GaF Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 With no electricity tonight, I had some time to get back to basics and actually read a book (by torchlight :wall) - and yes, it was poker!!! Found it quite interesting to discover the Sklansky-Chubukov Numbers, and feel the need to share it (and check my understanding of exactly what the numbers mean!!) - ok most of you probably already know all this? This is for the rest of us ;) What are they You are in the small blind in a $1-$2 games. Everyone folds to you. What hands can you shove with? It depends on the smaller of your stack size and your opponents stack size - The Sklansky-Chubukov number is the stack size which gives you guaranteed positive ev. It is guaranteed to be more profitable to shove (+ve EV) than to fold (0 EV) (this is cash game - not quite so definitive, but applicable to tourneys too). How does it work? When you hold a hand, there are 1225 (50*49/2) possible alternative hands your opponent can hold. If you are ahead, go all in and your opponent calls then you have positive ev. Your opponent is in this scenario best served by folding. The calculations for S-C assume your opponent plays perfectly and always folds when behind. This serves to conservatively estimate your ev. We continue to assume your opponent plays perfectly and always calls you when he is ahead (Jeez - it's almost as if he can see your cards ;) ) For example, if you have AKo your opponent will call with 79 of his possible hands and fold with 1146. He will call 6.4% of the time and fold 93.6% of the time. Why 79 hands? He is beating you with AA (3 combinations), KK (3 combinations), QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55, 44, 33 and 22 (6 combinations each). 7 of the 9 remaining AK combinations are not underdogs to you (2 are because of the K that is lower than your Ace on the flush). (3 x 2) + (11 x 6) + 7 = 79 With the basket of hands that your opponent calls with, when you are called, you are on average a 43.3% dog and he is a 56.7% fav. So we can now work out the ev for every situation: You fold: ev = 0 You shove, opponent folds: ev = .9355 x $3 = $2.8065 You Shove, opponent calls, opponent wins: ev = .0645 x .567 x - Stack You Shove, opponent calls, you win: ev = .0645 x .433 x (Stack + Blinds) Stack is the smaller of your and your opponents stack. The S-C number is the size of stack which will lead to break even (against "perfect" opponent) ev for the 4 scenarios. The "answer" for AKo is $332 - if we punch this number in, we can prove that this is the answer. 0 + $2.8065 + (.0645 x .567 x -$332) + (0.645 x .433 x (332 + 3)) = 0 + $2.8065 - $12.14 + $9.356048 = 0 (near enough) To be continued.........:ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nade Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings You are in the small blind in a $1-$2 games. Everyone folds to you. What hands can you shove with? What hands can you flippin shove with??? it's a chuffing cash game sklansky wake up man! woooooo let's shove so we can win $2 because it's +EV :eyes. Sorry, will properly read your post tomorrow Gaf just that bit has annoyed me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhornet Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings What hands can you flippin shove with??? it's a chuffing cash game sklansky wake up man! woooooo let's shove so we can win $2 because it's +EV :eyes. Sorry, will properly read your post tomorrow Gaf just that bit has annoyed me Not sure reading it again is going to help Nade. i've read it three times now, and I dont understand a word!!:loon It has something to do with poker though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapdash Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings Bah - my maths has failed' date=' and the proof doesn't work :sad [/quote'] Your .0645 turned into a .645 while you weren't watching. :ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaF Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings What hands can you flippin shove with??? it's a chuffing cash game sklansky wake up man! woooooo let's shove so we can win $2 because it's +EV :eyes. Sorry, will properly read your post tomorrow Gaf just that bit has annoyed me You are short stacked, so often your only choice will be shove or fold..... This in no way suggests, tries to suggest, or prooves that shoving is the optimal play in this situation - indeed in a lot of them it will clearly not be the case - HOWEVER what we can say is that it is guaranteed +ve EV - the main conclusion I think that we can take from that is that FOLDING is the wrong choice (EV = 0) - if your only choices are all in or fold (we're still talking cash games here) then it is a clear and definite mistake to fold. There's a lot more to come - the idea above is only touching the surface so far - I intend to keep writing in Post 1 ;) The main practical application I can see for this is going back to the automated strategy that was highlighted in Inside Poker Testing Alex Scotts Short Stacked Cash Table Strategy I think this can add a new and important dimension to the way you play an automated, short stacked cash table..... (Indeed gut feel, without having tested it, is that this may be more significant and profitable than what was published) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaF Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings Your .0645 turned into a .645 while you weren't watching. :ok Doh :wall :wall Cheers mate :ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaF Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings Not sure reading it again is going to help Nade. i've read it three times now' date=' and I dont understand a word!!:loon It has something to do with poker though.[/quote'] Do you want to understand it? If so, happy to take the time to work through it and try and help ...... I think working through it will help me understand it better too :ok I am getting my base material from "No Limit Holdem: Theory and Practice" by David Sklansky and Ed Miller - I in no way pretend to be able to write it clearer than them, but I can be "interactive" which is my advantage over their book :ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nade Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings You are short stacked, so often your only choice will be shove or fold..... Why is anyone ever short stacked on a cash table? Still haven't read the article but just to respond to your point Gaf - one word: re-buy. :D :tongue2 From the one line i've read of the article i don't see how it's relevant TBH. re-buy baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaF Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings A short stack reduces your implied odds - it requires a different strategy of play (playing your made hands, ditching your draws) - why do people play short stacked? Because they find it more profitable for them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapdash Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings A short stack reduces your implied odds - it requires a different strategy of play (playing your made hands' date=' ditching your draws) - why do people play short stacked? Because they find it more profitable for them....[/quote'] I know I'm in a minority, but I'm convinced that if you're playing with people who are about your standard or not much worse than you, then you have an advantage if you're playing short-stacked and know how to exploit that. But that's not really the point. I'm sure Sklansky is not advocating playing short-stacked and playing a shove/fold game as small blind. He's just making a point about the power of going all-in. The AKo example is not really a very good one as far as practical applications go, as it's pretty clear that if you have 100 times the pot then going all-in is not the best strategy. However, I think it's interesting, and counterintuitive, that going all-in and showing your cards is a +EV strategy. It gets more useful, I think, and maybe more so in tournaments, with weaker hands when you really are short-stacked. A lot of us would then shove with crap hands, thinking we're bluffing, but I think it's surprising how often it would be right to shove even if your opponent knew how bad your hand was. By the way, a more sophisticated version of this is when you don't assume your opponent knows what you have. Now game theory comes into it, and some quite bizarre things happen. For example, assuming again that it's just you as small blind and the big blind, and your only choices are to fold or shove, then if you have 63s your optimal strategy against a perfect opponent is to shove if you have less than 1.8 BB left, or if you have between 4.6 and 6.6 BB left, but to fold if you have between 1.8 and 4.6 or more than 6.6 BB left! I'm not sure whether that has much practical application, though! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaF Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings I know I'm in a minority, but I'm convinced that if you're playing with people who are about your standard or not much worse than you, then you have an advantage if you're playing short-stacked and know how to exploit that. I'm actually starting to come round to that view ;) The AKo example is not really a very good one as far as practical applications go, as it's pretty clear that if you have 100 times the pot then going all-in is not the best strategy. I think in a way, that actually makes it a good example - it makes it clear that this is not claiming to be an optimal strategy, just that it has positive ev. However, I think it's interesting, and counterintuitive, that going all-in and showing your cards is a +EV strategy. It gets more useful, I think, and maybe more so in tournaments, with weaker hands when you really are short-stacked. A lot of us would then shove with crap hands, thinking we're bluffing, but I think it's surprising how often it would be right to shove even if your opponent knew how bad your hand was. Yes - that's perhaps one of the main (surprising) things that I took from it - when I raise with poor hands, I thought I was doing it for the fold equity - but this shows that it isn't the case - and perhaps means I need to be more selective about what crap I shove with... By the way' date=' a more sophisticated version of this is when you [b']don't assume your opponent knows what you have. Now game theory comes into it, and some quite bizarre things happen. For example, assuming again that it's just you as small blind and the big blind, and your only choices are to fold or shove, then if you have 63s your optimal strategy against a perfect opponent is to shove if you have less than 1.8 BB left, or if you have between 4.6 and 6.6 BB left, but to fold if you have between 1.8 and 4.6 or more than 6.6 BB left! I'm not sure whether that has much practical application, though! :D Wow - strange - but makes sense - at the lower end I presume you dont have enough fold equity, and at the higher end I presume you're paying too big a price for when you are called with better hands ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhornet Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings Do you want to understand it? If so, happy to take the time to work through it and try and help ...... I think working through it will help me understand it better too :ok I am getting my base material from "No Limit Holdem: Theory and Practice" by David Sklansky and Ed Miller - I in no way pretend to be able to write it clearer than them, but I can be "interactive" which is my advantage over their book :ok Obviously, GaF, I was just being facetious. I can understand it's use and application in a short stacked strategy, but would you not need to make this calculation for every single potential holding you may have?:unsure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaF Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings but would you not need to make this calculation for every single potential holding you may have?:unsure No - The calculation depth here is just to illustrate the concept - There is a table with the values in (someone else has done all the calculations for us) - For example: 22 is 48 ATo is 106 JTs is 36 72o is 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillHicks Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings Also Sklansky-ChubbyBrown numbers :moon - measure how many swear words per bad beat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaF Posted January 13, 2008 Author Share Posted January 13, 2008 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings Tonights PLOPS final - I'm the short stack, we're on the bubble (which means I want to be more aggressive) get this hand... ***** Hand 907970976 ***** 400.00/800.00 Texas Hold'em (No Limit ) - Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:59:29 PM PLOPS NLHE Final (Real /Tournament ) Seat 2: pokaleg (28520.00) Seat 3: GpdDelusio (19680.00) Seat 5: dave488 (15660.00) Seat 7: pl---GaF (10840.00) pl---GaF post SB 400.00 pokaleg post BB 800.00 ** Deal ** pokaleg [N/A, N/A] GpdDelusio [N/A, N/A] dave488 [N/A, N/A] pl---GaF [6h, Qc] *** Bet Round 1 *** GpdDelusio Fold dave488 Fold pl---GaF All-in 10840.00 The sklansky-chubukov ranking for Q6o is 16 (there are ante's too of 75 not marked in the HH) - so it's a marginal shove (I think my only options are shove or fold) - but it's one of the more "robust" (cant remember the terminology :unsure) hands - meaning it has added value - my opponent will often fold hands that are beating me as well..... Instinctively I feel I should fold, but in this situation, I trust the maths - can anyone explain a solid reason why the maths could be ignored in this situation "allowing" me to fold? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaF Posted January 13, 2008 Author Share Posted January 13, 2008 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings Doh - I've been miscalculating and taking the total pot size (as you would for M) rather than the BB size - the maths say I should have folded :$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave488 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Re: Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings Doh - I've been miscalculating and taking the total pot size (as you would for M) rather than the BB size - the maths say I should have folded :$ Well thats a good reason to fold.;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.