Starting Hand Selection:Chen Formula : Sklansky Starting Hand Groups
The Sklansky & Malmuth starting hands table.
Sklansky and Malmuth have both spent many years writing about the finer points of poker, blackjack, and other beatable games. This book, however, was written for the not-quite-as-experienced aspiring gambler. It shows you everything you need to learn and do if you want to gamble for a living both from the practical and the technical standpoint. Authors Ed Miller, David Sklansky, and Mason Malmuth. Find out how to qualify for this book in the Two Plus Two poker bonus program. Synopsis of Small Stakes Hold'em: Winning Big with Expert Play. For today's poker players, Texas hold 'em is the game. Every day, tens of thousands of small stakes hold 'em games are played all over the world in. Synopsis of Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players, 21st Century Edition by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth Texas Hold 'em is not an easy game to play well. To become an expert you need to be able to balance many concepts, some. Gambling Theory and Other Topics: Malmuth, Mason, Sklansky, David: 037: Books - Amazon.ca.
Group | Hands |
---|---|
1 | AA, AKs, KK, QQ, JJ |
2 | AK, AQs, AJs, KQs, TT |
3 | AQ, ATs, KJs, QJs, JTs, 99 |
4 | AJ, KQ, KTs, QTs, J9s, T9s, 98s, 88 |
5 | A9s - A2s, KJ, QJ, JT, Q9s, T8s, 97s, 87s, 77, 76s, 66 |
6 | AT, KT, QT, J8s, 86s, 75s, 65s, 55, 54s |
7 | K9s - K2s, J9, T9, 98, 64s, 53s, 44, 43s, 33, 22 |
8 | A9, K9, Q9, J8, J7s, T8, 96s, 87, 85s, 76, 74s, 65, 54, 42s, 32s |
9 | All other hands not required above. |
This table comes from the book Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth.
This is a strategy book for limit Hold'em, but the starting hand groups do have some practical use in no limit Hold'em.
What is the Sklansky and Malmuth starting hands table?
The table is a general ranking of hands in Texas Hold'em.
Sklansky And Malmuth Starting Hands
The Sklansky and Malmuth starting hands table groups together certain hands in Texas Hold'em based on their strength. Starting with the strongest set of hands that you can be dealt in group 1, the hands get progressively weaker working down the table until the virtually unplayable hands in group 9.
Sklansky Malmuth Hand Groups
The rough idea is that a hand in one group has roughly the same value and can be played the same way preflop as any other hand in that group.
How to use the starting hands table.
In their book, Sklansky and Malmuth provide some in-depth guidelines for starting hand strategy in limit Texas Hold'em using this table. Unfortunately, I'm not going to work out any guidelines for you for the NL Hold'em game using this table because:
- It would be quite a tricky job.
- It would be difficult to remember and implement.
- Like any starting hand strategy, it would have its flaws.
- You should avoid using strict guidelines and set rules as much as possible during play.
So really there is not a lot to take away from this table from a purely strategic perspective. Nonetheless it's interesting to see how specific starting hands compare to one another based on their preflop value.
If you're really after a starting hand strategy guideline, try the Chen Formula.
Sklansky and Malmuth hand rankings evaluation.
Although it's a very popular hand group rankings table, it's not going to do you too much good to learn the whole thing off by heart. In my opinion, the real value of this table is being able to see how different starting hands can be grouped together and ranked based on their value before the flop.
For other useful charts and tables, see the odds charts page from the Texas Hold'em tools section.
Go back to the awesome Texas Hold'em Strategy.
Comments
Phil --Thanks for the comments.
You have made me understand that since I lack 'people skills' in
poker, I should work hard on that part of my game, rather than just
sticking with the mechanical strategy I use now.
poker, I should work hard on that part of my game, rather than just
sticking with the mechanical strategy I use now.
And I guess I should reconsider the two job offers in excess of
$400,00 a year I turned down in the last six months. That way I could
buy another even bigger house and you might reevaluate my poker
skills.
$400,00 a year I turned down in the last six months. That way I could
buy another even bigger house and you might reevaluate my poker
skills.
I haven't heard from you since our misunderstanding last year when you
left a message on my wife's answering machine threatening to expose me
as unethical for stealing your idea for a world championship
tournament online.
left a message on my wife's answering machine threatening to expose me
as unethical for stealing your idea for a world championship
tournament online.
As I told you then, apologetically, hard as it is to believe, the
management of Planet Poker, thinking independently and having already
held tournaments and serving the world poker community, came up with
the idea of a world championship on their own in what is admittedly
one of the weirdest coincidences I can remember.
management of Planet Poker, thinking independently and having already
held tournaments and serving the world poker community, came up with
the idea of a world championship on their own in what is admittedly
one of the weirdest coincidences I can remember.
Sklansky Malmuth
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Mike Caro
And since On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 17:32:56 GMT, pokerphil
<[email protected]> wrote:
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Dsklansky wrote:
>
>> > I was simply reffering to your initial statement, which was a
>> >decathalon of games in an 8-handed game. I'm sure all five of those
>> >players have a weak link that you could exploit. So no, I'm saying the
>> >first statement.
>> >Daniel Negreanu
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You are definitely wrong, although it may only be because of a technicality. We
>> are not talking HORSE here. I said a DECATHALON. Thus you would have to add
>> draw high, draw low, hi-lo no qualifier, and two others such as pineapple,
>> deuces wild, six card stud, hi-lo declare, or other such odd games. Given a
>> full table, reasonable ante, fixed limit game, only Chip Reese would have a
>> chance of outperforming me in such a game. We assume of course that the stakes
>> are low enough that I wasn't trying to reduce fluctuations- something that
>> causes you to underrate me in general. But what I am saying is the God's
>> honest, cut Mike Caro's dick off if I'm lying, truth.
>
> Daniel, you have done a superb job of making an important point that most of
>RGP doesn't seem to fully understand. For the real pros on tour and those who play
>in the biggest games in the world consistently (of which I do, but admittedly my
>results haven't been very good the last year or TWO), we rarely if ever see Mike
>Caro or David Skalansky playing with us. Which begets the question, why? Most of
>the pros that you have listed in your posts live in huge houses and drive expensive
>cars (the fruits of being a great poker player today). I don't honestly know what
>kind of house or car David and Mike drive (yes, money is a one measure of poker
>success), but based on the poker 'real world results' I have seen...well...I never
>see them play, so I really don't think that they have won all that much money
>actually 'playing poker.' Most of the pros that you have listed would have an edge
>against David or Mike in the long run. Your reasoning seems sound to me, in that
>you believe that Mike and David are great for poker (absolutely) and write
>excellent game theory. However, writing excellent game theory and 'poker skills'
>are two completely different animals. David would like to confine himself to the
>'supertight' startegy that good game theory calls for in most games today. This
>may work against the masses of people out there that play too loose in the poker
>world today. But what makes a player rise to the top in todays game is what I
>would like to call 'situational analysis' or the ability to change your opinion of
>poker hands after the flip of a card (or a new 'street'). How will my opponent bet
>his hand after a new card changes everything (tells)? What do I think he has given
>the way he acted pre-flop, on the flop, on fourth street and on the river (the big
>picture using tells, tendencies, moods, tilt considerations and 'other' info that
>great players pick up on)? How does his current 'frame of mind' or current style
>influence what he is likely to be playing at this exact moment in time? Poker is a
>game of people a lot more then it is a game of theory, that is why we are seeing
>people like Eli (with the wife) winning all of the money lately. Eli makes great
>laydowns and understands people (the way they think and act). I would guess that
>most of the great players know what David knows when it comes to game theory in the
>big five poker games or HORSE. It really isn't all that complicated, but the great
>players also know people and thats what distinguishes them from David and Mike.
>
> For the record, the advantage that the great players have over David is by
>definition, small, since David is capable of playing perfect poker (or close enough
>anyway) against a computer. I know a lot less about Mike Caros game, since after
>playing poker professionally and being on the tour for 14 years, I have only played
>with him three times. Assuming that David plays better then Mike (since after all,
>David is known to play in the bigger games in Vegas), then of course the greatest
>players would have an even bigger edge against Mike. Assuming that Mike plays
>better then David, then Mike would be a very small underdog against the top twenty
>or so players in the world.
>
> Interestingly, if David or Mike thinks they have an edge over the greatest
>players around, then they can just go to the Bellagio and play in the $600-$1200
>games for a couple of months and we will see. I'm betting that they will be
>surprised to find out that writing about great play is a lot different then
>implementing great play. I'm betting that they will find out why the great players
>are great and it will have a lot to do with 'people skills.'
>
> Another way to prove that they are great players is through poker tournaments.
>I don't remember either one of them winning a poker tournament since I have been
>around poker. Although, admittedly they sure don't play in very many events.
>Which again begets the question, why not? The great players have been winning a
>lot of money playing poker tournaments every year. However, I admit that both
>David and Mike are great for poker and write beautiful poker theory. But if they
>want to talk about how great they are at 'playing' poker on RGP, then they will
>open themselves up to have the truth of the matter examined.
>
>Dsklansky wrote:
>
>> > I was simply reffering to your initial statement, which was a
>> >decathalon of games in an 8-handed game. I'm sure all five of those
>> >players have a weak link that you could exploit. So no, I'm saying the
>> >first statement.
>> >Daniel Negreanu
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You are definitely wrong, although it may only be because of a technicality. We
>> are not talking HORSE here. I said a DECATHALON. Thus you would have to add
>> draw high, draw low, hi-lo no qualifier, and two others such as pineapple,
>> deuces wild, six card stud, hi-lo declare, or other such odd games. Given a
>> full table, reasonable ante, fixed limit game, only Chip Reese would have a
>> chance of outperforming me in such a game. We assume of course that the stakes
>> are low enough that I wasn't trying to reduce fluctuations- something that
>> causes you to underrate me in general. But what I am saying is the God's
>> honest, cut Mike Caro's dick off if I'm lying, truth.
>
> Daniel, you have done a superb job of making an important point that most of
>RGP doesn't seem to fully understand. For the real pros on tour and those who play
>in the biggest games in the world consistently (of which I do, but admittedly my
>results haven't been very good the last year or TWO), we rarely if ever see Mike
>Caro or David Skalansky playing with us. Which begets the question, why? Most of
>the pros that you have listed in your posts live in huge houses and drive expensive
>cars (the fruits of being a great poker player today). I don't honestly know what
>kind of house or car David and Mike drive (yes, money is a one measure of poker
>success), but based on the poker 'real world results' I have seen...well...I never
>see them play, so I really don't think that they have won all that much money
>actually 'playing poker.' Most of the pros that you have listed would have an edge
>against David or Mike in the long run. Your reasoning seems sound to me, in that
>you believe that Mike and David are great for poker (absolutely) and write
>excellent game theory. However, writing excellent game theory and 'poker skills'
>are two completely different animals. David would like to confine himself to the
>'supertight' startegy that good game theory calls for in most games today. This
>may work against the masses of people out there that play too loose in the poker
>world today. But what makes a player rise to the top in todays game is what I
>would like to call 'situational analysis' or the ability to change your opinion of
>poker hands after the flip of a card (or a new 'street'). How will my opponent bet
>his hand after a new card changes everything (tells)? What do I think he has given
>the way he acted pre-flop, on the flop, on fourth street and on the river (the big
>picture using tells, tendencies, moods, tilt considerations and 'other' info that
>great players pick up on)? How does his current 'frame of mind' or current style
>influence what he is likely to be playing at this exact moment in time? Poker is a
>game of people a lot more then it is a game of theory, that is why we are seeing
>people like Eli (with the wife) winning all of the money lately. Eli makes great
>laydowns and understands people (the way they think and act). I would guess that
>most of the great players know what David knows when it comes to game theory in the
>big five poker games or HORSE. It really isn't all that complicated, but the great
>players also know people and thats what distinguishes them from David and Mike.
>
> For the record, the advantage that the great players have over David is by
>definition, small, since David is capable of playing perfect poker (or close enough
>anyway) against a computer. I know a lot less about Mike Caros game, since after
>playing poker professionally and being on the tour for 14 years, I have only played
>with him three times. Assuming that David plays better then Mike (since after all,
>David is known to play in the bigger games in Vegas), then of course the greatest
>players would have an even bigger edge against Mike. Assuming that Mike plays
>better then David, then Mike would be a very small underdog against the top twenty
>or so players in the world.
>
> Interestingly, if David or Mike thinks they have an edge over the greatest
>players around, then they can just go to the Bellagio and play in the $600-$1200
>games for a couple of months and we will see. I'm betting that they will be
>surprised to find out that writing about great play is a lot different then
>implementing great play. I'm betting that they will find out why the great players
>are great and it will have a lot to do with 'people skills.'
>
> Another way to prove that they are great players is through poker tournaments.
>I don't remember either one of them winning a poker tournament since I have been
>around poker. Although, admittedly they sure don't play in very many events.
>Which again begets the question, why not? The great players have been winning a
>lot of money playing poker tournaments every year. However, I admit that both
>David and Mike are great for poker and write beautiful poker theory. But if they
>want to talk about how great they are at 'playing' poker on RGP, then they will
>open themselves up to have the truth of the matter examined.