David Sklansky vs Action Dan Harrington

[KnightEnder]

Having read "Harrington on Hold'em: Volume II The Endgame" and "Tournament Poker for Advanced Players" by Sklansky cover to cover and back again, I came up with a perplexing question: Who's advice to follow?

Action Dan whom we all know to be a tight solid great player advocates a more 'go for broke' style of play than the analytical Sklansky. On page 302 Harrington titles the page "Win the Hand or Play for the Prize Money". He then goes on to say: "My quick answer is--play to win. In practice this means to make the "best" play with the idea of maximizing your equity in the hand, and let your final placing in the tournament take care or itself."

This is is in direct contradiction to Sklansky's advice throughout his book in which he advocates folding "coin flip hands" (assuming you are one of the better players in the tournament), and allowing your superior play to get you "into the money". He even makes the case, and makes it well, that there are times when one should fold pocket Aces before the Flop! He says on page 78: "In the long run, they (players that play only to win the whole tournament) will make slightly less than those who look only at their EV, and they will much more often get the "booby prize" of coming in one out of the money."

The perplexing reality is that they are both right! Depending on your goal of course; maximizing your profit, or winning the tournament. I suppose the fact that two such accomplished players and authors should have differing opinions on this crucial strategy, (Especially strange IMO that Action Dan is the advocate of the "Go for Broke" philosophy! It's not like we're talking about Gus Hansen here!) is what makes Poker, and particularly Texas Hold'em, so fascinating and exhilarating to play!

Both are superb books and IMHO (and in the opinion of many great players) essential to anyone that aspires to be a successful tournament Hold'em player, written by two of the best in the game. But...

who's advice would you follow?

KE

[KnightEnder]

For those of you who favor Sklansky's style of play; could you really lay down KK or even AKs on the button if someone has opened for a raise under the gun?

[GoAheadRiverMe]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who favor Sklansky's style of play; could you really lay down KK or even AKs on the button if someone has opened for a raise under the gun?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depending on how big the initial raise was and how many have called that raise I have and could lay down AK while on the button. KK on the other hand I don't know, I'd probably call it no matter what. While laying down AK may seem diciplined, I'm not that diciplined to lay down KK on the button to anything pre-flop.

[PJS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who favor Sklansky's style of play; could you really lay down KK or even AKs on the button if someone has opened for a raise under the gun?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depending on how big the initial raise was and how many have called that raise I have and could lay down AK while on the button. KK on the other hand I don't know, I'd probably call it no matter what. While laying down AK may seem diciplined, I'm not that diciplined to lay down KK on the button to anything pre-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I've put AK down in a few situations, but never KK. I think in order to put that hand down, you have to be an exceptional player that can make up for it in many other departments of the game. I don't happen to be one of these players [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[rakemeplz]

When playing online MTTs I play for the glory, in live 10k plus events I play for the sklansky bucks.

[holdemft]

You can follow both of their advice. I've read both Authors, and I think they both make great points in their books. I don't agree with everything both say, alot of it is style dependent. I think you can learn alot from both authors though, I know I have.

[PhatPots]

I haven't read Sklansky, but I say Harrington is better based on what I have read about Sklansky (he is waaaay to tight).

Harrington is a little tight and a little more passive than I am, but I love his approach to the game. One thing Phil Hellmuth says in his book which numerous authors agree with, is that you should be playing the tournament to win because the top 3 make all the money. Dan Harrington talks about maximizing expected value (it leads to the same conclusion, similar to the concept of playing for 1st place)

Just getting into the money is useless. Think about it, you play in the WSOP 8,000+ ppl, first prize is 12 million. You can finish out of the money 99 times, and finish first once and be ahead than if you finish slightly in the money everytime.

[whiskeytown]

There's only one way to settle this -