Hand Ranges v. Slansky's FToP

This is a poker theory / philosphical question: which takes precedence, Slanksy's Fundamental Theory of Poker or the use of hand ranges?

Example:
You are playing a headsup cash game against a maniac villain who pushes all-in with every hand blind.

You are dealt Ace-King.
You call.
Villain turns over Ace-Ace.
Let's say you lose the showdown for giggles.
Did you make a mistake and why (or why not)?

I'd prefer a decisive yes or no (with reasons).
If this is an easier question you may answer it:
Does your call show long term profit?

The point of this thread is to debate / compare FToP v. hand ranges, b/c sometimes they argue mutually exclusive actions. (as shown here lolz)

They already addressed this one in another thread. The correct answer is never calling with any unpaired hand, and you really should only be calling with JJ+. Although this is based on ICM. I always thought ToP factored in hand ranges.... could be mistaken though.

In any event, there are 312 (Edit: It's actually 300 I counted the AK's twice) hands you're dominating with AK and all the rest you're either a small dog or a small favorite. I doubt you're getting enough equity if you know he's pushing any two to call if this is a heads-up SNG format and you can't be guaranteed that villian will keep playing if he wins or loses.

ICM says minimum JJ+, and calling with any unpaired hand is bad. Although, once your M gets down to 6-8 I'd say call with any Ace, K8o+, K2s+, and any two suited broadway (in addition to all pairs over 66).

How is calling with AK bad? If you're ahead of him most of the time (even slightly) then isn't a call +EV usually? Tightening up to play JJ+ may net the greatest amount of positive equity but isn't calling off AK here +EV long term? Or am I completely wrong here?

You made a mistake vs. Sklansky's fundamental therom of poker. If you could have seen your opponents cards you certainly would not have called the PF push.

However, using hand ranges I couldn't be happier to call and even Sklansky himself would agree.

Okay here it is. Pokerstove puts gives AK0 v. a random hand 65% equity. JJ+ v. random is 80% equity. Waiting for JJ+ is probably the better play, I'm not interested in this situation or opponent really.

What I'm confused about is this: Slansky's FToP says that the best way to play is what you should do if everyone's cards were face-up. In this case, villain had aces, does Slansky call this a fold?

Secondary: Does Slansky even discuss putting villain on a range...?

Skalnsky's fundamental therom of poker states "everytime you act in a way differently that you would have had you seen your opponents cards they gain"

so yes, his therom calls this a fold.

Screw theory, if an opponent moves all in blind, I will call with AKs everytime. Hell, I will call with much worse hands.

If Slansky's theory said fold everytime an opponent moves allin blind unless he is JJ+, I want to play Slansky and will happily collect his blinds for awhile.

I think you've completely missed the pt of Sklansky's theory.

How is this even a thread?

FTOP is not practical. It is the theoretical basis upon which we can build the practical.

wtf is this???

:lock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigslikk

How is calling with AK bad? If you're ahead of him most of the time (even slightly) then isn't a call +EV usually? Tightening up to play JJ+ may net the greatest amount of positive equity but isn't calling off AK here +EV long term? Or am I completely wrong here?

---

Freezeouts are different than standard ring games. Opportunity cost factors in a lot more than small equity edges. The idea being if you lose one flip for your whole stack you now have 0% chance of getting any ROI.

If you knew you could play this player over and over indefinitely, and your individual buy-ins are a reasonably small % of your bankroll, you should be taking EVERY positive expectancy edge you have against his range. But when his willingness or ability to replay the situation indefinitely comes into question, you have to ignore small edges to find one that maximizes the opportunity of winning the hand, as if you lose when you call your ROI for the event drops to 0: E.g. waiting for a spot that you know will be a 70-80% favorite against his/her range to minimize the chances of losing the hand.

Until you are about to blind off, and then you propose that we play with hands much worse against any random two than AKs.

Even in Slansky's incorrect hand ratings, AKs is the 5th best pair of hole cards. Maybe I am a crazy gambler (which I am not), but I will call an allin blind opponent with the 15th best hand, let alone 5th best.

It's the 5th best in a vacuum. It's not 5th best when your opponent is pushing any two cards, 85%+ of which you're never going to be more than a 20% favorite against, and you're instantaneously broke when you lose.

Scared money is dead money.

Let me put it this way. Your odds of getting JJ-AA are 1/55, which means you must be willing to give your allin blind opponent approximately 40 big blinds plus antes before you catch the hand with which you are willing to call. If you are heads up late in a tournament, it is very unlikely you have a chip stack that will allow you that level of patience before you can call. In order to successfully beat such a strategy, you need to be willing to call with a much wider range of hands - I would suggest the top 24 hands.

This thread made me lol.

Overflow, OP stated it was a headsup cash game. Therefore folding is -$EV and that is all there is to it. I.e. call.

You're talking about ICM and I'm pretty sure (from the days I used to study it) that it depends on blinds, payout structure, and your stack. If you happen to be heads up against a maniac all in every hand and you wait for JJ+, you will lose most tourns. Well established ICM based theory is developed for heads up and that ost certainly requires a call with AK. (and very much worse hands). I'm sure Taipan will give you some links to this theory, either that or get SNGPT and read the tutorial.

OMG overflow what are you on? It's a cash game - if our hand beats his range, and here it does by a massive margin, we call.

In a tourney, assuming we're starting at the beginning and blinds are tiny and stacks are deep, it's different because if you lose, you're bust. As soon as you *know* villain is pushing every hand then you can afford to be more selective about what you call with because yes, AK isn't a big enough favourite against most hands and you can be sure that a better spot is likely to come up. However, if blinds are high then AKs is a fine hand to call with because you only have a very short time before you blind out.

I didn't read all of the last statements but a valid question could be do you have more money in your pockets?

A valid answer would be yes. Otherwise we shouldnt be playing poker here and furthermore, no advice given on this site makes sense when underrolled.

If you have no more money then the maths gets pretty fucked up. especially depending on how much you need the little you have remaining. You would likely have to fold KK based on the math (as insane as that sounds).

I misread the OP, I thought this was a HU SNG. Guilty as charged on my account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gingerwizard

A valid answer would be yes. Otherwise we shouldnt be playing poker here and furthermore, no advice given on this site makes sense when underrolled.

If you have no more money then the maths gets pretty fucked up. especially depending on how much you need the little you have remaining. You would likely have to fold KK based on the math (as insane as that sounds).

---

Yea, say we're at the casino and this is going down and we're playing $500nl 200bb deep with at 10k roll but NO cash available to us if we lose. Meaning, we're rolled for the stakes but all of our money is online. We have all of our cash on the table. It makes the call with AK a little tougher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gingerwizard

A valid answer would be yes. Otherwise we shouldnt be playing poker here and furthermore, no advice given on this site makes sense when underrolled.

If you have no more money then the maths gets pretty fucked up. especially depending on how much you need the little you have remaining. You would likely have to fold KK based on the math (as insane as that sounds).

---

Yea, say we're at the casino and this is going down and we're playing $500nl 200bb deep with at 10k roll but NO cash available to us if we lose. Meaning, we're rolled for the stakes but all of our money is online. We have all of our cash on the table. It makes the call with AK a little tougher.

---

Effective stacks @ 200BB :lol: :D

[/nit picking]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gingerwizard

A valid answer would be yes. Otherwise we shouldnt be playing poker here and furthermore, no advice given on this site makes sense when underrolled.

If you have no more money then the maths gets pretty fucked up. especially depending on how much you need the little you have remaining. You would likely have to fold KK based on the math (as insane as that sounds).

---

Yea, say we're at the casino and this is going down and we're playing $500nl 200bb deep with at 10k roll but NO cash available to us if we lose. Meaning, we're rolled for the stakes but all of our money is online. We have all of our cash on the table. It makes the call with AK a little tougher.

---

Your situation unfortunately equates to being underolled. Since not being able to buy back in now affects your utility function and no longer makes it linear, (Read my post in the beginners digest). Essentially what this means is that when making a decision for all your money, you are not maximising expected value of that money, but your expected utility for it. The consequence of going broke and having to leave the game now exists and so you have a utility for it weighting your decisions.

Of course as everyones utility (or risk attitude) is different in such a situation, no advice on the correct decision can be given on the forum. There is a correct decision for you and it may be different from the correct one for me. Fundamentally this is why you can't play underrolled unless you understand your utilities (and I don't even understand mine in this situation with thinking hard), and why you definately cannot expect a correct answer to any of your under rolled hand probelms on this or any other forum.

Think I'm going to write an article on this right now. The last one (poker is all mathematical) was ok but concentrated too much on ignoring luck.

Article done. It's in the beginners circle

The problem with this question is that in a cash game, it is generally considered correct to play any edge. So if it's 60/40 you should call. I understand however why it is risky to play with a hand all-in, when it still has to improve to truly be the best hand. With an all-in raiser every single hand, the right play is to play supertight until you hit a big hand, so waiting for JJ+ is a smart strategy that prevents you from losing money on these maniacs. I know this is a crap answer but I only see this as an answer to a players method of style, if you call, your correct because the majority of times you are a favourite against a random hand, and have put your money in with the best hand. If you fold, I feel you are also correct because you are preventing yourself from losing large amounts of money to a drawing hand, and when you finally have the powerhouse hand, you can felt them [if they haven't already been felted, I would also think that this playing style means he has a large bankroll, so will probably be refueling time and time again. This would probably push me to the side of waiting for big hands when he plays, because 60/40 is perhaps not big enough an edge on him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigslikk

What I'm confused about is this: Slansky's FToP says that the best way to play is what you should do if everyone's cards were face-up. In this case, villain had aces, does Slansky call this a fold?

---

Sklansky says it's a fold if you know what he has. However, it's impossible for you to know he has Aces so you put him on a range of hands and come to the conclusion that this is a call. You can't really use the FToP in decisionmaking like this. I think the theory only really helps you understand where the money comes from in poker, by trading mistakes. Your goal shouldn't be to do as few FToP mistakes as possible, the only thing that matters is that your opponents are making more and bigger mistakes than you. In your example, your opponent are making huge mistakes by pushing crap into your good hands. His FToP mistakes>your FToP mistakes, and thus you gain in the longrun.
So in the specific hand you posted, you call because the majority of the time it would be a FToP mistake to fold, even if calling happens to be a FToP mistake this particular time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perrygarl

The problem with this question is that in a cash game, it is generally considered correct to play any edge. So if it's 60/40 you should call. I understand however why it is risky to play with a hand all-in, when it still has to improve to truly be the best hand. With an all-in raiser every single hand, the right play is to play supertight until you hit a big hand, so waiting for JJ+ is a smart strategy that prevents you from losing money on these maniacs. I know this is a crap answer but I only see this as an answer to a players method of style, if you call, your correct because the majority of times you are a favourite against a random hand, and have put your money in with the best hand. If you fold, I feel you are also correct because you are preventing yourself from losing large amounts of money to a drawing hand, and when you finally have the powerhouse hand, you can felt them [if they haven't already been felted, I would also think that this playing style means he has a large bankroll, so will probably be refueling time and time again. This would probably push me to the side of waiting for big hands when he plays, because 60/40 is perhaps not big enough an edge on him.

---

Any edge is big enough if you are playing properly rolled. Getting a 60/40 edge in a cash game and calling means you make 60% of the pot. You are entitled to 60%! It's yours. Folding throws that 60% away. That decision sucks bad.

Here is an exercise for you in illustration:

Why don't you work out the probability of being dealt JJ+? After you have done that, set the blinds at whatever you will vs your stack and, given that you win everytime you have JJ+ and that he pushes every hand, how many tournaments do you win? How high do the blinds have to be before playing JJ+ only means you lose most of the time?

It's not a difficult exercise and it should teach you something valuable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biondino

It's a cash game - if our hand beats his range, and here it does by a massive margin, we call.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lithium

Scared money is dead money.

---

Thanks for the replies. I always figured that you got to put a villain on a range (though you can never be certain of one, it's mostly guesswork) and trust that. In this case, regretting the AK push when villain flips pocket aces is senseless- it's another form of being results oriented. If you put the money in when you're ahead of an opponent's range, and he flips over a hand that happened to be in the upper part of his range, oh well. That's poker.

Putting an opponent on a range = reading skills. If you ranges right, and you have the technical / math skills to follow, forget about it, you'll eat up the tables.