The gap concept

[makian]

The gap concept is a term coined by David Sklansky in the book “Tournament Poker for Advanced Players“. In essence, the concept is as follows: In poker tournaments, you need a stronger hand to call (call) a raise than to raise

 

[makian]

The gap concept is a term coined by David Sklansky in the book “Tournament Poker for Advanced Players“. In essence, the concept is as follows: In poker tournaments, you need a stronger hand to call (call) a raise than to raise

can someone give a brief explanation? how to put it into practice?

 

[azforlife]

OR you need a good blocker or good pot odds to make the call worth it but yes, be discerning when joining contested pots

 

[blix177]

Your shoving range in the SB is going to be wider than the calling range in the BB.


The person raising can do it because they want to take down the pot or actually have a hand. But for you to call you need to have something.

You are probably not calling with Q3o.

 

[Phoenix Wright]

can someone give a brief explanation? how to put it into practice?

This principle is a well known one in poker; basically, it usually shows up in practical play when the first "to pull the trigger" bets.

Here's a fictional example that is simplified to illustrate this idea:
Say Hero and Villain are playing heads up with 1000 in chips each (we'll ignore small details like the blinds or cards for now).

Let us imagine what would happen if Villain bet 500, would Hero call? Obviously factors like position, cards and blinds matter. Exact ranges aren't relevant to this point though. In this spot, what range of hands would Hero call? Fold? Chances are (according to this concept) that Hero has a better chance to call than to make the bet themselves. If Villain bet 500, then an argument could be made for Hero shoving all-in to give them the same decision of putting 500 more in.

Out of hypothetical, I'd say this principle is the core behind:
1. The old poker adage of play aggressive and 2. The logic behind downbetting.

These concepts feel connected. Maybe someone can offer a better explanation than my example(s). If this make sense for you, then great though

 

[neart13]

can someone give a brief explanation? how to put it into practice?

Essentially it boils down to this, if someone shoves on you with all things being equal, say you both have 22bb what are you calling with? I'm guessing 72 wasn't on that list probably not even Q10... which means that the person to go all in first can do it with a wider range because 1 you probably aren't gonna call with anything less than the best few but 2 it gives him lots of fold equity! If they raised 2bb and you had say KJo it might be a consideration for you to go all in or just call.... when they go all in towards you however all the decision is put on you! You have no bluffs, you can't call an all in as a bluff, but they can shove as a bluff! With your KJo you might have to fold the hand so a hand where you considered going all in with has now become a hand you would fold!
So essentially if you're first to act you can go all in with whatever, bluffs, pocket aces, you don't even need to see your cards.... but when you call you're basically stating you have something good enough to call with! So naturally the calling range is tighter than the shoving range!

 

[IntenseHeat]

This is a relatiavely simple concept and it is something that I have been saying for quite some time now. What I raise with is not the same thing that I will call a raise with. You can use this concept when determining whether to go all-in or call someone else's shove, but it applies to much more than just all-ins.

It is fairly easy to illustrate this concept utilizing an all-in situation. Let's say you're dealt 10-8 off in the CO seat. Let's say you're down to 15 BB and the pot is unopened in front of you. You decide to go ahead and make a move with your 10-8. With your stack being what it is, you jam all-in. If you're me, you have established tight image. So the players behind you may be reluctant to call with marginal hands, giving your shove a good chance of getting through. If you get called, then you can still hope that you have two live cards and a chance of out flopping the caller. But now let's say you're looking at that same 10-8 in that same position, but another player goes all-in for 22x from the +2 seat. Are you going to want to call off your stack and put your tournament life at risk with 10-8 off? Probably not. Put simply, what I raise with, or in this case shove with, is not the same hand call that I would call a raise or an all-in with.

This same concept can be applied to less dramatic situations. I'm generally a tight/aggressive player, or at least I want to have the image of a tight/aggressive player. So let's say I were to put a 3x raise into an unopened pot from the hijack seat holding Q-9. Even though Q-9 might be a little light for a raise, I can probably count on my tight/aggressive image to get my raise through. However, if the pot were to be raised to 3x in front of me, Q-9 would be a kind of loose call, and I'm not likely to make it. Again, the hand that I would raise with is not the same hand that I would call with. Or to use Sklansky's words, "You need a stronger hand to call a raise, than you do to raise".

 

[makian]

This is a relatiavely simple concept and it is something that I have been saying for quite some time now. What I raise with is not the same thing that I will call a raise with. You can use this concept when determining whether to go all-in or call someone else's shove, but it applies to much more than just all-ins.

It is fairly easy to illustrate this concept utilizing an all-in situation. Let's say you're dealt 10-8 off in the CO seat. Let's say you're down to 15 BB and the pot is unopened in front of you. You decide to go ahead and make a move with your 10-8. With your stack being what it is, you jam all-in. If you're me, you have established tight image. So the players behind you may be reluctant to call with marginal hands, giving your shove a good chance of getting through. If you get called, then you can still hope that you have two live cards and a chance of out flopping the caller. But now let's say you're looking at that same 10-8 in that same position, but another player goes all-in for 22x from the +2 seat. Are you going to want to call off your stack and put your tournament life at risk with 10-8 off? Probably not. Put simply, what I raise with, or in this case shove with, is not the same hand call that I would call a raise or an all-in with.

This same concept can be applied to less dramatic situations. I'm generally a tight/aggressive player, or at least I want to have the image of a tight/aggressive player. So let's say I were to put a 3x raise into an unopened pot from the hijack seat holding Q-9. Even though Q-9 might be a little light for a raise, I can probably count on my tight/aggressive image to get my raise through. However, if the pot were to be raised to 3x in front of me, Q-9 would be a kind of loose call, and I'm not likely to make it. Again, the hand that I would raise with is not the same hand that I would call with. Or to use Sklansky's words, "You need a stronger hand to call a raise, than you do to raise".

The gap concept?

 

[IntenseHeat]

Is that not?

I understand that when sklansky is discussing it he uses examples like A-J, from middle position. According to Sklansky, A-J shrinks when facing a raise from an early position, such as UTG, and could probably count on being dominated in that situation. But, a lot of people consider Sklansky's concept to be outdated because in today's aggressive game players are opening a lot wider. And in consideration of that A-J would, by today's standards, be considered a tight fold. In fact, in todays game I have become accustomed to seeing players open shove 50x with A-8 off from early position, so I'm almost never folding A-J to a standard raise. Of course I'm not talking about top players. But then I'm not facing top players on a day to day basis.

But the premise remains the same, "I need a stronger hand to call a raise, than I need to raise".

I used the hands that I did in my examples for a couple of reasons. For one, I always try to avoid defining my range. I don't want to be telling potential opponents what my raising range is or what I'm willing to fold to a raise. So those hands are pulled completely out of my ass in order to illustrate the concept without defining my range. Secondly, I used the all-in example because a lot of players think in terms limping in or calling with any playable hand. Once a lot of players look at their cards and decide that they want to play them, they're not folding them, even if the pot is raised in front of them. So the only way some people can grasp Sklansky's concept is to think of it in terms of an all-in situation, as evidenced by the responses from blix177 and neart13. So to illustrate the concept, as I understand it, I put it in terms that they can understand. Again, the hands are completely made up. But again, the concept remains the same. What I raise with is not the same thing I would call a raise with.

I guess maybe my explanation was a simplification or maybe a bastardization of Sklansky's gap concept. Or perhaps it's my modification of the gap concept. I think I understand it pretty well, or maybe not. I don't know. I think I get what Sklansky was saying and am completely onboard with his premise. But the deeper you go with it, the more it starts to fall apart for me, at least in today's game. That you need a stronger hand to call a raise with, than you need to raise with makes sense. But if you adhere strictly to Sklansky's concept, especially in today's poker world, then you're going to find yourself always being overly concerned with the possibility of being dominated and constantly folding to raises from inferior hands because of it.