Sklan starting hand chart. Useful and incomprehensible poker theorems. Pushing is not always necessary

Let's imagine a situation: you are playing in a tournament, but after a series of bad hands, the game clearly does not suit you, and your stack is rapidly depleting, while the blinds continue to grow! And here you are sitting in the position of the small blind, you have a marginal card, which you can throw out, or you can try to play, but all the players before you folded their cards. What to do? Push all-in or fold? And if you put all the chips, then on which cards can this be done? To answer these questions, there is the Sklansky-Chubukov table ...

It was developed by two professionals in their field - one of the best poker analysts David Sklansky and a leading mathematician at the University of Wisconsin Andrey Chubukov. Together they came up with a set of numbers that show which cards to shove all-in from the small blind, and this decision will be profitable for us even if the opponent plays optimally.

At the same time, Sklansky-Chubukov numbers work even if our opponent in the big blind knows our cards for sure! Even in this case, this strategy will still be profitable, since our gain in blinds if our opponent folds will be higher than our loss if he calls us with a stronger hand.

In addition, going all-in from the small blind is good for two additional reasons:

1. First of all, there will be only one player behind us who has already posted the big blind without even seeing his cards. Accordingly, it is highly likely that he will have “junk hands” in his hands that he will not want to play, preferring to throw them into a pass.
2. Secondly, even if he has marginal hands, if he has a sufficient stack in the later stages of the tournament, the player is unlikely to want to risk it, and therefore can also fold. That way, even if we don't get called back to our all-in, we'll still be in the black as we win back his big blind.

Below is a Sklansky-Chubukov table showing which stacks (in the big blinds) and which cards can move all-in. However, you should not blindly follow this table, exposing each time on the stack that we will have. Let's take pocket aces as an example - A-A. According to the table, we can push them all-in with almost any stack. However, if we push all-in with a big enough stack, we will most likely just take the big blind, while raising or 3-betting will allow us to get much more chips from our opponent.

Therefore, you should try to play each card in poker as profitably as possible, taking into account the size of your stack, the level of play of your opponents, your position at the table, and the stage of the tournament as a whole.

Any decision in poker you have to make based not only on the strength of your cards, but also on the style of play of your opponents sitting behind you. Although, of course, on some cards it is much more preferable to immediately push all-in than to try to play them in the hand, especially with a small stack. So, for example, if you go to the flop with a medium or small pair, then most likely you will see an overcard on the table, after which it will be quite difficult to understand whether one of your opponents hit the board or not. The same goes for weak aces, which are quite difficult to play.

However, please note that the Sklansky-Chubukov table is designed exclusively for the small blind position, and only for those cases when all opponents have folded before you. If at least one limper has entered the hand, then it is no longer possible to use it. In this case, you can use, for example, to determine your further actions in the hand.

Material from the site, the free encyclopedia of poker.

Sklansky-Chubukov numbers(English) Sklansky-Chubukov numbers) for a Texas Hold'em hand is the stack size at which an all-in move would be profitable even if the big blind is playing optimally.

The concept of these numbers was introduced as a result of a joint study by one of the greatest poker theorists David Sklansky and professor of mathematics at the University of Wisconsin Andrey Chubukov. The results of their calculations were summarized in a chart table (see).

Calculation of Sklansky-Chubukov numbers

To understand the concept of Sklansky-Chubukov numbers, let's start with a blind war situation where we are in the SB and all the players before us have folded their hands. Suppose we have only two solutions: fold or all-in. Our task is to calculate the optimal range of hands with which, regardless of the opponent's subsequent actions, our push will be profitable, even if the opponent's actions are optimal. To do this, we need to use a slightly abstract situation: being in the SB, we open our cards to the opponent and go all-in. Now he, having an accurate idea of ​​our hand, can absolutely accurately calculate a plus solution for himself. Obviously, if the equity of his hand against ours is more than 50%, he will accept our all-in, if less, he will fold, giving us the blinds.

Take, for example, the hand AKo. So, we shove from the SB and our task is to calculate the optimal size of our stack, in which the profit from winning the blinds in the event of an opponent's fold will be greater than the loss in case of a call with a stronger hand.

There are a total of 1225 hands (including suits) that an opponent can have. He will call our raise with hands whose equity against ours is greater than or equal to 50% (such hands are 22+, AKs, AKo) - a total of 79 hands (including suits). That is, 1225 - 79 = 1146 hands will give us the blinds. Against the hands we were called with, we have 43.487% equity. So, for equity > 0 we have:

1146/1225 * 1.5 + 79/1225 * (ST*0.43487-ST*0.56513) > 0 where ST is our stack size.

Having performed the necessary calculations, we obtain that ST< 165.943592. То есть, если у нас в стеке менее 165 блайндов, то наш пуш с AKo из SB будет иметь положительное матожидание, независимо от последующих, даже оптимальных, действий оппонента.

Application of Sklansky-Chubukov numbers

These numbers have become especially important for players playing with the Small Stack Strategy, as they allowed them to make profitable pre-flop shoves and thereby increase the profitability of their game. Preflop shoving using Sklansky-Chubukov numbers is called Push Sklansky-Chubukov. It can be used especially effectively against aggressive players in the blind positions.

Expanding the scope

Although the chart was calculated for the position of the small blind, it can be upgraded and expanded to any desired position. Mathematical calculations have shown that to apply the chart for positions other than SB, it is necessary to divide all the numbers presented in the chart by (N + 1), where N is the number of positions from SB to the position in question. So, for example, for the Cutoff (CO) position, all chart numbers should be divided by 3.

Our site.

essence Push Sklansky-Chubukov lies in the fact that under certain conditions (small stack and a suitable card), after the fold of all the players before us, it is profitable to go all-in (and most often to take the blinds) regardless of the actions of opponents behind us (even if they know our maps). In this case, if one of the players behind us has the best card, he will call, and we will have some equity in the resulting pot (although they will call us with a stronger hand). But if the players behind us do not have a stronger hand, then we will take the blinds. And this will happen often enough to make up for possible losses in the response of opponents. Such preflop pushes are called Sklansky-Chubukov pushes after the names of the authors of the idea.

Sklansky-Chubukov numbers

Idea and definition Sklansky-Chubukov numbers were formulated by famous player and poker writer David Sklansky in the book "No Limit Holdem in Theory and Practice" (David Sklansky and ).

Let's say we're in the small blind with a fairly strong hand and everyone before us has folded. Let's also assume that the big blind knows our cards (but we don't know his cards). It makes no sense for us to raise, because our opponent, knowing our cards, will always outplay us post-flop. So we can either fold or go all-in. Obviously, the opponent behind us will play optimally - he will answer us with a stronger hand or fold the weaker one. Our decision in this case will depend on the size of the stack - with a large stack, we will have to fold most of the hands, since we will lose too much when our opponent calls. With a small stack, we can go all-in, since the size of the loss on loss will be small, and will pay off in those cases when we take the blinds.

Sklansky-Chubukov numbers determine for each hand the stack size (in big blinds) with which it is profitable for us to go all-in. On the next page you can see the Sklansky-Chubukov numbers for all hands. The Sklansky-Chubukov numbers make it possible to calculate the expediency of pushing Sklansky-Chubukov - if the stack is less than the number specified in the table for a given hand, then the push will be profitable.

So, if we are in the SB, all the players before us have folded, and if our stack is less than indicated in the table, then it is profitable for us to go all-in regardless of the actions of the opponent in the BB, even if he knows our cards and acts in the best way.

The Sklansky-Chubukov numbers are calculated only for the SB position, but for earlier positions it is possible to determine them with sufficient accuracy for practical calculations by dividing the original number by the number of players behind us. Therefore, if we are not in SB, but in BTN, then the numbers must be divided by 2. For the CO position - by 3.

Putting this into a table, we get the following ranges of hands for pushing Sklansky-Chubukov (as always, best hands implied, "+" signs omitted):

Hand ranges for Sklansky-Chubukov shoves

For your particular stack size, use the row in the table with a stack larger than yours (for example, with a stack of 17BB, use the row for 20BB).

In the classical calculation of Sklansky-Chubukov numbers, two points are not taken into account:

1. If all the players folded before us, then they don’t have much good map, which means that the probability of a good card from the players behind us increases, especially for long tables.
2. Rake - it will take some of the equity in cases where our push was called and we won.

However, the influence of these factors is not very significant, and is more than compensated in practice by the fact that the opponents behind us do not know our cards and cannot play optimally.

Therefore, for practical purposes, Sklansky-Chubukov's shoving ranges can even be slightly expanded, adding, for example, suited connectors and a few more suited kings and queens.

The practice of using Sklansky-Chubukov pushes

From what has been said above, it is clear that those given in in any case should not be discarded - they are too strong for the corresponding conditions. However, the profitability of shoving these hands doesn't mean they can't be played even better. For example, with a pair of aces, if you immediately go all-in, you will most likely get only the blinds, and by raising 3BB, you can get and win a stack. Therefore, it's wise to choose the portion of hands from this range that you can normally steal-raise with (especially if you've already learned how to play well post-flop). At the same time, this will be an additional guideline for hand ranges for .

The decision to go all-in or raise should be based on the post-flop playability of the hand and the nature of the opponents behind you. For example, with a small to medium pair, you will almost always see overcards on the flop, and it will be difficult to know if you are ahead or behind - you can play them more often. Weak aces can also be difficult to play with. But suited connectors are very easy to play by chance, and you can make a regular raise with them. With premium hands, of course, a regular raise is also preferable.

Response to push notifications by Sklansky-Chubukov

Answer to Push Sklansky-Chubukov theoretically possible on the same spectra on which they occur. However, the problem is that you can hardly be sure that the opponent goes all-in on these ranges of hands. Therefore, we recommend calling more tight by narrowing the ranges by about a third (and adapting them to specific opponents).

When playing poker, there are situations when it is better to go all-in than to call the opponent's previous bet. Especially such a move becomes relevant when the ratio of the stack size to the size of the BB is too small. After all, it is simply unprofitable to call a bet here to see the flop. After all, most often the player does not get into it. This is why, with such tactics of the game, the short stack is consumed much faster than the poker player gains desired cards on the fold, so it's better to go all-in or fold here.

But not every player knows when is the best time to fold or go all-in. Sklansky-Chubukov table designed for just such situations. Thanks to it, you will be able to understand what is the best move to make according to the push-fold tactics. Note that this strategy is also used in cases where a player wants to take over the blinds of opponents. If you have a good card and go all-in, you will have excellent chances to take mandatory rates. But if someone calls your bet, then you still have the opportunity to take the pot due to the presence of a stronger hand.

Push-fold tactics give good results in the long run. That's why all successful players resort to it.

Sklansky-Chubukov numbers

First of all, we will voice the idea on the basis of which such a table was compiled. It is best understood with a concrete example. The player's position is the small blind, while he has good hand. All opponents have discarded cards before you, the move is only yours. If a poker player in the BB guesses the strength of your hand, he will call a small raise in order to see the flop, since he has already put money in the pot.

But here it is important to avoid a counterbet. That's why when you have a good hand, you go all-in. On such a move, the opponent will only call if he has a strong enough hand, otherwise he will simply fold his cards.

The decision to move all-in from the position of the small blind should be based on the size of the stack. The smaller it is, the wider the range of pocket cards that can be played. If the stack is relatively large, then it is not profitable to go to the flop with all hands. In some cases, you should fold. After all, with an all-in, the losses will be significant. Whereas if you lose a small stack, you will be able to cover the losses by stealing the blinds more often.

The Sklansky-Chubukov table gives you an idea of ​​what stack is best to go all-in with a given hand. If its size turns out to be less than the number that corresponds to your hole cards, then the push will do it right. Conversely, if the stack size exceeds the specified value, then it is better to resort to folding, otherwise you may face serious losses. It is unlikely that you will be able to win them back due to the steal of the blinds.

notice, that the Sklansky-Chubukov table includes calculations that are relevant for the small blind position. But you can also rely on them when making moves from other positions. The Sklansky-Chubukov table looks like this:

To get an idea of ​​the appropriate move, you need to look at the line that indicates the amount of the stack above yours. So, if you have 13 BB chips at your disposal, then look at the next line - 15 BB.

But note that the Sklansky-Chubukov table does not take into account two key parameters that play a role in the decision to push. Firstly, if poker players have thrown all their hands before you, then the probability of opponents having cards after you is very high. Secondly, when playing in poker rooms, part of the pot will be held in the form of rake, which will reduce your profit from successful hands.

The hands from the presented table have good strength. That's why it's worth playing them anyway. But remember that pushing is not always the best solution. After all, in the presence of a monster hand, an all-in move will only scare away your opponents. As a result, all of them will go into a pass and the pot will be a meager amount. In this case, a small raise of 3-4BB is relevant, then you will increase the pot and be able to win a hefty amount.

When the average came preflop or small couple, then push is the most relevant option here. Indeed, in most cases, at least one overcard comes postflop, it gives a potential advantage over rivals. With higher pairs and suited connectors, it's better to raise.

Also, do not forget to pay attention to the style of play of your opponents. So, if behind you is a tight opponent, then limit yourself to raising. After all, if there is a bad hand, he will go to the pass. If, in this scenario, you push, then the player, if he has a good hand, will simply call your bet, as a result, you will seriously lose. If a loose opponent makes a move after you, then you can go all-in, then only with cards of a narrower range than indicated in the table:

The Sklansky-Chubukov table has another drawback - a possible increase in the variance of the results. You can steal the blinds for a long time thanks to pushing, but due to the loss of a couple of stacks, you can fall into tilt. But in the long run, this tactic will give good results.

You are the small blind in a $l-$2 game. All pass before you. You

But you accidentally turn over your cards and your opponent notices them (assuming your hand doesn't become dead in this case). Unfortunately your opponent good counter, which is thoroughly and unmistakably determined the best strategy games for yourself now that knows your hand. After your small blind is revealed, you have $X in your stack. You decide that you will either go all-in or fold. What is the best $X yield to go all-in for when to fold? Clearly, with a low $X yield, you're better off just going all-in and hoping your counter opponent doesn't have a pocket pair. Most of the time, he really won't have it and you'll win $3. Otherwise, you will be a loser, but this will happen only in a small percentage of cases. As a general rule, your opponent has a 16 to 1 chance of holding a pocket pair. So with a stack of 16 x $3 = $48, going all-in would mean an immediate win. Since you win 16 out of 17 times, you can lose 100% if you get called and still make a small profit. And you won't lose less than 100% of the time (after all, only the draw will determine whether it's a queen or a deuce). But with a very high $X return, you won't win $3 enough to be able to fend off an opponent's attack when he's lucky enough to get a pair (aces or kings). For example, if you have $10,000, going all-in is a stupid move. Every time your opponent has pocket aces and kings, he has a huge advantage. You won't be able to win enough blinds to compensate. In this case, the question arises, where is the break-even level for the value of $X? If your stack is below this value, you should go all-in. If higher, you must pass. Once you have played A K♦, there are 50 more cards left in the deck. This gives your opponent 1,225 possible hand combinations:

Since the counter knows your assets, it will never respond to you without an advantage. 40

______________________________________________

40 Strictly speaking, he will not answer if it gives him a negative expectation. Although, if the pot gives the odds of getting the blind's money, he'll call, even if it makes him a slight loser. After you go all-in for $X, the pot will give odds ($X+$3) to ($X-l). For a real return of $X for A K♦ (we'll calculate it shortly), the counter could win only 49.7% of the time, he would still call. As it turns out, there are no range hands that offer 49.7 and 50% odds against ace-king. The closest hand is 49.6%.

Every unpaired hand except the other ace and king is an outsider, so the counter folds all hands. In addition, of the nine remaining ace-king combinations, two of them are outsiders in relation to your hands: A♠K and A♣K . Your hand can beat these hands with a flush of hearts or diamonds, but these hands can beat you with a flush of spades or a flush of clubs. K under your A is a serious handicap. Seven combinations of ace-king will call your all-in raise, and this is for unpaired hands. Every pocket pair will also call. Your opponent can play pocket aces or kings with three different ways, and six different variations for ladies and deuces. So there are 72 pocket pairs in total.

72 = (3)(2) + (6)(11)

79 hands out of a possible 1, 225 will call you if you go all-in with ace-king. If they answer you, you will win 43.3% of the time. This value is close to 50%, because in most cases, when you get an answer, it will be a heads-tails situation. The only time you'll be a loser is when you're up against pocket aces or kings.

To find the value of $X , we'll write the EV formula for all-in, then set it to zero and untie for X. You'll get 6. 45% of the time (79/1, 225), which means the counter will fold the other 93.55% . When the counter passes, you win $3. When he calls, you win $X + 3 43.3% of the time, and lose $X the other 56.7%. So the formula for EV is:

0 = (0.935)($3) + (0.0645)[(0.433)($X + 3) + (0.567)((-$X)]

0 = 2.81 + 0.079X + 0.0838 - 0.0366X

2.89 = 0.0087X

X = $332

The breakeven level is $332. We call this the Sklansky-Chubukov (S-C) number for A K♦ (or any non-suited ace-king). 41 If your stack is less than $332 in a $l-$2 game, it's better to go all-in, even if your hand was open. If you have $300 and ace-king, you should bet $300 to grab $3 of the blind's money instead of folding. 42

_________________________________________________

41 The numbers are named after David Sklansky, who first stated that calculating these values ​​would help avoid many problems preflop, and Viktor Chubukov, the Berkeley game theorist who calculated the expectation for each hand. Chubukov's calculated returns appear in this book.

42 This provision assumes that you cannot extract any useful information from the passes of other players. In practice, if seven or eight players fold, it is very unlikely that any of them hold an ace. So your opponent in the big blind can have pocket aces with a probability of 3/1.225.

Let's hope this is the perfect solution for you. Very few people's instincts will tell them to go all-in more than 150 times the big blind plays knowing their hands with anything less than a pair of aces or kings. These conclusions are hard to accept because most people don't like the thought of losing their chances. Ask someone to bet $100 to win $1 and you'll be rejected almost 100% of the time, no matter what you bet on. "It doesn't make sense to risk $100 to win a single dollar," is the typical train of thought. But it's worth it, at least for the sake of expectation.

Moreover, in real poker, you try not to show your hand to your opponent. When your opponent doesn't know you have ace-king, it's even better for you, and you can make a profitable all-in with a stack that's even a little more than $332. After all, pocket deuces are favorites against you, but who would call $300 with this hand? In reality, the player could only call you with pocket aces, kings, or queens, and would fold otherwise. Because they save so many profitable hands, you can go all-in with even $332 stacks.

Now, before you get wild, realize that we have only shown that going all-in is better than folding if you have less than $332. We don't say all-in is the best possible game; a smaller raise or even a call may be better than an all-in. But, in any case, it is better not to give in. You can say, "Great, now I know not to fold revealed ace-king in a heads-up game. Thank you, I actually read the book, understood the formulas to find out." But you'll really be glad you know this soon, because this calculation method can be used for any hand, not just ace-king. And the conclusions for some of the hands may surprise you.

The exact definition of the Sklansky-Chubukov number: if you show a hand and a $1 blind, and your only opponent has a $2 blind, what should your stack be (in dollars, not counting your $1 blind) in order to make it more profitable to fold rather than go all-in , assuming your opponent either makes a perfect call or fold.

We list several representative hands and their corresponding Sklansky-Chubukov numbers. Full list hands you can see in the book "Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings," beginning on page 299.

Table 1: Sklansky-Chubukov numbers for selected hands

With some restrictions and adjustments, you can use Sklansky-Chubukov's hand numbers to determine how good a hand you have to shove. You must make some adjustments. Remember S-C numbers calculated on the assumption that your opponent knows your hand and would be ideally able to play against it. This assumption slightly distorts the assessment of the situation that the S-C numbers offer. It's almost impossible for you to s-c wrong (as opposed to folding), but you also can't make a mistake if you go all-in with a significantly larger stack.

How much larger it can be, in any case, depends on how the S-C values ​​are calculated. There are two main types of hands, hard and vulnerable. Solid hands can make profitable calls with a lot of hands, but they won't be really bad against those hands in general. Vulnerable hands may not be called frequently, but when they do, they are significant underdogs. For example, pocket deuces are the prototype of a solid hand. More than 50% of the time, the big blind will have a hand that can make a profitable call against it: 709 out of 1,225 hands (57.9%). But when it is answered, the deuces will win by almost 46.8%, almost 50%.

Offsuit ace - three of a kind - a vulnerable hand. Only 220 out of 1,005 hands can profitably call her (18.0 percent), but if she does, she will only win 35.1% of the time. Both pocket deuces and ace-three offsuit are worth S-C $48. A solid hand, deuces, in some cases, a hand that is better for all-in. That's why your opponent will tend to do more mistakes when you have deuces instead of ace-threes. Let's say you go all-in with $40. Most players will call this raise relatively tight. Even if they know you're all-in with a "weak" hand, they still won't call without a pocket pair or an ace. For example, most players will almost certainly fold T 7 before a $39 raise.

This fold is valid if you have ace-three, but wrong if you have deuces: ten-seven is actually a favorite against pocket deuces. So your opponents tendency to fold too many hands before a big all-in raise will hurt them more when you have a solid hand rather than a vulnerable one.

Suited connectors are also solid hands, and so the strength of their all-ins is greater than the S-C values ​​would suggest. For example, 8 7 has a relatively small S-C value of $11. But it's a very solid hand: it can get called 945 out of 1,225 hands (77%) but will win 42.2% of the time it's called. Because many hands that could have been profitably called are folded instead (J 3 ♣ ), you can make a profitable all-in with seven-eight suited for well over $11.

The script we used to find out the S-C values ​​makes everyone fold to you in the small blind. But you can also use these values ​​when you are on the button. If there are two callers more likely than one, your chances of getting called are doubled. Very roughly, you can halve the value of S-C for a hand, and determine whether it is profitable for you to go all-in from the button.

As you might have guessed, these S-C values ​​are most useful if you are playing a no-limit tournament. Despite their small profitability, they can help you decide whether to go all-in or fold when you have an average hand.

For example, let's say the blinds are $100-$200 and you have $1,300 on the button. Your stack is significantly shorter than average. All pass before you. You see K 8♦. Should you go all-in or fold?

The value of S-C for king-eight offsuit is $30. You're on the button, not in the small blind, so halve the $15. Your $1,300 stack with $100-$200 blinds is equal to $13 stack with $l-$2 blinds. Since your $13 is under $15, you must go all-in.

S-C values ​​tend to underestimate the strength of an all-in hand, so the decision is not as simple as it sounds. Add a $25 ante and it's just an automatic all-in.

Final words

The decision to go all-in should be automatic if you have king-eight offsuit on the button with a stack of 6.5 times the blind. The all-in is automatic and with J♦9♦ (S-C value - $26). Does it surprise you? If so, study the S-C values ​​starting at 164 and test yourself.

Any ace is a potentially strong all-in hand. Ace-eight is worth $71 S-C, and even ace-three is worth $48. They are vulnerable, not firm hands, which is worse. But remember that S-Cs also underestimate vulnerable hands. When everyone folds to you, on or near the button in a tournament, and you have an ace, you'll often go all-in easily, even if your stack is more than ten times the big blind.

The tournament process assumes that these "loose" all-ins are the correct decision; in fact, this value is the main reason why most of them win money in all tournaments. This is the secret that makes the difference between professionals and amateurs in the tournament. Use tables. Starting on page 164, this will help you decide when to go all-in and you will see your tournament results improve very soon.

When to use (and when not)
Sklansky-Chubukov classification

In the last section, we explained what S-C values ​​are and we gave you a basic idea of ​​how you can use them to make decisions. But we have only given you the basics, and we would be remiss if we stopped there, as there are right and wrong ways to interpret S-C values. We offer you additional guidance in this section to help you get the most out of this toolkit.

Adjustment for ante

Although certain S-C values ​​are for a certain situation - you have a $1 small blind and your only opponent has a $2 big blind - it would only be slightly incorrect to consider this situation in terms of your odds. In other words, if the hand matches S-C value- 30 means that you will have a positive EV if your odds are 10 to l or less (30 to 3). Thinking this way is very helpful, especially if there is an ante involved. When it does, you divide the S-C value by three to see the odds you can lay down. For example, the blinds are $300 and $600 with a $50 ante. A ten-player game, so the original pot is $1,400. You

In the small blind, your stack is $9,000. If everyone in front of you folds and you move all-in, you are laying odds of 6.5 to l. The S-C value for ace-four offsuit is 22.8 divided by three, and your odds of profiting are already 7.5 to l. So going all-in will be profitable, but only because of the ante. Without it, you would be laying the odds 10 to l.

Best all-in hands

While the guide for S-C values ​​is useful thing, especially in a one-on-one game, but still you should not blindly stick to it. Sometimes you should go all-in even when the S-C values ​​don't, and sometimes you should go all-in even if it could make a profit. As a basic principle, going all-in is most attractive if the S-C values ​​prove that it won't create negative EV for the game, and you have no particular reason to play the hand otherwise. This situation most often occurs when you are out of position against a good and aggressive player and your hand is weak, except for its showdown yield. Offsuit king-four, which were previously mentioned, good example such a hand. With a $200 stack in a $10-$20 game, it's natural to want to fold K 4♠ in the small blind if everyone else has done just that. This desire is especially strong if your opponent in the big blind is a good player.

Limping will likely trigger a raise (which you don't want to call). And a small raise will likely get called. None of these alternatives are attractive.

Pas, anyway, will not the right choice because the S-C value for king and four offsuit (22.8) is larger than your stack size (we'll discuss one exception briefly). All-in and showdown will be profitable, so going all-in without a showdown may simply be less profitable. In fact, a lack of showdown can make your hand more profitable if it's possible for your opponent to fold hands like K♠6 ♣ and A 2♦, which he would call if he saw your hand.

Generally speaking, the best all-in hands are not those that play well, but those that have showdown profitability. It's hands like A ♣ 4♦ and Q♠7♦ until you have more chips than S-C value.

All-in exception

If the S-C value suggests that you should go all-in with hands you would otherwise fold, you should listen and go all-in. But there is one exception: if you are in a tournament with a very weak hand and a minimal short stack, sometimes you should fold if you can see a few more hands for free.

For example, you have $500 in the small blind on a ten-player table with $100-$200 blinds, no ante. You

all pass before you. The S-C value for unsuited tens is three of a kind 5.5, which suggests an all-in.

For an all-in, the expectation is positive, but for a fold, the expectation is even more positive, as it guarantees that you will see 8 more hands destined for you for free. If you go all-in, you will most likely get called and lose. The guarantee that you'll see free hands is worth more than the positive expectation you'll get when you're all-in.

All-in with too many chips
Often you should go all-in even if you have more chips than S-C value. This is because the S-C values ​​were calculated on the assumption that your opponent would excel against your hand, and in practice this assumption is rarely the case.

Take this hand

The S-C value for suited tens-fives is 10. But this value is only so low because your opponent is supposed to call correctly with 72% of his hands. This list of hands includes a lot of really nasty ones like J 3♠ and T♦6 .

In practice, most players will fold these hands before a significant all-in raise without thinking. Instead of calling with 72% of their hands, they may call with as little as 30%. Because they fold with so many hands, as you want them to, you can get out of the position by raising with a stack larger than S-C. Because of this effect, the real value for an all-in becomes 20. An all-in, for example, with 13 small blinds is also practically the correct decision. This approach applies to many other medium hands with S-C value below 20.

All-in may not be the best option with hands that play well

Remember that we are still talking about hands that don't play well, especially out of position. These are the hands that make you think about folding.

If your hand is better, or you're in position (for example, in the small blind on the button in a heads-up game), you often shouldn't go all-in, even if the S-C value says otherwise. You should limp in or make a small raise. (But you should never fold, and you should almost never make a big raise the size of a significant part of your stack - it's always better to go all-in than to raise 25% of your stack.)

The most basic case in which you should ignore S-C advice go all-in - when you have a big enough stack, but the S-C value is still higher (the S-C value is 30 or more). In this situation, the only hand suitable for an all-in is aces offsuit or kings with weak kickers (A ♣ 3♠ or K 7♦).

Of course, you lose the value of a hand like jack-ten suited if you go all-in with 20 or 30 small blinds. Whether you should just call or make a small raise depends on your opponent's playing style. But going all-in, while profitable, is almost certainly less profitable than the other options, since you have a fairly large stack. (Of course, if the stack is relatively short, go all-in with jack-ten suited - as well as nine-eight suited, eight-seven, or any other hand with an appropriate S-C value)

Small couples are slightly different. Pocket deuces have almost the same S-C value as queen-jack suited (48 versus 49.5), but the two hands play completely differently.

The main difference is that deuces will often lose if you raise small with them (suited queen-jack will win more often in this situation).

This justifies the position that it is better to make small raises with queen-jack of the same suit, and go all-in with deuces. But against most players, in our opinion, all-in with deuces is not the best option with 20 small blinds. We believe that limping, which may seem unnatural here, is still better, although not by much.

When in doubt, return to S-C strategies and just go all-in.