in the invisible ante thread http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...0&fpart=1&vc=1

sklansky states that "a preflop raise should win uncontested almost half the time" [in a theoretically "correct", tight game].

My question is, how is that "half the time" derived?

I suppose you can take each player's continuing range % (either as a call or a raise) to get an estimate.

Like if we suppose in a tight game people continue on average with these hands

22+, ATs+, A5s, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, 65s, AQo+ (12%)

We can calculate the probability of no callers from each position. In reality it's slightly less than 12 or whatever our estimate due to blocking effects of our hands we raise.

P(BTN steal) = .88^2 = .7744

P(CO steal) = .88^3 = .6815

P(HJ steal) = .88^4 = .5997

P(LJ steal) = .88^5 = .5277

P(MP steal) = .88^6 = .4644

P(UTG+1 steal) = .88^7 = .4087

P(UTG steal) = .88^8 = .3596

Averaged the probability we get a fold as RFI is .5451

But...sometimes we have open limps, we are not the first raiser, and people's calling ranges change accordingly, so we likely get a fold slightly less. It's also a bit simplistic to just say everyone is calling 12% of the time regardless of their position (they call less vs an UTG raise and more vs a BTN raise), but works as a quick and dirty estimate.

Sklansky may have approached the question differently or perhaps gave wider continuing ranges (maybe 15% instead of 12%).

That was fun to read. Quite a snapshot of NLHE theory at that time.

When you have aces you get folds like 80% of the time. I've stopped getting super stoked about AA when I get them now, because it usually is going to fold around preflop.

Okay, I lied. I still get stoked about getting AA. I don't expect much to happen though.