The Gap Concept

[biohazard]

hi guys,

not sure if I am not thinking about this in the right way, or whether my thinking is flawed or not. By the way, if this should be in the tournament section I apologise, I thought it might be better here since it is a part of poker theory too, just more specific to tournaments.

I was reading Sklansky's tournament book today and read the section on the gap concept and I have a few questions regarding this.
Firstly, I basically understand what this concept is talking about, that you should be calling with much better hands than you would open the pot with, if someone has already brought in for a raise (or even a call). The reverse also being that your opponents should be the same when they are calling against you.

I was just thinking in general though about the applications of this in most real life situations. Since sklansky himself states this also, most people do not play tournaments all that differently to how they would play ring games. Those not all that knowledgable, or who have not taken the time to study the differences between tournaments and ring games, will play hands pretty much the same regardless of the game they are in. This seems to hold true to tournaments I have played in, where I dont see people who would strike me as the type who are actively aware of the gap concept.

Therefore, in a similar way how it would be detrimental to be thinking on a level higher than one above the leve your opponent is thinking on (as he states in his NL cash book), would it also be detrimental to your tournament strategy to play according to the gap concept, if your opponents are not aware of and actively playing as per the gap concept guidlines themselves?

If they are playing hands the same way they would in ring games, and their style isnt too different, then surely you would play them exactly the same way you would in a ring game also?

Or is the issue more than what I have initially thought about here? It seems that if you wanted to, you could think about this concept quite deeply and I dont know if I'm not thinking deep enough, thinking too deep, or just off the mark completely.

Has anyone else read this book and can help me out with how to think about the gap concept and how truely important it is in tournament strategy, regardless of whether your opponents are aware of it, or regardless of whether your opponents are playing the tournament differently to how they would play a ring game?

Cheers for any comments.

[jfletcher]

I think you are right that you have to take into account which player is the one raising in front of you or calling behind you.

If a seemingly knowledgable player raises in early position, you give him more credit for a good hand and adjust your calling standards accordingly.

Same thing if you raise and someone behind smooth calls you. If a good player calls, you can probably narrow his range pretty much to a small to medium pocket pair. If a bad player calls, he could have a lot of stuff.

[taz115]

[poker_Elmo]

(Note - this is all for cash game thoughts - not tourneys)

Sometimes I apply the gap concept. If I am on the button and no one has bet before me and I have AT suited - I raise every time. But if the guy two seats before me raises and he is a nit, then my ATs has much less value for two reasons.

1) It is likely an underdog vs. the nit's range

and

2) By calling, I won't have the opportunity to win the hand pre-flop.

Post-flop, and especially on the river. there are many times this gap principle does not hold. You may hold A8 on an A94-4-6 board against a habitual bluffer. If you bet the river, you will likely only get called when splitting or when you lose. But the range your opponent will bet is much wider, so a check-call may be appropriate. Here is an example where your calling range is much wider than your betting range.

I think one of Ed Miller's no limit books discussed this concept with a very nice example.

[jfletcher]

[jeffnc]

No, the gap concept isn't like other "higher level" thinking, where if your opponent isn't aware of it, you won't be able to outplay him with it. The strength of it is built into the strength of your cards. You will always have an advantage over weaker opponents playing weaker cards, whether they are aware of it or not.

However, as stated, the Gap Concept isn't really true, at least not for NL (it's not a tournament vs. cash difference, it's a limit vs NL difference.)

The Gap Concept really applies to dominated hands. You don't want to be calling raises with KQ when the raiser has AQ, or calling with AT when the raiser has AJ. Those are disasters.

But in NL especially, it's OK to call with small pocket pairs or suited connectors or hands that might otherwise be dominated like QJs. That's because of the high implied odds, and the fact that you're not likely to be playing for top pair when you're dominated, but rather for some bigger hand that avoids the use of high cards, or that makes straights or flushes amongst the opponents' high cards. Make sense?

So in those cases, you will indeed be calling with weaker hands than you'd be raising with.

[emmapeel]

I was going to post about this myself as I've never quite understood it.

It seems clear to me that if someone has raised before you then the strength of cards at the table has gone up and you need better hands to play. Is this what it is all about? If so then it has been explained very badly by both Harrington and Sklansky.

It also doesn't make sense against Harringtons hand charts. His minimum raising pair for 5th position is 77. This is also his minimum pair for calling a 3rd position raise in 5th position. No gap here.

According to the gap theory, against someone who only plays AA you must always fold as you can't get a better hand than that. I think it's much better to work out how your hand will fair against your opponents post-flop. If you think there will be a lot of implied odds or bluff equity then I'm sure a lot of hands can be played with good sized stacks.

I agree with the posters who have said that the gap theory is not very important nowadays. Then again, I'm not in a good position to judge as I don't really understand what it is and what it is meant for.

EP

[jeffnc]

[ResumeMan]

I think it's safe to assume she double-posted.

[Scott Aigner, M.D.]

A major reason that the gap concept doesn't seem to make much sense to everyone here is because when Sklansky wrote TPFAP (and when I first started playing major tournaments and first read this book) Limit Hold Em was the most popular tournament being played. The switch to no limit tournaments being the most popular form occurred between 2002-2003.

As jeffnc stated, the gap concept is more of a limit concept than a no limit one and is more about being dominated. One has to realize that tournament play was a lot tighter than ring game play as well when Sklansky first wrote this book (AND I MEAN REALLY REALLY TIGHT). I understand that a revised edition has been published.

No limit hold em play is based on implied odds and in addition position is a much more important variable as well. I think few if any tournament players even think about the gap concept but rather more about staying away from a potential holding that could be dominated nowadays. The gap concept really had little influence on anyone's play that I am aware of. It really is no different than adjusting your decisions based on your opponent's style of play. To me it was just another one of his "sklanskied" coined terms. Scott

[jeffnc]

[emmapeel]

Thx to both Jeff and Scott.

Jeff, I think you've explained it much better than both Sklansky and Harrington and I understand it now. I think I realised this myself a short time ago when I found out that you can't call a push with the same hand range as the pusher.

The gap concept not only ignores implied odds but also bluff equity. A weak-tight player will give you a lot of bluff equity despite having you dominated. I'm glad I know it now as I'm sure it has it's place alongside bluff equity and implied odds.

Scott, I think your post helps me a bit too. I am beginning to get a little frustrated at some of Harringtons idea,s (See other posts.) and I think it helps to know his background a bit. It does seem to me that Harrington has based his game around limit holdem idea's. I'm not sure that this approach is totally suited to NLH and some of his idea's seem a little odd. It is hard to argue with his results and skill though.

EP

[chillrob]

The gap concept doesn't take into account implied equity or bluff equity, because there is very little of either in Limit holdem; there is certainly no bluff equity preflop.

Someone mentioned this earlier, but Sklansky's tournament book is about limit tourneys, not no limit. And I don't really think the gap concept applies to tournaments any more than cash games. It applies in any reasonably tight limit holdem game (by reasonably tight, I mean there is not a lot of cold-calling preflop).

An example that happens to me all the time at the $10/$20 limit table: I am sitting in middle position with AJo. I am waiting my turn to fire in a raise, when the guy to my right suddenly raises in front of me. Oops, my hand goes straight into the muck! That hand was good enough to raise with, but not good enough to call a raise.

Rob