partygirluk
02-02-2005, 01:23 PM
This book takes the form of 56 Poker hands in Q & A format. You are asked to make a decision on each street. Then you are told what the actual player did, and asked for your decision on the next street.
I have only skimmed through the book once, but here are some initial thoughts:
Reuben uses names throughout, e.g. "Bob opened UTG for £70, Jeremy called in the Small Blind...", but rarely gives any particular description for the player. Knowing whether a player is good, bad, tricky, straightforward, passive or aggresive is very important in big bet poker, and is underexplored in this book.
He very rarely states stack sizes. Perhaps there is an implicit assumption that everyone has enough to cover all reasonable possibilities, and knowing precise stack sizes is less important in NL than PL, but I think he should have stated at the beginning of the book something along the lines of "unless stated otherwise, everyone one has 150 BB". As it is, he asks questions such as whether to call a raise with 44 or QJs preflop, hands which are easy folds with 25 BB stacks, but easy calls with 500 BB stacks.
He offers a set of options on each street, then scores them at the end, then offer a scoring conversion chart, i.e.
45~60 Don't play in my game
30~45 Fair to middling.
etc.
IMO the space would be much better spent by just asking what the reader would do, and then analysing it. This would have freed up space for about 6 more hand examples, which IMO would be much more useful.
Some of the hands are highly debatable. I.e. on one hand he raises a few limpers with AJs (debatable, but not a clear mistake), then calls down pot sized bets on all 3 future streets on a raggedy pair. He then says that he won the hand in real life. If you know the player, and/or are playing live, this might be the correct advice, but IMO this should not be the territory of a book.
A few of the hands are just "fun stories", which i don't like. e.g. you pick up QTdiamonds, playing against a computer. The flop is AKJ of diamonds, what do you do? Whilst this is a mildly amusing story, it won't add to your EV. However, there are only 2 or 3 hands like this.
Despite all this, the book is better than average. I particularly like that he uses mainly real life hands, but will often use hypothetical situations. i.e. he might say "Mason flat called my flop bet, what do you do?" but then say "If he has raised to £500, what should you do now?". This is a very valuable teaching tool, and good use of space. I'd like to see 2 plus 2 do this. E.g. in SSH, there is a hand where you hold A9s in the BB. The flop is T44, and is checked around. The SB bets out on 9 turn, and you are advised to raise. Fine. But what if you are three bet? Putting in a line such as "You should probably fold if threebet, and it is (un)likely that you will have a river value bet if called" would add immensely to the book, whilst taking up minimal space.
Most of the hand examples are varied, and the analysis is good. Reuben also uses some good and (fairly) complex mathematics quite often, but this is cleverly forewarned, allowing the uninterested reader to skip it.
I have only skimmed through the book once, but here are some initial thoughts:
Reuben uses names throughout, e.g. "Bob opened UTG for £70, Jeremy called in the Small Blind...", but rarely gives any particular description for the player. Knowing whether a player is good, bad, tricky, straightforward, passive or aggresive is very important in big bet poker, and is underexplored in this book.
He very rarely states stack sizes. Perhaps there is an implicit assumption that everyone has enough to cover all reasonable possibilities, and knowing precise stack sizes is less important in NL than PL, but I think he should have stated at the beginning of the book something along the lines of "unless stated otherwise, everyone one has 150 BB". As it is, he asks questions such as whether to call a raise with 44 or QJs preflop, hands which are easy folds with 25 BB stacks, but easy calls with 500 BB stacks.
He offers a set of options on each street, then scores them at the end, then offer a scoring conversion chart, i.e.
45~60 Don't play in my game
30~45 Fair to middling.
etc.
IMO the space would be much better spent by just asking what the reader would do, and then analysing it. This would have freed up space for about 6 more hand examples, which IMO would be much more useful.
Some of the hands are highly debatable. I.e. on one hand he raises a few limpers with AJs (debatable, but not a clear mistake), then calls down pot sized bets on all 3 future streets on a raggedy pair. He then says that he won the hand in real life. If you know the player, and/or are playing live, this might be the correct advice, but IMO this should not be the territory of a book.
A few of the hands are just "fun stories", which i don't like. e.g. you pick up QTdiamonds, playing against a computer. The flop is AKJ of diamonds, what do you do? Whilst this is a mildly amusing story, it won't add to your EV. However, there are only 2 or 3 hands like this.
Despite all this, the book is better than average. I particularly like that he uses mainly real life hands, but will often use hypothetical situations. i.e. he might say "Mason flat called my flop bet, what do you do?" but then say "If he has raised to £500, what should you do now?". This is a very valuable teaching tool, and good use of space. I'd like to see 2 plus 2 do this. E.g. in SSH, there is a hand where you hold A9s in the BB. The flop is T44, and is checked around. The SB bets out on 9 turn, and you are advised to raise. Fine. But what if you are three bet? Putting in a line such as "You should probably fold if threebet, and it is (un)likely that you will have a river value bet if called" would add immensely to the book, whilst taking up minimal space.
Most of the hand examples are varied, and the analysis is good. Reuben also uses some good and (fairly) complex mathematics quite often, but this is cleverly forewarned, allowing the uninterested reader to skip it.