Excerpt from Phil Galfonds ESPN G Bucks article

"So, if you get all in preflop with A-A versus J-J for $1000 and you lose, you lost $1000 in real dollars; however you won about $800 in Sklansky Dollars because you should win that hand 80 percent of the time. As Sklansky explains, as long as you are making Sklansky Dollars, you will make money in the long run because luck evens out. In the ultimate long run, your Sklansky Dollars earned and real dollars earned will be the same. It's a good way for you to keep calm and make the right decisions when facing the swings that inevitably come with poker. It's a great concept."

I was under the impression that I would be winning $600 dollars in this situation. Because if we run it ten times we win 8 and lose 2 Wouldnt we subtract $800(times won)-$200(times) =$600?

Phil Galfond is incredible and im not trying to challenge him but I just am confused on this, can someone elaborate?


*Dropped a zero from his example

yea seems to be just a typo-ish mistake

okay thank you very much. I was just reading the article to learn about G Bucks and was a bit taken back by that

80% of 1000 is 800.

Sklansky dollars is nothing more than one’s showdown EV, typically for an all-in bet. I googled the term and for some dozen or so discussions/definitions, only several mentioned this explicitly. This is surprising to me.

80% of the time, you win $1000
20% of the time, you lose $1000

EV = .8*1000 - .2*1000 = .6*1000 = 600

When the payout is 1:1, your EV is the difference between your equity and your opponents, times the amount of money you put in.

another way to think of it is you're investing $1000 to have 80% equity in a $2000 pot, or $1600.

I'm glad someone did some research, and it is definitely surprising this is mentioned more.