Old wine in new skins - Sklansky Bucks

  • NL BSS
  • NL BSS
(8 Votes) 7608


Free membership

Join now


Tackleberry examines old concepts and checked whether they still apply today or if they are outdated. Today it checks, among other things also the Sklansky Bucks concept.


g-bucks Sklansky Sklansky dollars tackleberry Theory Video

Comments (13)

newest first
  • LemOn36


    I guess that's why G bucks was adapted to hand vs his full range , I always thought that was it, making Galfond a revolutionary :O
  • LemOn36


    Great video by the way, thanks - I'll check out the others. My brain's really slow by the way, there probably aren't many old 28y olds like me, but maybe you could talk a bit slower for us pensioners so we can process the information - packed content on first try :)
  • Xopek92


    first try :)
  • Xopek92


    I guess that's why G bucks was adapted to hand vs his full range , I always thought that was it, making Galfond a revolutionary :O
  • qstreb54


  • Bura93


    OMG !!! What's a video!!!
  • SniffvsSnaf


    lol I saw the title and thougt of drunken skineheads... - where are they???
  • mongio88ok


  • aspenrovero


    very good
  • StormLorD112


    Good structure video, interesting. I doubt that it is possible to perform real time calculations of EV of shoving taking into account all range of villain.
  • twinskat


    my guess about "Sklansky bucks" being flawed as a deduction from the theorem of poker is that SK$ came about as a short hand version to describe a particular part of the theorem, the "All In EV" spot.

    Since the Theorem does not address SK$ at all, we should be careful about asserting something so specific about something so broad.

    For instance, your example of AA vs an OESD, it never considers the stack depth. It also, as others have pointed out, does not address the range issues that Galfond does.

    Since we do not know how the AA will play the river, if the hero hits the straight, it is quite possible that all of the possible lines of play on the river will add up to make the negative EV (based solely on immediate pot odds, not implied odds) a winning play overall. (who better to hit an OESD against than an OMC hoding AA- in many low stakes situations)

  • twinskat


    one thing that always made me wonder about the 'value' of Theorem of Poker in general was, it never cared about good play. Only the exact cards dealt out to whatever player were considered. Poker is an imperfect information game, and assigning a "perfect information" theorem to it seemed counter intuitive to me.

    Do any of us really think we are making a mistake folding 82o in the BB vs a SB shove ? Even if the SB turns up 72o?

    it seemed more like a logic exercise leading to nowhere, whereas Galfond bucks makes extreme sense to me :)

  • ConteCaly


    wonderful video... you're the nr1 !!!