A nice mental model in poker is to measure your profits in “Sklansky dollars” instead of real dollars. A Sklansky dollar is the expected value from a play if you knew what every other player held.
Show this thread
-
In poker wouldn't you expect some of your better plays to violate this principle, since you'll be bluffing or playing aspects other than the exact cards?
If you bluff and your opponent folds, you win the entire pot with certainty (so your Sklansky profit equals your real profit) whereas if you bluff and they call you, your Sklansky profit is negative. The only randomness that Sklansky dollars remove is from the cards.
-
-
Wait I'm confused. I thought the sklanksy profit didn't shift with the actual outcome ... So if you bluff the sklanksy profit will be negative even though your real profit might be positive, which is the game.
-
Sklanksy tells you the EV maximising move re the cards if opponent goes all in, as I understand it. And bluffing isn't rational according to the cards, which was my confusion. If everyone plays their cards then the game's not the same.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think that gets complex after cards are dealt (sequential decisions, folded hands you'll never know could have been better/worse, etc.). I've wondered about normalizing profits based on starting hands (which would also be normalized by position).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.