* * New Theory of Poker Study Group Session 1 * *

[thorleif]

[ QUOTE ]

2) Sklansky says that against weak opponents you should not push small edges with a short stack. Isn't this what short-stack strategy is about? If you bust, then you reload. Perhaps I misunderstood short-stack strategy. Should I not move all-in with TT on short-stack, knowing that I will likely get called by AK?
According to the Kelly Criterion your bet should be in line with your advantage. Well if my advantage is small, then my bet should be small and short stack should maximize that value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky is talking about playing on a short bankroll, not a short stack. Relating this to NLHE(which I assume is of most interest in this discussion) you could think of this as playing with only a 3BI bankroll. In this situation, you would want to avoid marginal situations (ie calling AI with an OESFD) because losing this coinflip would be a huge hit to your bankroll. However, if you came upon the same situation with a 40BI roll, you would be correct to make this call everytime because you are a favorite and your bankroll can sustain the variance involved.

I don't remember if bankroll management is discussed later in the text, but playing on a 3BI roll is a situation a good player should not get himself into in the first place.

[JustCuz]

[ QUOTE ]
So the gain in this situation is 0, for both players?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to expand on mcpst17's post to be sure the message is clear, don't forget that if the caller is on a flush draw, he is also considering the implied odds of winning more bets should he hit. So, while he might be break-even on his call with the pot as it stands, he will have +EV if he hits his hand. So, in the scenario you present, I would say that the bettor is making a mistake by not betting enough for his opponent to be making a mistake by calling. We don't want to offer break-even odds; we want to get the best of it and force our opponents to make mistakes when they call with improper odds. When we do the former and not the latter, we're making mistakes.

[bellatrix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the gain in this situation is 0, for both players?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to expand on mcpst17's post to be sure the message is clear, don't forget that if the caller is on a flush draw, he is also considering the implied odds of winning more bets should he hit. So, while he might be break-even on his call with the pot as it stands, he will have +EV if he hits his hand. So, in the scenario you present, I would say that the bettor is making a mistake by not betting enough for his opponent to be making a mistake by calling. We don't want to offer break-even odds; we want to get the best of it and force our opponents to make mistakes when they call with improper odds. When we do the former and not the latter, we're making mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you bet more in a limit game? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
My main point was that the EV is clear for both players, but since nobody is differing their play even if they could see each other's cards, they aren't gaining anything. They are both making the correct play with or without seeing the hole cards. They both have +EV regarding pot odds, but agains each other, they can't make any money in this situation.