Hand in hand

[Moneyjoy]

Do you agree with David Sklansky?
If your answer is positive (or negative), could you please provide an explanation?
“Every time you play a hand as if you can see your opponent’s cards, you win. Every time you play your hand differently, he wins”

 

[Flyer35]

This one needs context for sure.

Just on the face of it, of course not. There are no absolutes with poker because luck is involved in every hand. Unlike chess, where every move can be anticipated and reacted to in a predictable fashion.

 

[tihomir_kula]

Quite reasonable!The base of my strategy.

 

[eberetta1]

Daniel Negtranu is notorious for guessing out loud what 2 cards his opponent is holding. More often than not, he is spot on.

 

[A kiravio]

“Every time you play a hand as if you can see your opponent’s cards, you win. Every time you play your hand differently, he wins”

I think we're talking about mindset here, not necessarily a context involving the rank of your hand..."that you stubbornly don't want to give up". It would not be advisable to continue when the villain dominates you and you know you have some weaknesses in your hand compared to what was shown on the table,or behind the opponent's hand.

 

[Vallet]

I am familiar with this saying. After all, David Sklansky's book was read several years ago. Then I understood everything literally. The winner acts according to the mindset of the opponent's hand range. If the player does not know and does not assume which hand the opponent has, then he will not be the winner.

 

[Moneyjoy]

I appreciate your comment.
What do you think of the second aspect?

 

[R.Holynskyi]

Do you agree with David Sklansky?
If your answer is positive (or negative), could you please provide an explanation?
“Every time you play a hand as if you can see your opponent’s cards, you win. Every time you play your hand differently, he wins”

I never play as if I can see my opponent's cards. The reason? ..... Because I don't see them
I usually have a guess and think about what hand my opponent might be playing with, but I'm not 100% sure that I'm thinking correctly. That's why I disagree with this statement, it doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[pentazepam]

I appreciate your comment.
What do you think of the second aspect?

The second statement is the next logical conclusion if the first statement is true. And it is.

 

[Mr.$t0k]

I fully agree with this expression but must add that if you in up straight (with luck in your poker) you win in all situation

 

[fundiver199]

I think, this is very old school, as is David Sklansky in general. So no. I dont agree. The statement encourage a thinking like "I put my opponent on a flushdraw" or "I put my opponent on top pair". Which is a flawed way of thinking about the game, because if the vast majority of situations people will have a range and not just a specific type of hand. And then of course we have to play against that range and not their specific hand. It is only cheaters like Mike Postle at Stones, who have the luxury of being able to "play a hand as if you can see your opponent’s cards", because he actually could. Alledgedly

 

[YLAN]

Agree. David Sklansky is a champion poker pro & an early author on poker strategy. His key work The Theory of Poker presents fundamental principles on which much later analysis is based.

“Every time you play a hand as if you can see your opponent’s cards, you win. Every time you play your hand differently, he wins”
He introduces here the skill of understanding the opponent's cards & without such understanding, likelihood of the opponent to win is high. Its basic aspect that without skill, just luck, the opponent will most likely prevail.

 

[userX]

Do you agree with David Sklansky?
If your answer is positive (or negative), could you please provide an explanation?
“Every time you play a hand as if you can see your opponent’s cards, you win. Every time you play your hand differently, he wins”

This statement can be interpreted in different ways. In my opinion, it's not really about each specific hand, but about the approach to the game as a whole. No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to play as if you can see your opponent's cards, you can certainly fantasise that you know exactly what your opponent has, but I'm more than sure that in most cases you will make mistakes and these mistakes will lead to losses.

 

[Moneyjoy]

Agree. David Sklansky is a champion poker pro & an early author on poker strategy. His key work The Theory of Poker presents fundamental principles on which much later analysis is based.

“Every time you play a hand as if you can see your opponent’s cards, you win. Every time you play your hand differently, he wins”
He introduces here the skill of understanding the opponent's cards & without such understanding, likelihood of the opponent to win is high. Its basic aspect that without skill, just luck, the opponent will most likely prevail.

And skill comes with deep learning, analyzing, and practice, don’t you agree?

 

[I Live Poker]

Do you agree with David Sklansky?
If your answer is positive (or negative), could you please provide an explanation?
“Every time you play a hand as if you can see your opponent’s cards, you win. Every time you play your hand differently, he wins”

It's on the way! Some criticize the use of hud, but initially it is interesting to understand in practice what each player raises in the range, or also C-bet, and later understand what the % represents in the range itself, over time the use of hud does not It is so necessary, you already know what it means to put a PFR of 20, 10 or 30% and you know which range beats this range.