot the more a player should bet (or raise) to drive opponents out and take down the pot right away. There is an exception - when a player has the absolute nuts (rare) the player should strive to get as much into the pot as possible on each round

When a player has the second-best hand...
The larger the pot, specifically when it is multi-way, when a player has the second-best hand the player should consider a bet to drive opponents out (isolate) to improve chances to win the pot. Also consider this strategy when an opponent to the right bets; raise even with the second-best hand to drive other opponents out.

 

[scubed]

Chapter 10: The Free Card

The Theory Of Poker, David Sklansky
Chapter 10: The Free Card

When a player has the best hand giving an opponent a free card is to give the opponent a chance to improve to the best hand. When a player does NOT have the best hand, a free card is a shot at improving to the best hand!

A free card is...

Infinite odds (zero investment) on improving in the given betting round
Never correct to give when the pot is large
Rarely correct to give when the pot is medium-sized

Conditions that might be incorrect to bet (give a free card)...

The pot is small, a player can gain more by using deception
A player is attempting to check-raise
Very strong hand whilst the pot is medium sized

A player hopes his opponent makes a mistake and calls - but making the opponent fold is better than giving him a free card to improve to the best hand.

 

[FailX21]

I'm glad to see this back !

Makes sense to me, although you should still be careful when bluffing in big pots, cause you could loose a lot.

 

[scubed]

Chapter 11: The Semi-Bluff

The Theory Of Poker, David Sklansky
Chapter 11: The Semi-Bluff

The more ways a player's hand can improve to the best hand, the more reason to consider semi-bluff betting. Semi-bluffing adds equity to a hand due to the possibility of the opponent folding to the semi-bluff. When there is no chance that the opponent will fold the value of the semi-bluff becomes questionable.

When a player uses a semi-bluff they hope to...

• win immediately (same as a pure bluff, the preference is that the opponent folds)
• when called, outdraw the opponent to make the winning hand

Semi-bluffing out of position is more correct because if in position a player can often receive a free card (when the opponent doesn't bet). Semi-bluffing on early betting rounds can disguise cards on later streets to look harmless (when they have made the player a big hand) or scary (when the visible cards are monsters but the players hand isn't helped much). Semi-bluffing supports the aggressive precept that it is better to bet than call.

A player should consider a semi-bluff when...

• there are more cards to come
• it will work as a bluff and the opponent will fold
• there is a strong chance the player's (your) hand will improve to be the best hand
• when in first position (you can't assure yourself a free card)

A player should NOT consider a semi-bluff when...

• a player (you) is sure that the opponent will call
• when last to act, especially in multi-way pots. TAKE THE FREE CARD to avoid being check-raised with a strong hand (that was slow-playing)

 

[FailX21]

Interesting, up until now I didn't really give any though about the position when semi-bluffing, but it's a good point. I will definitely read this again tomorrow before I start playing, to make sure I think about it while playing.

Once again, thanks for this post, it really helps !

 

[scubed]

Interesting, up until now I didn't really give any though about the position when semi-bluffing, but it's a good point.

I agree - I didn't explicitly consider position when semi-bluffing. In the past I have been more focused on my cards and how they relate to the board and pulled the semi-bluff. Tonight, I tried to be more mindful of my position. If you have the book -- read the chapter, there are some great examples.

Once again, thanks for this post, it really helps !

You're welcome! I am learning so much doing this work. The post has A LOT of reads (more than a thousand) but you are the one engaging in replies/responses consistently. I really appreciate your interaction... it helps me keep doing this good work.

Cheers!

 

[scubed]

Chapter 12: Defense Against the Semi-Bluff

The Theory Of Poker, David Sklansky
Chapter 12: Defense Against the Semi-Bluff

A semi-bluff is very hard to defend against. When the pot is small and the opponent is semi-bluffing it might be correct to fold, especially in "coin-flip" scenarios, the other alternative is to raise. When the pot is large and the opponent is semi-bluffing calling is almost always correct.

When an opponent semi-bluffs take into consideration the three ways he can win...

1. The opponent may already have the best hand when he bet
2. The opponent may be semi-bluffing and then subsequently outdraws you
3. The opponent may be semi-bluffing and catches scare cards that force you to fold

With small pots when a player has a hand worth calling a possible semi-bluff, in most cases he should raise. Calling is not a defense against a semi-bluff. In fact, it might lead to more problems (your opponent might make his hand). In raising a player might get an opponent who is semi-bluffing to fold. The two main defenses against a semi-bluff are folding and raising.

Calling might be correct when...

• the pot is large
• when you intend to bet when a "bad card" comes for the opponent you suspected of semi-bluffing
• when you plan to semi-bluff on the next street (delayed semi-bluff)

When defending the semi-bluff and folding is not the correct play, then a player should raise.

 

[braveslice]

subbed

 

[CGreen]

Thanks for this thread, scubed! This is a great idea! I have this book as well and can read along!

 

[scubed]

Chapter 13: Raising

The Theory Of Poker, David Sklansky
Chapter 13: Raising

Raising is often a better alternative than folding, with calling the worst of the three options (scenario occurs frequently in multiway pots). In Chapter 13 Sklansky breaks down the main reasons for raising.

1. Raise to build a pot. This is typically when a player believes he has the best hand and wants to get more money in the middle.
2. Raise to drive out opponents. This is when a player makes the pot odds NOT favorable for the opponent to get him to fold (if the opponent calls he is making a mistake).
3. Raise to bluff (no chance to win) or semi-bluff (chance to catch a card). This is when a player raises in hopes of taking the pot down immediately.
4. Raise to get a free card. This situation occurs when a player is last to act and believes that the raise will be cheaper because in the next round the opponent might check to him (give the player a free card).
5. Raise to gain information. This play should not be attempted often - a player should not raise solely to get information - the player should raise for other reasons with a benefit being information.
6. Raise to drive out worse hands when a player (you) likely has the second best hand. This situation occurs in multiway pots where THE POT IS BIG and a raise can get the third/fourth/fifth best hands to fold which will increase the odds that the second best hand will win.
7. Raise to drive out better hands when a player (you) has a drawing hand. This situation occurs in multiway pots where a raise can get the opponents (except the drawing hand) to fold and increase the chances that the player's hand will hold up.

The main lesson is do not be afraid to raise! Raise to win pots when the act of raising aligns with strategic, financial, or mathematical considerations.

 

[Maikychan]

Thank you so much for the thread, scubed!!

Unfortunately I haven't yet had the opportunity to read this book, but I'm already jotting down all these summaries here in my notepad!

Now I'll do my best to put the concepts into practice!

Continue with this great thread and if you could, you could make other threads like this, but with different books...

:icon_bigs

 

[scubed]

Chapter 14: Check Raising

The Theory Of Poker, David Sklansky
Chapter 14: Check Raising

Check-raising is checking a players (your) hand with the intention of raising after an opponent bets.

When attempting a check-raise a player must consider...

1. The strength of his hand
2. The likelihood that an opponent who acts behind will bet
3. The position of the opponent who will probably bet

In multiway pots it is frequently correct to check-raise with a second-best hand if this action will drive opponents out.

 

[ray05]

Best sites or books to learn

Hello, I'm sure it has been asked before, what are the best ways to learn better poker without spending a bunch of money for someone fairly new to poker. I have been watching a lot on youtube. thank you.

 

[Mikeloti13]

Here you can learn everything. But also continue to watch videos on youtube. Watch previous big tournaments and learn from the best. Also there are a lot of channels teaching poker for free so there you go.

 

[m0t22]

I'm following !!!
I separated the content until then reflect and make comments later !!

GL TO EVERYBODY !!

 

[scubed]

Chapter 15: Slowplaying

The Theory Of Poker, David Sklansky
Chapter 15: Slowplaying

The reason to slowplay is to show a larger profit on a strong (not the nuts, but a great hand) hand than a player would otherwise gain if betting on early rounds.

Do not slowplay when...

• The player (your) hand strength is obvious
• The pot is large
• A free (or cheap) card has a chance to give the opponent a better hand than the players (yours)
• A free (or cheap) card has a chance to give the opponent a justifiable draw (opponent continues with proper odds)

Slowplay when all of the following are true...

1. The player (you) have a very strong hand
2. The free (cheap) card the player (your) gives opponents a good possibility of the second best hand
3. The free (cheap) card must not give the opponent a draw to a better hand than the players (yours)
4. The player (you) must be sure that the opponents will be driven out by aggression - but if the opponents are not driven out the player (you) has a good chance of winning a big pot
5. The pot must NOT be very large

Slowplaying is best when a player has a strong hand, the opponent has a second strong hand (drawing dead).

 

[FailX21]

Once again, thanks for this post !

I would add that in chapter 13, you have to be careful about whether you are raising to build a pot (1.) or raising to drive out opponents (2.) . It's important to know if you are raising for value or to protect your hand and are scared that one (or more) opponent will improve his hand on future streets.