NLHTP#18 The Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings&When and When Not to Use Them

[Etric]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this all even that relevant for deep-stack cash games?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really.

[Red_Diamond]

I liked the explanations in this chapter, etc. But I really would like to see tables that take into effect the rake. When we are making such a big deal about 1 & 2 dollar blinds and tiny edges, that 5% (online) or 10% + tips (B&M) really means a big deal. In fact, it throws the whole tables out of whack, but I guess we can always adjust to it ourselves.

Anyone know anywhere I can grab the adjusted charts, or shall I calculate out my own?

[wallenborn]

Interesting question. I haven't seen rake-adjusted numbers anywhere yet. Would the numbers change at all?

Say, the S-C number for a hand is 50M (i'm using M instead of $ and i'm using M as a unit, because i find the original definition with the hypothetical $1-$2 blind game really cumbersome), and the rake is always 5%, no cap.

Then if you play a series of pots (edit: keeping your hand the same of course), and reload/rathole your stack to 50M before every hand, you'll break even. That is, modulo rake, for every 50M won by you in blinds and suckouts there's 50M won by your opponent by stacking you with a better hand. If you factor in the rake, you pay 5% of it, or 2.5M, and your opponent pays the same on his winnings. As a result, you both end up with 47.5M after rake, and the breakeven point doesn't move.

If the rake is capped, say at 1M, things are different, of course.

[Red_Diamond]

I would imagine the numbers have to change.

I push all in with AKs. Opponent has 22 and according to theory, he needs to call as he gets 50.1% equity. And there is the blinds overlay.

Now we add in our 10% B&M rake. OUCH. Suddenly he can't call anymore. Yes, he knows he is the favourite, but by calling he hurts both YOU and himself just too much. The proper decision is now to fold to save EV. This is the detrimental power of the RAKE.

Logic now states, at a table with RAKE you can push with a slightly higher stack size than listed in the original S-C calculations.

Assuming your opponent is sane and knows what is going on.

[Red_Diamond]

I decided to take a deeper look, and I have run into a little problem. His example equation on p. 216 has me puzzled again. Perhaps there's another math screw up in the book not sure.

I ran over the numbers 3 times and according to the equation listed I just can't derive 332. I think it is rather obvious that the book also has an extra inserted bracket in the first equation line. Whether it was an added typo, or we are missing other elements I am not sure as It's getting rather late here. But something may be off here again, or I just can't do simple math anymore.

I'll put it to rest for now, maybe someone else can confirm this for me.

[Red_Diamond]

Alright, took a break, rubbed my eyes & came back. Fixed a little issue and came close to the value pretty much. Sure there are some rounding issues but that's expected.

[kitaristi0]

The S-C rankings are very important when shortstacking or playing against a shortstack. With 100BB stacks they really aren't that applicable.