Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Poker Theory General poker theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-04-2014, 06:07 AM   #1
Wilfred1
veteran
 
Wilfred1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Try better
Posts: 2,255
Sklansky-Chubukov range Vs Equalab range

When you plug ranges with these two you get different results.

Is one range considered better than the other (and why?) or is it personal preference?

For example - if i plug a 10.26% range:

Sklansky-Chubukov: 55+,A8s+,KQs,ATo+ (50.25% equity)

VS

Equalab: 77+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo (49.75%equity)

From this one test the sklansky-chubukov range beats the equalab range so why use equalab ranges over the sklansky?

My only thought is that post flop decisions with the equalab range are easier than the sklansky-chubukov ranges which involve more dominated aces?
Wilfred1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2014, 03:54 PM   #2
swc123
grinder
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 431
Re: Sklansky-Chubukov range Vs Equalab range

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilfred1 View Post
When you plug ranges with these two you get different results.

Is one range considered better than the other (and why?) or is it personal preference?

For example - if i plug a 10.26% range:

Sklansky-Chubukov: 55+,A8s+,KQs,ATo+ (50.25% equity)

VS

Equalab: 77+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo (49.75%equity)

From this one test the sklansky-chubukov range beats the equalab range so why use equalab ranges over the sklansky?

My only thought is that post flop decisions with the equalab range are easier than the sklansky-chubukov ranges which involve more dominated aces?
It depends on what exactly you are using the ranges for but I think Sklansky-Chubukov can be useful for specific purposes but is generally very bad for basic range construction.

The basic idea behind the Sklansky-Chubukov rankings is that you turn your hand face up and shove. This means your opponent will always call with every hand that beats yours. Thus if you are shoving 76s they will always know to call with 96o, rather than only calling with hands that fair well against your range as a whole.

This means for example, that Sklansky-Chubukov end up looking very very different from Nash push/fold charts which are actually at least somewhat based on game theory and optimal play.

I don't know what metric equilab uses exactly.

If you want to actually use something with some decent theory behind it (explained here: http://pokercoder.blogspot.com/2006/...-of-hands.html) I would use the propokertools rankings: http://www.propokertools.com/help/si...#hand_rankings

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you can see a list of rankings.
swc123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 07:53 AM   #3
Wilfred1
veteran
 
Wilfred1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Try better
Posts: 2,255
Re: Sklansky-Chubukov range Vs Equalab range

Good post, thank you
Wilfred1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 08:14 AM   #4
jukofyork
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
jukofyork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,364
Re: Sklansky-Chubukov range Vs Equalab range

Quote:
Originally Posted by swc123 View Post
I don't know what metric equilab uses exactly.
Also not sure, but here is what PokerStove uses (equilab might be using the same method):

Quote:
Q12. How does the PokerStove slider rank preflop hands?

The slider interface for setting the top N% of hands orders the hands according to their preflop all-in equity versus three random hands. This rather arbitrary selection was picked because it balances the value of high cards with the value of drawing cards. It is not an absolute ordering, and depending on the specific situation you may want to edit that range of hands when doing equity calculations.
- http://web.archive.org/web/201203021...rstove/faq.php

(be careful if you download anything from those archived pages - the site was hacked shortly before it went offline and might contain malware...)

Juk
jukofyork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2014, 01:05 PM   #5
LoveThee
adept
 
LoveThee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere far away. Yes, that'll do
Posts: 914
Re: Sklansky-Chubukov range Vs Equalab range

Ranges don't have the transitive property, if range A beats range B, you cannot assume that all ranges B beats are beaten by A. or that all ranges that beat A beat range B.
Remember how the SC ranking and how the equilab rankings were constructed and ask yourself what does it mean to compare both. (Hint , it's nothing.)
The SC ranking is only a byproduct of the SC chart, whose objective was to create a minimum shoving range without accounting for fold equity. Do not use the SC ranking if you are not planning in any way to use the accompanying chart, it just wouldn't make sense. If I am not mistaken equilab ranks according to most popular hands. Which is a very good ranking method for some purposes and a terrible one for other purposes.
Of course deciding what ranking method you want use depends on the purpose, which you may want to share. And , of course, comparing a random sample of the rank against the same random sample of the other rank is a terrible method of deciding what ranking method to use.
LoveThee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2014, 10:12 PM   #6
NewOldGuy
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the wires
Posts: 5,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveThee View Post
Ranges don't have the transitive property, if range A beats range B, you cannot assume that all ranges B beats are beaten by A. or that all ranges that beat A beat B
Neither do specific starting hand equities. Sometimes A<B and B<C but C<A.
NewOldGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2014, 10:41 PM   #7
NewOldGuy
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the wires
Posts: 5,618
Re: Sklansky-Chubukov range Vs Equalab range

All ranking systems to produce ranges have to rank hands against something. Sometimes that's against a random hand heads up. Sometimes, like Pokerstove, it's against 3 random hands. There was a series of charts Andy Bloch did in an old tournament book that ranked every hand against various ranges such as against top 50%, top 25%, top 10%. And those competing ranges were in turn ranked against a random hand to derive the ranges (or maybe he used the PS method, I don't recall). Then there are various ranking systems that consider post-flop playability instead of just shoving power. Sklansky and Miller's ranking systems for NLHE come to mind. Then there's another whole set of rankings for limit hold'em, which are different because drawing hands have more power. The original Sklansky rankings many years ago were for Limit, which was often misunderstood when NL become popular.

There is no absolute way to rank starting hands in hold'em. As pointed out in post #2, it depends on what you want to use the ranges for.
NewOldGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2017, 04:17 PM   #8
genkiDev
centurion
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 105
Re: Sklansky-Chubukov range Vs Equalab range

I'd like to bumpt this post because it asks a question which i dont think has been properly answered yet.

In my opinion, the difference between the two Slansky ranges is STACK DEPTH and ROBUST/NON ROBUST equity. The chubakov range is highly weighted toward non robust equity hands, high card hands and these hands generate better results when the stacks are shallow and there is little post flop play.

The Malmuth range rates favours hands with stronger robust equity, suited connecting combos. These are more profitable when the stacks are deeper and there IS more post flop navigation.

IMO These two points are the basis for MTT range construction when adjusting ranges for various sized stacks; When stacks are deep, we construct our range accordingly, favouring a more balanced approach which values lowsuited connectors higher than Ax type hands. The oposite beomes true when our stack size is shallow, we want to construct our ranges with more Ax type hands and less low suited connectors.

Peace.

EDIT! Just realised that wasn't the OP question. But, I assume the eqilab range is mpore like the Malmuth range, so the point is still valid.
genkiDev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 02:32 PM   #9
Shamway99
veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,348
Re: Sklansky-Chubukov range Vs Equalab range

We might start with what is Chubukov range. It is a special range saying that push with the range(at given eff stacks) is always better than fold. Regardles how V plays, he can plays perfectly, he can call too wide/too tight.
The range is almost always narrower than Nash range. Because Chubukov range is so strong that V either gives enough chips by folding or loses enough in SD. This is not true with Nash range, weak hands of Nash range can suffer when V is too lose.

Ofc the 10% Chubukov range can be diferent from 10% equilab range. Equilab looks for 10% hands that play best against random range, Chubukov range looks for hands that best combine equity and fold equity.
Whether Equilab 10% range beats Chubukov 10% range is not interesting cos they do not play against themselves.
Shamway99 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online