« Happy Thanksgiving
Q&A #19: Playing a Short Stack Strategy at $5-$10 and Higher »

Q&A #18: Sklansky-Chubukov Numbers

Posted on Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:28:38 AM
Filed under No Limit Hold 'em, Q&A, Short Stack Strategy

Don't miss one article! Subscribe to the Full Feed RSS or get NPA in your inbox.

Bill asks,

Finished reading your No Limit Hold’em … reading it a second time and working on these tables. Might be asking the wrong half of the team but what gives with the odds of winning for the big pairs? I’ve been entering the numbers into a spreadsheet to ...

Login/Register for more.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

If you find this article helpful please support the site to help keep the poker strategy tips coming.

Print Print :: Trackback :: Respond ::

Related Posts

6 Responses to “Q&A #18: Sklansky-Chubukov Numbers”

Kevin
@ Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:47:53 AM
1

Hi Ed,

I have a friend who is obsessed with heads up play at very beatable levels ($10 buy-in). Is it safe to recommend S-C rankings to him in this particular game (heads up). And is it OK play to apply S-C numbers early in the game when stacks are still large compared to the blinds?

Thanks and keep up the good work!
Kevin

Ed Miller
@ Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:58:51 AM
2

Sure, it’s safe to recommend S-C numbers to him, at least as long as you explain exactly how they work. They are a mathematical lower bound, so to speak, so as long as your stack is shorter than the S-C number, you won’t go too wrong pushing.

It’s ok to apply S-C numbers early on when the stacks are still large, but often there are better plays than simply pushing in that case. So when the stacks are still fairly deep, I would say, practically speaking, that he’ll rarely use the S-C numbers directly.

Kevin
@ Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:07:42 AM
3

Actually, I think this strategy compliments well the SSS (which I regularly employ thanks to GSIH) from the button and small blind whenever the situation permits. Apart from the +EV of the move itself, that would help in promoting a wild image and encourage action when you need it in other positions with premium hands.

I have gone through the S-C chapters of NLTAP (yes, I do have all your books Ed), and I agree (do I have another option?) that S-C should ideally be used when you are out of position, and therefore ideal in the situation described above. However in a heads-up tournament, unfortunately the small blind actually has position on the big blind. Any adjustments the big blind can make, as the option to move in would ideally be available to him as he will be out of position throughout the hand?

Optisizer
@ Mon Mar 12, 2007 09:19:38 PM
4

I dont understand why you are complicating things so much? Why not calculate and express the S-C number in big blind units instead of a dollar value specifically for a $1-2 game. I think that would be much easier to understand for every one. Then it actually also would be a “number” rather than a “value” or “dollar amount”.
At least that’s what I did when I read the book. made much more sense to me…

farrell hinkle
@ Mon Aug 20, 2007 09:23:09 AM
5

What is the questioner Kevin referring to with SSS and GSIH?

Although you do not recommend using the S-C numbers for positions far from the button would it be a terrible error to divide the S-C number by three for the cutooff and /or four from the hijack position?

Thank you

Ed Miller
@ Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:40:53 AM
6

I don’t know about a “terrible” error, but yes, the S-C numbers, while exact for what they seek to measure (playing the hand face-up), are only an approximate guide for actual face-down strategy. The dividing thing is another approximation, and if you pile fuzziness on top of fuzziness too much, eventually you’ll end up with something that doesn’t have value.

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>