Sklansky Hand Rankings Destroyed! >=)
04-19-2007
, 09:57 AM
04-19-2007
, 03:31 PM
04-19-2007
, 03:45 PM
04-19-2007
, 09:10 PM
04-19-2007
, 09:40 PM
Quote:
Well at least you got a reply from Mason himself. Not sure if it's worth more or less than $1 tho. I'll transfer you $1 if you tell me exactly what you were smoking...
Quote:
You're welcome.
$1 to my Poker Stars account and I'll refer you to my father's girlfriend, who is an accomplished shrink with a PhD.
Quote:
Thank-you. I will now seek help to end this affliction.
MM
Quote:
You are brainwashed by Sklansky and the sheep that treat his books like the Bible and his rankings like the ten commanments!
MM
$1 to my Poker Stars account and I'll refer you to my father's girlfriend, who is an accomplished shrink with a PhD.
Hy-DRO-ponic marijuana. =)
You are correct in your assumption that I was high when this thread was written. *clap*
04-19-2007
, 09:42 PM
Quote:
OP is correct.
Extrapolating from his post, a hand like 9
9
(YD number 81) should be quite an underdog to a hand like 9
A
(YD number 117). What is interesting is that when I test this hypothesis by running "hot and cold" simulations on PokerStove or cardplayer.com, the simulator incorrectly assigns 99 the greater win probability (by a healthy margin, too: PS thinks pocket 9's are about a 7-to-3 favorite over A9).
In addition to its implications for what Sklansky might term "reverse domination" situations (o! the irony!), OP's system correctly implies that suited hands offer no advantages over offsuit hands, which should be intuitively obvious to all of you. (Clearly, it is just as good to have two chancese to make a four card flush as it is to have only one chance at a three-carder. (3-1=2; but 4-2=2 as well. Q.E.D.))
These examples support OP's assertion that much current poker thinking is incorrect: Sklansky has not only inadvertantly tricked many of the readers of these forums; indeed, his corrupting influence appears to have spread even to those computer programmers who design poker software.
To Y0ungdr0:
Thank you very much for your help! If you do manage to collect some donations, please let me know. I certainly believe your work deserves compensation.
Personally, I would most like to present my money to you "over the table", ideally by going all-in preflop in one or two heads-up NL situations your system has identified.
My thought is, we can reveal our hands preflop, and in order to assure that you receive your due, I will take the worst of it in any of the mismatch situations that you've discovered, EG by playing A6 against your K7. I really like this, because my donations will be in direct proportion to the value of your thoughts (especially over the course of the many hands I hope we can get in, so as to further my learning). Given the strength of your ideas and your great generosity in sharing them, I feel like no matter how much I end up eventually donating, I'll be getting one heck of a bargain!
I'll look you up next time I'm on PS. Thanks again for your terrific thoughts!
Warm regards,
Jogger
Extrapolating from his post, a hand like 9
9 (YD number 81) should be quite an underdog to a hand like 9A (YD number 117). What is interesting is that when I test this hypothesis by running "hot and cold" simulations on PokerStove or cardplayer.com, the simulator incorrectly assigns 99 the greater win probability (by a healthy margin, too: PS thinks pocket 9's are about a 7-to-3 favorite over A9).In addition to its implications for what Sklansky might term "reverse domination" situations (o! the irony!), OP's system correctly implies that suited hands offer no advantages over offsuit hands, which should be intuitively obvious to all of you. (Clearly, it is just as good to have two chancese to make a four card flush as it is to have only one chance at a three-carder. (3-1=2; but 4-2=2 as well. Q.E.D.))
These examples support OP's assertion that much current poker thinking is incorrect: Sklansky has not only inadvertantly tricked many of the readers of these forums; indeed, his corrupting influence appears to have spread even to those computer programmers who design poker software.
To Y0ungdr0:
Thank you very much for your help! If you do manage to collect some donations, please let me know. I certainly believe your work deserves compensation.
Personally, I would most like to present my money to you "over the table", ideally by going all-in preflop in one or two heads-up NL situations your system has identified.
My thought is, we can reveal our hands preflop, and in order to assure that you receive your due, I will take the worst of it in any of the mismatch situations that you've discovered, EG by playing A6 against your K7. I really like this, because my donations will be in direct proportion to the value of your thoughts (especially over the course of the many hands I hope we can get in, so as to further my learning). Given the strength of your ideas and your great generosity in sharing them, I feel like no matter how much I end up eventually donating, I'll be getting one heck of a bargain!
I'll look you up next time I'm on PS. Thanks again for your terrific thoughts!
Warm regards,
Jogger
Thank you for the entertaining post and the backhanded compliments.
04-19-2007
, 09:48 PM
04-20-2007
, 01:25 PM
04-05-2012
, 10:28 PM
