Slaboansky-Chubukova's strategy, or how to fasten profitable. Useful and incomprehensible poker theorems Chaplan start-up hands
Below is the table of the starting hands of a scanner and Malmut.
| Group | Hand |
| 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 specified above |
This table is taken from the book "Hold'em for advanced players" David Slant and Mason Malmut. Despite the fact that the book is intended primarily players in the limited poker, the data of the starting hands are applicable to all versions of the game in Texas Hold'em.
What is the table of launch hands of a scanner and Malmouth?
This table is the ranking of start-up hands by groups.
In this way, in the table of starting hands Slant and Malmouth Distributed in groups of certain hands, based on their strength. In Group 1, there is a set of strongest starting hands in poker, while the weakest hands are included in the group 9.
How to use a starting hand table 
In his book, Slans and Malmut provide readers some in-depth Guidelines for the Strategy Strategy of the Starting Hand Limited Texas Hold'em, when using this table. In this article, we cannot develop guidelines for the game for cache tables in Unlimited Texas Hold'em, as:
- It would be a very difficult job.
- It will be difficult for you to remember all these principles and subsequently implement them.
- Like any other strategy for drawing starting hands, it will have its drawbacks.
- You must avoid using strict guidelines and established rules as often as possible during your game.
In fact, a purely strategic point of view, you do not bear too much from this table. Nevertheless, it is always interesting and useful to see how you can compare the specific starting hands with each other based on their value on the preflop.
If you are looking for a start-up handling strategy guide, you can take advantage of.
Assessment of the table of the starting hands of a scanner and Malmouth
Despite the fact that this table of starting hands, based on the ranking of groups, is very popular at present, this does not mean that you need to try to learn it on the teeth. In our opinion, the real value of this table is that you can see how different starting groups can be grouped and ranked based on their value on the preflop.
Before trying to test for money, it is desirable to read several books for different topics (psychology, mathematics and poker strategy), and it will not hurt to familiarize yourself with the poker theorems. This article contains the most popular of them.
Clarkmeister Theorem
"If two players remain in the game and the fourth card of one suit (three suited on the board) is coming out on the river, and your course is first, then you need to bet (more than 3/4 of the bank size)."
Such a move will force the opponent to reset the cards if he does not have a flash or if there is, but weak. The greater the bet, the higher the probability of throwing a weak flash.
When there are several players in the distribution, then the likelihood is that someone has a strong flash, so in this case it is less effective.
Chubukuk's number - Table, designed to determine the size of the stack for each hand (in large blinds), with which it is advantageous to go Wa-Bank in preflop on the position of the small blind, when all players have made Fold.
David Slant - professional poker legend, winner of three WSOP gold bracelets, the most authoritative poker theorist, author of thirteen books and two training videos, as well as a large number of publications on various aspects of poker and gambling theory.
Essence push Slaskansky-Chubukova It is what: when you have a small stack, and on the preflop all players have dropped the cards to us, it is beneficial to go Wa-Bank. Then we will most often receive Fold from the Big Blind, and the number of such fildures and BB bars will pay off the losses that can follow when answering the opponent.
Experience shows that at the distance, such fours are profitable.
"When you play as they played, if you saw opponent cards," you win. And vice versa".
Logic is breaking, but what is the point of what you know this theory? Go ahead.
Aedjons Theorem:
"Nobody has nothing."
Literally perceive it is not worth it. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe theorem is simple: the opponents will not always have a strong hand (thanks, the CEP), so in the measure of the aggressive style of the game will increase your winer.
Balugue theorem Person:
"After the raise from the opponent, you need to overestimate the power of your top pair."
From this theorem, several important conclusions follow: the check-raise on the turn from the opponent always says that he has a strong combination.
Big rates on the thorns are rarely performed with clean hands. In the worst case, the opponent will have a pair + draw, in the best - a nax hand.
In the case of a raise / reraise from the opponent on the tire it will be more profitable to reset the cards.
P.S. Most of the above-mentioned theorems are invented by experienced players and posted on them on the site 2 + 2, after which they became recognized by theorems. Relevant only for Texas Hold'em.
Imagine the situation: you play in the tournament, but after a number of unsuccessful distributions, the game clearly does not go to your hand, and your stack is rapidly, while the blinds continue to grow! And now you are sitting on the position of the small blind, you have a marginal card that you can throw out, and you can also play, but all players have dropped their cards before you. What to do? Ret forward "all-in" or discount cards in pass? And if you set all chips, then what cards can you do? To answer these questions and there is a Slaskukova table ...
It was developed by two professionals of his case - one of the best poker analytics David Slant and the leading mathematician of Wisconsin University Andrei Chubukov. Together they developed a number of numbers that show, on what cards can be "fused" all-in from the position of a small blind, and this decision will be the advantage for us even if the opponent will play optimally.
At the same time, the Chubukuk number is working even if our opponent on the big blind will know our cards for sure! Even in this case, this strategy will be the advantage, since our Blind Winning in the case of Folding the opponent will be higher than our loss in the event that it swings us with a stronger hand.
In addition, all-in in the position of the small blind is good for two additional reasons:
- First of all, only one player will be behind us, who has already set a big blind, not even seeing his cards. Accordingly, the likelihood that he will have "garbage hands", which he does not want to play, preferring them to throw them away.
- Secondly, even if he has marginal hands, in the presence of a sufficient stack in the later stages of the tournament, the player hardly wants to risk them, and therefore can also reset the maps into the pass. Thus, even if we do not get a response call on our all-in, we will still be in a plus, as you will play it a big blind.
Below is a table of Slaboan-Chubukuk, which is indicated with which stacks (in large blinds) and with what cards can be moved to all-in. However, it is not worth blindly follow this table, exhibiting every time on the stack that will be with us. Take for example of pocket aces - a-a. According to the table, we can extend all-in on them almost on any stack. However, if we with a fairly large stack of all-in, then we, most likely, just take a big blind, while the raise or 3-bet will allow us to get much more chips from the opponent.
Therefore, every poker cards should try to play as profitable as possible for yourself, considering both the size of your stack, and the level of the game of your opponents, and its position at the table, and the stage of the tournament as a whole.
Any decision in poker you must take, based not only on the strength of your cards, but also on the style of the game of your opponents sitting for you. Although, of course, on some maps, it is more preferable to fix 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, having a medium or small pair, then, most likely, you will see overcard on the table, after which it will be quite difficult to understand if someone from your opponents fell into board or not. The same applies to weak aces, which are quite difficult to play.
However, note that the scanic-scanuk table is designed exclusively for the position of the small blind, and only for those cases when all rivals have dropped their cards to pass. If at least one limper came into the distribution, then it is impossible to use it. In this case, you can use, for example, to determine your further actions in the distribution.
You are a small blind in the Game with Blinds $ L- $ 2. Everyone will graze in front of you. You
But you accidentally turn your cards, and the opponent notices them (suppose that your hand does not become dead in this case). Unfortunately, your opponent is a good counter, which is thorough and unmistakably determine best strategy Games for yourself now, when knows your hand. After disclosing your small blind, you have $ x in the stack. You decide that you will go either all-in, or save. For what yield $ x is better to go all-in when to graze? It is clear that with a small yield of $ x, you'd just just go all-in and hope that your opponent-counter does not have a pocket pair. In most cases, he really will not have it, and you will win $ 3. In the opposite case, you will lose, but it will only happen in a small percentage of cases. As a rule, the likelihood that your opponent has a pocket pair 16 to 1. Thus, with a stack of 16 x $ 3 \u003d $ 48, all-in will mean a momentary gain. Since you will win in 16 out of 17 cases, you can lose 100% if you have a call, but you still get a small income. And you do not lose less than 100% of cases (in the end, only the lot will determine the ladies or twos). But with a very high yield of $ x, you will not win $ 3 enough to be able to reflect the attack of the opponent when he is lucky to get a pair (aces or kings). For example, if you have $ 10, 000, all-in - stupid move. Every time your opponent has pocket aces and kings, he has a huge advantage. You will not be able to win enough blinds to compensate. In this case, the question arises where there is a break-even level for the value of $ x? If your stack below is this value, you must go all-in. If above, you must save. As soon as you played a k ♦, another 50 cards remain in the deck. This gives your opponent 1, 225 possible hands combinations:
Since the meter knows your assets, he will never answer you without the advantage. 40.
______________________________________________
40 Actually, he will not answer if it gives him a negative matchmaker. Although, if the bank gives the chance of receiving the money of the blind, he will answer, even if it makes it slightly lose. After you go all-in for $ x, the bank will give chances ($ x + $ 3) to ($ x-L). For the real yield of $ x for a k ♦ (we will soon calculate it), the counter could win only in 49.7% of cases, he still answers. As it turns out, no hands for the range, which give chances of 49.7 and 50% against the ace-king. The closest hand, which gives 49.6%.
Each unpaired hand, except for other aces and king - an outsider, so the counter will save all his hands. In addition, from the nine remaining combinations of the ace-king, two of them are outsiders in relation to your hands: a ♠ k and a ♣ k. Your hand can beat these hands by making a worm or a tambourine flash, but these hands can beat you with a peak or trephy flash. K under your A is a serious interference. Seven combinations of the Tuz-king will answer your all-in-law, and it is for unpaired hands. Each pocket couple will also make a call. Your opponent can play pocket aces or kings in three different ways, and six different variations for ladies and twists. Thus, everything will turn out 72 pocket pairs.
72 = (3)(2) + (6)(11)
79 hands from possible 1, 225 will answer you if you go all-in with a Tuzo king. If you are answered, you will win in 43. 3% of cases. This value is close to 50%, since in most cases you will be answered - this will be the situation - "Orel-Ruska". The only case in which you will lose, is when the pocket aces or kings are against you.
To find the value of $ x, we write the EV formula for all-in, then equate it to zero and untying for X. You will be answered 6. 45% of cases (79/1, 225), this means that the counter will save in the remaining 93.55% . When the counter is humbly, you won $ 3. When he responds, you win $ X + 3 in 43. 3% of cases, and lose $ x in the rest of 56. 7%. Thus, formula for EV:
0 \u003d (0.935) ($ 3) + (0.0645) [(0.433) ($ x + 3) + (0.567) ((- $ x)]
0 \u003d 2.81 + 0.079x + 0.0838 - 0.0366x
2.89 \u003d 0.0087x
X \u003d $ 332
Breweave rate - $ 332. We call this number of scanner-lettuce (S-C) for a k ♦ (or any incomplete Touza-king). 41 If your stack is less than $ 332 in $ L- $ 2, it is better to go all-in, even if your hand was revealed. If you have a $ 300 and ace-king, you have to bet on $ 300 to grab $ 3 out of the blind money, and not to paste. 42.
_________________________________________________
The 41 numbers are named after David Slana, who first stated that the calculation of these values \u200b\u200bwill help to avoid many problems in preflop, and Viktor Chubukov is the theoretical game with Berkeley, who has calculated the expectation for each hand. Excited by letters yields appear in this book.
42 This provision assumes that you cannot remove any useful information From the passes of other players. In practice, if seven or eight players will save, it is very little likely that any of them are Ace. So your opponent on the Big Blinder can have pocket aces with a probability of 3/1.225.
Let's hope that this will be an impeccable solution for you. Very few people's instincts will tell them that it is necessary to go all-in more than 150 cases, when a big blind plays, knowing their hands with something less pairs of aces or kings. These conclusions are hard to accept, since most people do not imply the idea of \u200b\u200blosing chances. Ask someone to deliver $ 100 to win $ 1, and you will refuse almost 100% of cases, regardless of what to put on. "It makes no sense to risk $ 100 to win one single dollar," this is a typical course of thoughts. But it is worth it, at least from the consideration of the matchmakers.
Moreover, in real poker, you try not to show your hand to the opponent. When your opponent knows that you have a Tuz-king, it is even better for you, and you can make a profitable all-in with a stack that will be even a little more than $ 332. In the end, pocket two favorites against you, but who will make a call of $ 300 with such a hand? In fact, the player could answer you only with pocket aces, kings or ladies, and would save in all other cases. As they save so many profitable hands, you can go all-in with stacks even large $ 332.
Now, before you come to the wild delight, realize that we have shown only that all-in will be better than Pas, if you have less than $ 332. We do not say that all-in - the best possible game; Raise a smaller amount or even a call can be better than all-in. But, in any case, it is better not to paste. You can say, "Fine, now I know that you do not need to grasp the open ace-king in the game one for one. Thank you, I really read the book, dismantled in the formulas to find out." But you really will be happy to come to know what it was recognized as this calculation method can be used for any hand, not only for the ace-king. And conclusions for some hands can be a surprise for you.
Accurate definition of the number of Slaboansky-Chubukuk: If you opened your hand and blind $ 1, and your only opponent has a $ 2 blind, which should be your stack (in dollars, not counting your $ 1 blind) so that it is more profitable to save, and not go all-in , assuming that your opponent will make either the perfect call or pass.
We provide a list of several demonstration hands and the corresponding numbers of Slaboansky Chubukov. Full list You can see hands in the book "Sklansky-Chubukov Rankings," beginning on page 299.
Table 1: Chubukov Square numbers for selected hands
| Hand (Hand) | S-C # (S-C #) |
| KK. | $954 |
| Ako. | $332 |
| $159 | |
| A9S. | $104 |
| A8O. | $71 |
| A3O. | $48 |
| $48 | |
| K8S. | $40 |
| JTS. | $36 |
| K8O. | $30 |
| Q5S. | $20 |
| Q6O. | $16 |
| T8O. | $12 |
| 87s. | $11 |
| J5O. | $10 |
| 96O. | $7 |
| 74S. | $5 |
With some restrictions and adjustments, you can use the scanic chubus numbers to determine how good the hand you have for Ol-Ina is. You have to do some adjustments. Remember s-C numbers Calculated with the assumption that your opponent knows your hand, and perfectly be able to play against it. This assumption slightly distorts the assessment of the situation that the number S-C is offered. You practically cannot make the wrong S-C (unlike Pas), but you can also not make a mistake if you go all-in with a significantly big stack.
As far as it can be more, in any case, depends on how the values \u200b\u200bof S-C are calculated. There are two main types of hands, hard and vulnerable. On solid hands, you can make a profitable call with a lot of hands, but they will not be truly bad against these hands in general. Vulnerable hands cannot cause frequent colls, but when it happens, they are significant outsiders. For example, pocket twos, it is a strong hand prototype. More than 50% of cases, the big blind will have hand, which will be able to make a profitable call against it: 709 out of 1.225 hands (57.9%). But when they respond to it, the twos will benefit almost in 46.8%, almost 50%.
Different Ace - Troika - a vulnerable hand. Only 220 out of 1, 005 hands can respond profitably on it (18. 0 percent), but if this happens, it will win only at 35.1% of cases. And pocket two, and the diverse ace-triple correspond to the value of S-C $ 48. Working hand, twos, in some cases, a hand that is better suited for all-in. That's why your opponent will be inclined to do more ErrorsWhen you have two, not a TUZ-Troika. Let's say you go all-in from $ 40. Most players will make relatively high call on this raise. Even if they know that you go all-in with a "weak" hand, they still do not answer without a pocket couple or ace. For example, most players, practically probably, will be saved T 7 before $ 39 raise.
This pass is correct if you have a TUZ-Troika, but erroneous if you have two: a dozen-seed - actually a favorite against pocket bobs. Thus, the tendency of your opponents to the pass of too much hands in front of a large all-in-raise hurts them more when you have a hard hand, and not vulnerable.
Sost-alone connectors are also solid hands, and therefore the strength of them is all more than it can assume the values \u200b\u200bof S-C. For example, in 8 7 a relatively small S-C value - $ 11. But this is a very hard hand: there can be 945 of 1.225 hands (77%) on it (77%), but it will win at 42.2% of cases when it is calling. Since a lot of hands on which a profitable call could be made, instead you will save (J 3 ♣ ), You can make a profitable all-in with a suitable seven-modes and get much more than $ 11.
The script that we used to find out the values \u200b\u200bof S-C are forced everyone to save everything in a small blind. But you can also use these values \u200b\u200bwhen you are on Batton. If it is more likely that there will be two collera, not one, your chances run into call double. Very about, you can split in half the value of S-C for your hand, and determine whether it will be profitable for all-in from the battle.
As you could already guess, these values \u200b\u200bof S-C are most useful if you are playing in a unlimited tournament. Despite their small profitability, they can help you decide whether to go all-in or grazing when you have a middle hand.
For example, let's say, the blinds are $ 100- $ 200, and you have $ 1,300 on Batton. Your stack is much shorter than an average. Everyone will graze in front of you. You see K 8 ♦. Do you have to go all-in or pass?
The value of S-C for the dilated king-eights is $ 30. You are on Batton, not on the small blind, so divide by two - $ 15. Your $ 1,300 Stack with $ 100- $ 200 Blinders is $ 13 Stack with $ L- $ 2 blinds. Since your $ 13 is less than $ 15, you must go all-in.
S-C values \u200b\u200bare inclined to underestimate all-in force for hand, so the solution is not as simple as it seems. Add $ 25 ante, and it will simply automatic all-in.
Final words
The decision to go all-in must be automatic if you have a diverse king-eight on the battle with a stack of 6, 5 times the blind. All-in automatic and with j ♦ 9 ♦ (S-C value - $ 26). Is it surprising you? If so, read the values \u200b\u200bof S-C, starting from 164, and test ourselves.
Any ace is a potentially strong hand for all-in. The ace-eight corresponds to the value of S-C - $ 71, and even a TUZ-Troika gives a value of $ 48. They are vulnerable, not solid hands, worse. But remember that S-C underestimate and vulnerable hands. When everyone leaves in front of you, on or near the battle in the tournament, and you have ace, you often easily make all-in, even if your stack is more than ten times more than the big blind.
The tournament process suggests that these "lousse" will be the right decision; In fact, this value is the main reason why most of them won money in all tournaments. This is the secret that the tournament makes the difference between participates and amateurs. Use tables. Starting with p.164, it will help you decide when to go all-in, and you will see, very soon your tournament results will improve.
When to use (and when not)
Classification of Slaboan Chubukova
In the last section, we explained that they represent the values \u200b\u200bof S-C, and we gave you the basic idea of \u200b\u200bhow you can use them for making decisions. But we gave you only basic concepts, and we would make a huge omission, if they stopped, because there are correct and erroneous ways of interpretation of S-C values. We offer you an additional guide in this section to help maximize the use of this toolkit.
Adjustment for Ante.
Although certain S-C values \u200b\u200bare intended for a specific situation - you have $ 1 small blind, and your only opponent has a large $ 2 blind - will only slightly incorrectly consider this situation from the point of view of your chances. In other words, if the hand corresponds to the value of S-C - 30, it means that you will have a positive EV if your chances are 10 to L or less (30 K 3). Think is thus very useful, especially if there is ante. When it is, you divide the value of S-C to three to see the chances that you can lay. For example, the blinds are $ 300 and $ 600 with $ 50 Ante. The game for ten players, so in the original bank of $ 1,400. You
On a small blind, your stack is $ 9, 000. If everything is saved in front of you, and you will go all-in, you lay chances of 6.5 to l. The value of S-C for the dilated Touza fourths 22. 8, dividing three, and your chances of profit already 7.5 to L. Thus, all-in will be profitable, but only because of the ante. Without him, you would have laid the chances of 10 to l.
Top Hands for All-Ina
Although the guide for S-C values \u200b\u200bis a useful thing, especially in the game one on one, but still blindly stick to it. Sometimes you have to go all-in even when the S-C values \u200b\u200bdo not provide, and sometimes on the contrary, even if it could bring profits. As a basic principle, we note that all-in is the most attractive if the S-C values \u200b\u200bprove that this will not create a negative EV for the game, and you have no special reasons to play your hand differently. This situation occurs most often when you are without a position against a good and aggressive player, and your hand is weak, with the exception of its yield when opening. Different king-fool, who were previously mentioned, good example such a hand. With a stack of $ 200 in the game $ 10- $ 20, it will naturally want to save K 4 ♠ on a small blind, if all others have done this way. This desire is particularly strong if your opponent on the Big Blinder is a good player.
Lumping is likely to provoke a raise (which you do not want to answer). And a small raise will most likely call a call. None of these alternatives is attractive.
Easy, it will not be the right choice, since the value of S-C for the dilated king and fourths (22.8) is larger than your stack size (we briefly discuss one exception). All-in and opening of maps will be profitable, so all-in without autopsy can simply be less profitable. In fact, no autopsy can make your hand more profitable if it is possible that your opponent will save such hands like k ♠ 6 ♣ And A 2 ♦, with whom he would have done a call, if I saw your hand.
In general, speaking, the best hands for Ol-Ina, not those who play well, but those who have profitability at the opening. These are such hands like a ♣ 4 ♦ and Q ♠ 7 ♦ until you have more chips than the value of S-C.
Exception for All-Ina
If the S-C value assumes that you have to go all-in with your hands, which you would save in another case, you must listen and make all-in. But there is one exception: if you are in a very weak hand tournament and a minimum short stack, sometimes you should be saved if you can see for free to see a few more hands.
For example, you have $ 500 on a small blind on the table with ten players with the Blinders of $ 100- $ 200, without ante. You
everyone will graze in front of you. The value of S-C for different dozens - Troika 5. 5, which implies all-in.
For Ol-Ina - positive match-poise, but for Pas - Matureness is even more positive, as it guarantees that you will see another 8 hands for you for free. If you go all-in, most likely come to call, and lose. The guarantee that you will see the free hands worth more than that the positive match, which you get with all-yne.
All-in with too much chips
Often you must go all-in, even if you have more chips than the value of S-C. This is because the S-C values \u200b\u200bwere calculated with the assumption that your opponent will be perfectly played against your hand, and in practice this assumption rarely takes place.
Take such a hand
The value of S-C for suited dozens-fives - 10. But this value is only because it is low that your opponent is presumably correctly replied from 72% of his hands. This list of hands includes many truly nasty, as J 3 ♠ and T ♦ 6.
In practice, most players will save these hands in front of a significant all-in-raise, not thinking. Instead of answering 72% of your hands, they can answer just with 30%. As they, as you want, will be saved with such a large number of hands, you can get out of a raise position with a stack that is greater than the S-C value. Because of this effect, 20 becomes a real value for Ol-Ina. All-in, for example, with 13 small blinds - also practically the right decision. This approach is applicable to many other Middle Hands with s-C value below 20.
All-in may be not the best option with hands that play well
Remember that we are still talking about hands that do not play well, especially without a position. These are those hands that make you think about PACE.
If your hand is better, or you are in position (for example, on a small blind on the battle in the game one on one), you often do not have to go all-in, even if the value of S-C speaks of a friend. You must logmark or make a small raise. (But you do not need to graze in any case, and you almost never have to do a big raise size with a significant part of your stack - always better go all-in than to make a raise of 25% stack.)
The most important case in which you must ignore S-C Council To go all-in - when you have a sufficiently large stack, but the value of S-C is still larger (the value of S-C is 30 or more). In this situation, the only hand suitable for Ol-Ina is diverse aces or kings with weak cyceres (A ♣ 3 ♠ or k 7 ♦).
Of course, you lose the yield of the hand, such as suitable jams, if you go all-in with 20 or 30 small blinds. Should just make call or make a small raise depends on the style of the game of your opponent. But all-in, although profitable, practically certainly less profitable than other options, since you have a fairly large stack. (Of course, if the stack is relatively short, all-in with suited dozen currency - as well as suited nine-eight, eight-seed, or any other hand with a corresponding value of S-C)
Small pairs are slightly different. Pocket two has almost the same value of S-C, as well as for suited ladies-currencies (48 versus 49.5), but these two hands are completely played in different ways.
The main difference is that the twos will often lose, if you do small raises with them (suited lady-curren will benefit more often in such a situation).
This justifies the situation that with a lady-currency of one suit is better to make small races, and with twins go all-in. But against most players, in our opinion, all-in with twos do not the best way With 20 small blinds. We believe that liquid, which may seem unnatural here, is still better, although not much.
If you doubt, go back to s-C Strategies And just go all-in.
Our site.
Essence push Slaskansky-Chubukova It is that in some conditions (small stack and a suitable card), after Folding all players to us, it is beneficial to go to all-in (and most often - pick up the blinds) regardless of the actions of opponents for us (even if They know our cards). In this case, if someone from the players for us is the best card - he will answer, and we will have some equity in the formed bank (although they will answer us with a stronger hand). But if the players have no stronger hand, we will take the blinds. And it will happen often enough to recoup the possible losses when answering opponents. Such a preflop of the Puffy and are called the puffs of Slabukov on the names of the authors of the idea.
Chubukuk's number
Idea and definition chubukov Square numbers Were formulated by the famous player and poker writer David Slana in the book "No Limit Holdem in Theory and Practice" (David Slant and).
Suppose we are in the position of a small blind with a strong enough hand, and all the players have dropped the cards before us. Suppose, also that the player on the Big blind knows our cards (but we do not know his cards). It makes no sense to make a raise for us, since the opponent, knowing our cards, will always replay us in postflop. So we can either lose cards, or go to all-in. Obviously, the opponent will be played optimally - will answer us with a stronger hand or reset the weaker. Our solution in this case will depend on the size of the stack - with a large stack you will have to reset most of the hands, since when answering the opponent, we will lose too much. With a small stack, we can go to all-in, since the size of the loss with loss will be small, and will pay off when we bind blinds.
Chubukuk's number Determine for each hand the size of the stack (in large blinds), with which we beneficially go to all-in. On the next page you can see the number of Scarstically Chubukova for all hands. The number of Slaboan-Chubukuk give the opportunity to calculate the expediency of the Pushubukov's fastener - if the stack is less defined in the table of numbers for a given hand, the Push will be beneficial.
So, if we are in SB, all players have dropped to us, and if our stack is less specified in the table, then it is advantageous to go to all-in regardless of the opponent's actions in the explosive, even if he knows our cards, and acts well.
The number of scanner-scanukov is designed only for the SB position, but for earlier positions, it is possible to determine them with a sufficient accuracy for practical calculations by dividing the initial number to the number of players for us. Therefore, if we are not in SB, but in BTN, the numbers need to be divided into 2. for the position of CO - by 3.
When this in the table, we will get the following spectra of hands for the Pushkukov Puffskin Push (as always, the best hands are meant, signs "+" omitted):
Hand spectra for praise Slabukova
For your specific stack size, you should use a string of a table with a stack exceeding your (for example, at a 17VB stack to use a string for 20VB).
In the classical calculation of the number of Slaboan-Chubukuk, two points are not taken into account:
- If all the players have dropped to us, then they do not really good cardSo the likelihood of a good card with players increases, especially for long tables.
- Rake - He will take part of the Equity in cases where our Push collided, and we won.
However, the influence of these factors is not too much significantly, and with interest compensated in practice by the fact that opponents do not know our cards behind us, and cannot play optimally.
Therefore, for the practical purposes, the spectra of Slaskansky-Chubukov can even expand a little, adding, for example, suited connectors and several other single kings and ladies.
Practice Application of Push Slaboan
From the above, it is clear that those presented in any case should not be reset - they are too strong for the relevant conditions. However, the profitability of the Push on these hands does not mean that they cannot be played even more favorable way. For example, with a pair of aces, if you immediately go to all-in - most likely we will only get the blinds, and by making a raise 3VV, we can get and win the stack. Therefore, it is advisable to choose from this spectrum a part of the hands with which you can make a regular styl-raise (especially if you have already learned to play post-flop well). At the same time, this will be an additional guideline on the spectra of hands for.
The decision to play an all-in-or-raise or raise should be taken taking into account the hand playability in the postflop and the nature of the opponents for you. For example, with a small-medium pair, you will almost always see overcards on the flop, and it will be difficult to understand whether you are ahead or behind - they can be played more often. It is also difficult to play with weak stories. But suited ligaments play the chances very easily, and with them you can make an ordinary raise. With premium hands, of course, also preferably a regular raise.
Answer to the Puffs Slabukova
Answer to puffy Chubukova Theoretically, it is possible on the same spectra on which they are performed. However, the problem is that you can hardly be sure that the opponent goes to all-in exactly on such spectra of hands. Therefore, we recommend answering more Tighocho, suling bands by about a third (and adapting them to specific opponents).