T.J. Cloutier & Tom McEvoy....why so bad? [Archive]

6471849653

10-05-2004, 05:09 AM

"'preflop hand selection' has very little of exactly that."

That rates to be the impression; not true however. I think it's the best general big bet holdem book at market at the moment, as long as one does not entirely believe it.

"the advice is almost entirely anecdotal, but mostly the advice just isn't there."

That's an impression one might incorrectly get. The truth however is that its as much white meat. We can't blame anyone of using their own style when writing a book, while it would add nothing to the book to delete those parts. One thing one might ask, is to have the meat organized better, and not here and there so that it takes more brain power to put it all together. On the other hand poker is competition; one just does not go around in an easy way telling people everything of how to play better.

jtnt1096

10-05-2004, 10:03 AM

I have found the book very good. It really depends on the type of book you are looking for. If you want a book that tells you what to do every step along the way, this may not be the book for you. But if you want a book that provides a solid foundation it will be helpful.

Every NL game or tourney I play in has a different texture, so it would be very hard to write a "do this, do that" book for PL or NL.

One mistake a lot of readers make is that they skip the Pot Limit part of the book. Be sure to read the entire book. The pot limit section has many items that can be carried over to the NL game.

I will admit that Cloutiers book is not the only book you should read. Sklansky's Tourney Book and Ciaffone's book will also add to the foundation you have acquired from the Cloutier book and lead to you building your own style of game.

BradleyT

10-05-2004, 10:10 AM

I enjoyed the gambling stories from the road that TJ talked about in the book.

flair1239

10-05-2004, 12:12 PM

I think it is bad because you have to slog through all of TJ's stories about the old days and also put up with the incessant name dropping.

Also he does not get into concepts to often. The other problem I had with the book, is it seemed very passive.

KeyToTheMint

10-05-2004, 03:07 PM

I'll preface this by saying I enjoyed the book. Some of my enjoyment is
for reasons other than the purpose of the book. However, I cannot
recomend the book for beginners nor experienced players as I
don't believe it has expectation value for either.

The underlying problem of the book is it is poorly written. Moreover,
He'll give a situation and tell you about 2 ways of playing it. One of
the ways will be the optimal way of playing it if you know what situation
your in. The thing is the author never reallys tells you what you should
be thinking about to determine what situation your in, this leaves the
reader confused. If your new to no limit you wont know what to do and
if your experienced you already know what to do. Hence to me the
book doesn't have merit. I could literally summarize all the strategy
in that book on a single sheet of paper. Basically the book tells the
reader to play your money game strategy early in a tournament when
the money is deep. This is sound advice but he doesn't give a money
game strategy for the novice and the experienced player will already
know this. So my first problem with the book is there is way too much
filler material ie colorful stories which wont help your game. Let's move
on.

I'll have to paraphrase in the book T.J. lets the reader know that sometimes 78 offsuit is more valuable than 78 suited because you
can get trapped with the suited cards. This is so funny because even
a rank amateur knows suited cards are better than non suited. If anyone
needs proof simply pretend your suited cards are unsuited everytime
you get them and now you have the more "valuable" cards each time.
Play accordingly.

So my second problem is the information is inaccurate as per above.
In the book T.J lets the reader know he has a
photographic memory. This next example shows either:
A: T.J does not have a photographic memory.
B: T.J. didn't write the book
C: The book is inaccurate
D: You shouldn't buy the book
E: All of the above.

This is from page 191 of the third printing:

"At the final table of the 1993 world series of poker, John Bonetti,
Jim Bechtel, and Glen Cozen were playing three handed
at the final table. Bonetti raised before the flop with AK and Cozen folded.
Playing three handed, Betchtel did what he was suppose to do: He called with pocket sixes. The flop came with a six and a king in it.
Bonetti bet and Betchtel flat called him ."

This is totally wrong. Betchtel actually raised on the puck and both
Bonetti and Cozen called. On the flop Bonetti checks, Betchtel bet,
Cozen then folds and Bonetti now raises. There's at least 5 errors in
T.J's account pretty pathetic for a guy with a photographic memory.
Keep in mind this is the easiest thing to get right in a poker book: how
a hand was played out which is documented. Yet he gets it wrong. I question his ability as a writer.

Time doesn't permit me to continue so I will leave you with this thought.
In the book T.J. tells the reader to trust his first instinct. My first thought
upon finishing the book was i felt disappointed.

AncientPC

10-05-2004, 08:57 PM

Ugh, I have TJ Cloutier's book on the way. Where were you a week ago? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

PseudoPserious

10-05-2004, 09:54 PM

Don't worry. It's interesting to read, just not as chock full o' info like some other books out there.

Go Sox!
PP

PokrLikeItsProse

10-06-2004, 10:39 AM

The Cloutier book isn't that bad, but it is not appropriate for everyone. If you take a mathematical approach to NLHE, then don't read this book; you will probably be disappointed. But there are other players who get along fine without a (purely) math-based approach and if this is where your game is headed, then read this book. Cloutier's approach doesn't require more math than figuring out pot odds and implied odds if you take your opponent's stack. For some people, I understand that is highly desireable.

However, if you don't want to read the book, then I can pretty much sum it up in a nutshell. It's been falsely characterized as weak-tight in its advice. I think that the most important thrust of its message is that you shouldn't play hands that you get stuck on, you should only play hands that you can throw away if you are beat. It does suggest folding KK or QQ preflop, but this is in the context of playing against someone whose reraise means that he has AA. And it is somewhat justified in calling small suited connectors a possible trap-hand because a lot of players can't fold against a higher flush. Plus, most bad players out there could well use the book's advice to tighten up and not play hands like AJ, KQ, and KJ from early position, but stated in a way different than, "Don't play ATs from UTG because it is -EV," which may be true, but isn't necessarily a great way to communicate the concept to some people.

The book also stresses that the people you are playing against is what matters most. This is a psychology-oriented book. Since there are all sorts of different people, it can't tell you how to play, it can only give you examples and hope you figure it out from there. I can also say that the book has helped me by crafting a good description of a psychological archetype (the one Cloutier advocates) that I have noticed and taken advantage of in a few occasions, to my benefit.

I can't strongly recommend this book if you only play on-line, but neither would I say it is worthless if that is the case. I think it is most useful if your playing style is going to be primarily tight, reliant on good reads, and involving the use of well-placed moves based on your read of the entire table. It is probably least useful if you prefer a game theory approach that doesn't require you to make a more sophisticated read than loose/tight and passive/aggressive or some other approach that minimizes the need to read players.

KeyToTheMint

10-06-2004, 12:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's been falsely characterized as weak-tight in its advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

This book is weak-tight. This is a fact and it cannot be disputed. Here is
just one example. I'll quote the book so everyone can follow along.

"In the first four positions, the raising hands are big pairs-queens or better, not jacks or better-and A-K" pg118
How long has it been kept a secret?
We better not let others know a pair of queens or better and AK are the
best starting hands. Now remember you must play like the book advises
so I can show you what an experienced player is going to do to you. I
just smooth called your raise and i don't even have a hand. Let's make
it 72 for fun. I have position on you too because you raised from an
early position and the money is deep. In the book it reads, "If you raised
the pot going in, your opponent has some kind of hand or he wouldn't have called you" pg 136. Your already wrong
because i have 72 continuing....

Next quote: "I don't care whether or not I've raised before the flop, I never
bet A-K when the flop comes three rags." page 136
"If a guy bets in front of me against that nine-high flop whem I'm holding
the AK, he wins the pot" pg 139
"Aces, kings, and queens are big pairs. If you have raised before the
flop with two aces, kings, or queens, and no overcards come on the flop,
it is correct to make a bet in no limit holdem." pg 139

Pay attention you raised and I smooth called. You now "know " I have
a hand. If you only raise with AK QQ KK or AA from early position 47% of
the time you will have AK. Moreover you will miss the flop 2 out of 3 times
and check to me. I will then bet and win the pot with my 72. The other
53% of the time you will have the big pocket pair so lets continue.
You bet into me and I know you have the over pair. Now I reraise you
what do you do? Let's look to the book for guidance " But you have to keep in mind that all you have is an overpair.
You have to know the player that your are playing with, so that if somebody comes back over the top of you, you can decide
what to do with your hand. Are you going to call or throw it away?" pg139
Do you see why im saying the book is not only weak tight but disappointing. His strategy puts the player in a
comprimising position and then tells you to use your
judgement to get out of it. The book does not explain what to do.
It has left you out on a limb.
Let's say you have pocket QQ's and i hit a deuce on the flop. The way
T.J. tells you to play even if you have the guts to call on the flop,
I probably win with a bet on the turn if a ace or king
comes plus I can make the
best hand with a 7 or a 2 that gives me 13 outs
on the turn if you haven't
already folded.

If you succeed at no limit holdem its in spite of the book
not because of it unless your table is filled with people who dont even
think on the first level, ie "what does my opponent have." I know what
you've got the T.J. way. Your not going to have a clue what I got or when
I decide to put the moves on you.

PokrLikeItsProse

10-06-2004, 03:50 PM

I forgot to mention my main problem with the book. T.J. pretty much says that the way you make money is by setting traps. But he doesn't really go about how to set traps or put up enough examples so that one can get a good idea of how to go about it. He's clearly holding back, not wanting to give away his secrets.

T.J. doesn't come right out and say it, but his advice is pretty much to start out by building a conservative table image. So, it's start out appearing weak-tight, try to only play premium hands, and try to show down good hands. He doesn't really go into when you shift out of this mode, but it's buried in there. I think that he believes that only someone who "feels" poker will know when to change gears. He even says, "There is no cut and dried formula as to when you start opening up your play in a tournament (p94, First Cardoza Edition)."

According to Mason Malmuth, the four characteristics of a weak-tight player are 1) tight play, 2) predictable patterns 3) ability to fold marginal hands 4) little bluffing

Also, Malmuth writes, "Although weak-tight players are great opponents because you can win lots of chips from them, I believe this type of play is the first step toward winning," holding that the main fault of weak players is that they don't bluff enough.

I will agree that T.J. counsels 1 and 3. 2 depends somewhat on 4. And I would say that Cloutier's book advocates more than a little bluffing. He says that at least once a tournament he has to risk all his chips on a bluff (p138), but says that should only be done in certain situations and is usually not worth it. He also likes to bluff pre-flop from UTG (p137). He says that you should consider a resteal if you think someone is out of line. Those statements seem to me like someone who bluffs more than a little. And it is failure to bluff and avoid being predictable that separate a weak-tight player from a tight player who makes money, not aggression. Over-aggression and an unwillingness to lay down the second-best hand will kill you a lot more than in many other forms of poker.

I'm going to say that T.J. Cloutier is not counseling weak-tight play, he is counseling playing with a weak-tight table image. This sounds a lot like the strategy that Dan Harrington employs to great success. It's also not something that everyone is psychologically capable of handling. I know I am not patient enough to play quite so few hands, although I have incorporated some of the concepts from the book into my looser style. But that's the beauty of no-limit, someone conservative like T.J. Cloutier or Dan Harrington can be successful, but someone playing more hands like Layne Flack or Gus Hansen can also be successful in tournaments.

Cerril

10-06-2004, 09:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand poker is competition; one just does not go around in an easy way telling people everything of how to play better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's sort of the point. There's a premium on well written books on poker that give easy to follow, concrete, explicit advice. I will maintain that this book doesn't fall into that category, even if there are some tidbits of value in there. If I have to search for the information on how to improve my game and sometimes not succeed, then I certainly couldn't recommend the book.

tek

10-07-2004, 07:30 AM

Which book are you talking about?

PokrLikeItsProse

10-07-2004, 10:14 AM

Tek, we're talking about Championship No Limt and Pot Limit Hold Em by TJ Cloutier and Tom McEvoy

[ QUOTE ]
Well that's sort of the point. There's a premium on well written books on poker that give easy to follow, concrete, explicit advice. I will maintain that this book doesn't fall into that category, even if there are some tidbits of value in there. If I have to search for the information on how to improve my game and sometimes not succeed, then I certainly couldn't recommend the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're looking for a book tells you to make a certain play holding certain cards with a certain board on a certain street, that won't be a good book. Unlike limit, there are a broad number of ways in which one can be successful at no-limit hold 'em, so the paradigm of an optimal tightness and an optimal aggressiveness doesn't hold. The organization of Cloutier's book (or lack of it) makes it easier to pick and choose bits that you want to incorporate into your game.

Every good player who I have sought advice (including pros) says that you have to characterize the individual players. You don't just make certain plays if you have a tight table and other plays if you have a loose table.

No-limit is not the game where you come up with a system that you can play on auto-pilot. A good book won't tell you what to think, but how to think when playing no-limit. (And if you want a concise description of how to think in no-limit, read the couple of pages in Gary Carson's The Complete Book of Hold 'Em Poker).

bygmesterf

10-07-2004, 12:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I forgot to mention my main problem with the book. T.J. pretty much says that the way you make money is by setting traps. But he doesn't really go about how to set traps or put up enough examples so that one can get a good idea of how to go about it. He's clearly holding back, not wanting to give away his secrets.

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing that is important to keep in mind when reading books in the championship series is that they are writen in a conversational style.The authors also assume that you are smart enough to use common sense in applying the advice. In addition the authors don't make pretentions that thier advice is provably correct, but that it is their opinons on the subject at hand.

That means don't be litteral, and know the context of the advice. 2+2 books arent written that way. You can take almost any 2+2 book and chop it up by chapter and each chapter would be complete. 2+2 authors contend that their writing is unimpeachable.

The textbook example of this is the book Championship Stud. Mason panned this book, rating it (1 for the ring game stud, and 6 for everything else) Many people find the ring game stud section to be weird. But if you read the book carefully you'll realize that the authors are talking about an agressive 20-40 game where pots are raised on 3rd and most pots are heads up. In that context the advice and prespectives of the authors are quite useful.

As for the 7-2 example, the trick with that is for you to raise more than 5-10% of your opponents stack. This is roughly the threshhold for playing weak hands against known good hands and anyone calling with the intention of being cute isn't getting the right price.

CarlSpackler

10-07-2004, 01:46 PM

"This book is weak-tight. This is a fact and it cannot be disputed."

I completely disagree. Is reraising a persistent blind stealer 3-4 times their raise with any 2 cards weak-tight? Is bluffing from utg weak-tight? Is going all-in when you flop a straight-flush draw weak-tight? The answer is a resounding no. In fact, the first two examples are notorious meglo-type plays.

I agree with Prose that Cloutier is advocating displaying a weak-tight table image, and using this image to trap ones opponents. The 72 example you have written is a prime example. In this example, the player using Cloutier’s approach may misread his opponent, and lay down his hand on the turn. Sooner or later, however, when he has a made hand he’s going to chop you off when you try and buy the pot with a marginal hand, by smooth calling until the turn or river, and then reraising. IMO, there is nothing which will add more intimidation to your table image during a tourney, than trapping another player for all of their chips.

TJ talks about many of the concepts in Sklansky’s TPFAP, although he doesn’t reference them directly. He talks about changing gears (which is applying the gap concept), and how to play a short stack correctly (you can’t wait too long to try and get a good hand to go all in on – at some point you have to make a move before being ground down to the point where it won’t matter). One damning characteristic of the weak-tight player is that they don’t change gears, and become aggressive when they should.

The overall strategy TJ lays out is too play extremely tight in the early rounds of a tournament, and try to double up by trapping your opponents when you have a made hand. He tells you to stay out of trouble, and to avoid as many borderline decisions and situations as possible. At some point later in the tourney, you must change gears and play more aggressively. This is one complaint I have about the book, as he doesn’t do a good job of telling the reader when and how you should change gears. I personally use Sklansky’s Gap Concept to determine when I need to change gears.

I agree with the others that this book is most beneficial for live tourney play, and that you should read the pot limit section as well, because many of the ideas there crossover to no limit. It’s definitely not written in a 2+2 style. I would also definitely ready Sklansy’s TPFAP, which I like to think of as the “Theory of Tournament Poker.”

KeyToTheMint

10-07-2004, 02:17 PM

[/ QUOTE ]

As for the 7-2 example, the trick with that is for you to raise more than 5-10% of your opponents stack. This is roughly the threshhold for playing weak hands against known good hands and anyone calling with the intention of being cute isn't getting the right price.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is quite interesting. However, your not allowed to use this tactic since its not in my copy of the T.J. book.
3rd printing 2001. And this is just another reason
why I can't recommend the book.

I think the reason T.J.'s book gets defended is he's popular. However if
the book was written by Joe Blow from Idaho (or dare I say Ken Warren)
I bet more people would rip it apart.

Mason Malmuth

10-07-2004, 02:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But if you read the book carefully you'll realize that the authors are talking about an agressive 20-40 game where pots are raised on 3rd and most pots are heads up. In that context the advice and prespectives of the authors are quite useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. When I read a book, I try to be well aware of the context that it is written in. Also, I've played a lot of $20-$40 limit stud in aggressive ring games.

MM

jtnt1096

10-07-2004, 04:47 PM

Well said. I think this has been a solid thread. It is interesting to see how opinions can be completely different on a subject.

As noted previously, I am one who like the Cloutier book, BUT I also feel that it is not the only book that should be read.

I agree that the book preaches a weak-tight table image. The weak-tight image early sets up some great opportunities for bluffing at pots later on in the tourney.

Cloutier's book along with TPFAP, to re-enforce and fill in some of the blanks left by Cloutier's books, provides a great foundation for successful NL play.

bygmesterf

10-07-2004, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if you read the book carefully you'll realize that the authors are talking about an agressive 20-40 game where pots are raised on 3rd and most pots are heads up. In that context the advice and prespectives of the authors are quite useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. When I read a book, I try to be well aware of the context that it is written in. Also, I've played a lot of $20-$40 limit stud in aggressive ring games.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Championship stud 1998 ISBN 1-884466-25-7

Page 51 (First page of Chapter "Championship Strategies for 7 stud Ring Games" Starting from the first paragraph)

[ QUOTE ]

In this chapter we will be discussing winning strategies for $15-30 and $20-40 ring games. We chose these limits because they are regularly spread in larger card rooms and because they are the games that are most often played in side games during big poker tournaments.

There are big differences between the games at the lower limits and the ones at the higher limits. For examples you would use a different strategy to win at $1-$5 seven-card stud than at $15-$30 stud. This is why Tom and I are clearly defining the game limits that we will be adressing here.

In contrast to stud/8 the number of players involed in each hand in a $15-$30 or $20-$40 seven-card stud game is fewer. Normally, you will be heads up, although if you are in a good game you may have two or more opponents. (<font color="blue"> Bygmesterf note: This implies that the game is T/A or has isolating players)</font> At the lower limits, of course far more multiway pots are played.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, the authors say three times on the very first page of the 7CS chapter that they are talking about $15-30 $20-$40 and up games and specifially not talking about lower limit games. Im not sure how the authors could have made it any clearer.

Im sure you have honest disagreements with McEvoy+Stern on 7stud strategy (Maybe you would like to enlighten us as to what they are), but I think we can all agree that McEvoy+Stern are talking about 15-30 20-40 and up games.

Quoting Lewis Carrol (The hunting of the Snark) "What I tell you three times is true." /images/graemlins/smile.gif

http://bibliofile.duhs.duke.edu/gww/nonsense/Snark.html

Bygmesterf--

PS: This post is in no way intended to be disrespectful. 2+2 is devoted to honest and factual discussions (And I think this is a perfect example), and I view this a being honest mistake on your part and not an attack on you .

bygmesterf

10-07-2004, 05:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

As for the 7-2 example, the trick with that is for you to raise more than 5-10% of your opponents stack. This is roughly the threshhold for playing weak hands against known good hands and anyone calling with the intention of being cute isn't getting the right price.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is quite interesting. However, your not allowed to use this tactic since its not in my copy of the T.J. book.
3rd printing 2001. And this is just another reason
why I can't recommend the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to be willfully ignorant, thats fine by me, but don't blame TJ/McEvoy for it. The authors assume that you bring something to the table as well.

I do hope you try and learn as much as possible about a subject and that includes applying your exisiting knowledge to new things you read as well as synthesizing information from multiple sources. If you don't do that, you have my sympathies

Mason Malmuth

10-07-2004, 10:14 PM

Hi bygmesterf:

My comment is aimed at the advice they offer, not at the limit they claim the book is applicable for.

Here's my review:

Championship Stud: Seven-Card Stud; Stud 8/or Better; Razz (1 and 7) by Dr. Max Stern, Linda Johnson, and Tom McEvoy. I’m not sure where to start my comments because some of the material in this book is incredibly inaccurate. Most of the material on razz and seven-card stud eight-or-better is reasonably good, and the same goes for much of the tournament advice. But the exact opposite is true for their advice regarding (standard) seven-card stud. Thus the two different ratings.

For instance, when playing stud always throwing away K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, when your hand is 100 percent live is just crazy and immediately surrendering unimproved three flushes on fourth street that contain two high cards is not correct.

But my favorite statement in the book actually appears in the stud eight-or-better section. Here the authors state “In stud/8 ring games, try always to be ahead...don’t get stuck.” Well, perhaps that’s my problem. I don’t always win the first hand that I am dealt.

KeyToTheMint

10-08-2004, 08:13 AM

I have only one book on no-limit hold'em and I am ignorant. You be the judge. Just kidding.

The only reason I even own this book is because Mason gave the book
a 6. I know he only recommends the book if he gives it an 8, but I thought
I would take a chance because this is a high rating for a Cloutier/McEvoy
book. Now its 8 or better or forget about it.

If one plays no limit holdem and raises in early position with only
AA KK QQ and AK and then check folds with the AK he will automatically
lose a guaranteed 31% of the time and lose a significant portion of
the remaining 69% of the time to make the play unprofitable. If his
opponent knows how and when to do this. I will neither prove nor debate
this point. BTW your 10% solution will not help you because I control the
when. Keep in mind it doesn't help you to bet 10% if your overbetting the
blinds. I want to make one more point. I believe the 5-10 rule to be very
basic and should be in every nolimit primer, but its not in T.J.'s.

All no limit players who play for a living understand the importance of
position, deception and how the size of the pot and the amount of money
players have in front of them determine the correct course of action. I think
T.J.'s book does a poor job of this. Basically the book tells the reader
to figure it out on your own. Hence I don't need the book. Look at these
quotes:

"If somebody comes back over the top of you, you can decide what to do with your hand. Are you going to call or throw it away?'
It would be nice if he would write what we should be thinking about and
describe a situation where one would throw it away, and another where
one would call etc.

"Timing is everything in no limit hold em. It's not the hands that you play,
its when you play them, and who you're playing against. You might have 72...and i'm not telling you to play this hand...but it might be time to play
72."
What? when is it time? How do I figure it out? wait a minute heres the
answer.

"Again, it all depends on the "feel" factor, your timing. I don't care if your wrote 50 books about poker, you still couldn't teach a person that little thing that you
are born with."

So there you have the last quote shows even T.J. cannot endorse
his own book.

Summing up
1-the book is inaccurate about suited cards and hand histories( 93 world
series)
2-Too much filler material
3-Incomplete information.

JohnG

10-09-2004, 10:30 PM

One of the main problems with the TJ no limit book is I have seen so many people misunderstand and misapply it's advice. Draws are death being one such concept.

Al Mirpuri

10-16-2004, 05:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi bygmesterf:

My comment is aimed at the advice they offer, not at the limit they claim the book is applicable for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason Malmuth you were implicitly criticizing the play saying that it did not play true at that limit.

Your side step was neat but patently dishonest.

It is okay to be wrong on occasion.

Mason Malmuth

10-17-2004, 06:15 AM

Hi Al:

You're absolutely right. I indeed did pull a fast one. Since you caught me, and it's important to show everyone else how dishonest and deceitful I was, I suggest you study their stud advice, play exactly as they advise at $20-$40 limit for at least a few hundred hours, and then come back here and let us know how you have done.

By the way, I suspect that when you are done, even though I've been totally dishonest and deceitful, you'll agree with my rating of 1 for the stud section of this book.

Best wishes,
mason

MicroBob

10-17-2004, 10:44 AM

ZING!!!!!

MicroBob

10-17-2004, 10:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to say that T.J. Cloutier is not counseling weak-tight play, he is counseling playing with a weak-tight table image. This sounds a lot like the strategy that Dan Harrington employs to great success.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I have a feeling that the strategy that Harrington gives in his upcoming 2+2 tournament books will be nothing like the "strategy" (if you can call it that) Cloutier gives in his book?

Al Mirpuri

10-18-2004, 11:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Al:

You're absolutely right. I indeed did pull a fast one. Since you caught me, and it's important to show everyone else how dishonest and deceitful I was, I suggest you study their stud advice, play exactly as they advise at $20-$40 limit for at least a few hundred hours, and then come back here and let us know how you have done.

By the way, I suspect that when you are done, even though I've been totally dishonest and deceitful, you'll agree with my rating of 1 for the stud section of this book.

Best wishes,
mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear Mason,

Perhaps, dishonest was too strong a word.

Yours,

Al Mirpuri

PS: I have no doubt that your advice recommendations would play better.