Beginner's Poker FAQ - Ready For Review

[SheridanCat]

Finally the Beginner's Frequently Asked Question is ready for prime time. I'm sure there are errors, so please bring anything you see to my attention.

You can find the FAQ here. (http://www.pokergeek.com/faq/beginners_faq.html)

Also, if there is a question you'd like to see answered that isn't on the FAQ, either post it here or PM me.

I'm sorry this has taken so log to complete, but I hope it's helpful to people.

Regards,

T

[AngryCola]

I can't believe you were still working on the FAQ!

Way to stick with it.
I'll check it out tomorrow.


Honestly, I will!

[SheridanCat]

Cola,

I'm especially interested in your opinions on the Odds stuff. Not my forte.

T

[Dangergirl]

Nice work! The only thing I see missing is something about Gametime, PLayerview and datamining. Other then that great job. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SheridanCat]

I just realized I forgot to put in the formala for PokerTracker aggression levels. I'll get that in ASAP.

T

Edit: Okay, fixed

[theRealMacoy]

wow,
i just had a chance to breeze through
but it is very well done
i like the answers and the additional information where needed

excellent work!

cheers,
the Real Macoy

[Stuey]

Thanks for putting such effort into this, it is perfect. Will it remain a external link or become a sticky?
And one dumb question. /images/graemlins/smile.gif It's a PT question regarding the VP$IP stat. I play in full 10 player ring games normally so I want a VP$IP of < 20 %. But when these games become shorthanded I change the way I play. Is there a filter I am not aware of to show my stats when only 7 or more players are actively in the hand?

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for putting such effort into this, it is perfect. Will it remain a external link or become a sticky?


[/ QUOTE ]

The FAQ will remain an external link. Mason was clear that he didn't want 2+2 to appear to be endorsing any FAQ for this forum, so it can't be sticky. I'll post it occasionally to the forum and I'll keep it in my signature when I can remember to put it there.

I'll also add questions to it as time goes by.

[ QUOTE ]

And one dumb question. /images/graemlins/smile.gif It's a PT question regarding the VP$IP stat. I play in full 10 player ring games normally so I want a VP$IP of < 20 %. But when these games become shorthanded I change the way I play. Is there a filter I am not aware of to show my stats when only 7 or more players are actively in the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there is a way to filter out hands that don't meet a minimum number of players. I don't have PT available to me at the moment. If I remember correctly, this criterion can be accessed on the General Info tab, lower right hand section around where you choose which game types to show.

I'll take a closer look when I get home. Also, a good place to find information about PokerTracker is their website, found here. (http://www.pokertracker.com)

Regards,

T

[Joe B.]

another beginner book not listed on the faq for Low Limit is

Internet Texas Holdem by Matthew Hilger

thanks

[AngryCola]

This definitely is impressive.
You obviously put some real time into this.

So far, the only problems I can see coming are with the questions covering books. I realize this isn't an official FAQ, but some of the book suggestions might catch some flak.

The odds stuff looks good to me so far, but I haven't covered everything yet.

I'll write something for the search function question.
You can expect it on your desk tomorrow.

Anyway, as I already said, it looks very good.
I'll continue to go over it today.

[KenProspero]

Great Job!!

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
So far, the only problems I can see coming are with the questions covering books. I realize this isn't an official FAQ, but some of the book suggestions might catch some flak.


[/ QUOTE ]

Anything specific? I'm willing to rethink the books list since I haven't read everything there is. I really think WLLH is a good beginner's book - I reread it before I wrote the answer. I suppose the Roy West 7CS book is marginal, but I found it helpful and there is so litle stud information available. I guess I should read that Internet Texas Holdem book to see if it should be included.

[ QUOTE ]

I'll write something for the search function question.
You can expect it on your desk tomorrow.


[/ QUOTE ]

This would be so great. I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks for the encouragement.

Regards,

T

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Internet Texas Holdem by Matthew Hilger


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll pick it up this week and give it a read. I don't want to include books I haven't read - except for the one book Mason recommended.

Thanks,

T

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

Anything specific? I'm willing to rethink the books list since I haven't read everything there is. I really think WLLH is a good beginner's book - I reread it before I wrote the answer. I suppose the Roy West 7CS book is marginal, but I found it helpful and there is so litle stud information available. I guess I should read that Internet Texas Holdem book to see if it should be included.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess what I'm seeing is a lot of disagreements no matter what you list. Personally, I think maybe the question should be referred to the Books & Software Forum.

But it's still not a bad thing to have in the Beginners FAQ.
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about how much people would argue about the books included in the FAQ.

[SheridanCat]

Right, very true. I've added a little extra to the answer to point out that there is some contention over the value of the books listed.

Thanks for the feedback.

T

[Dead]

Hey Cat,

Maybe you should consider adding the thread below to the bonus whoring section. I know it's not a 2+2 thread but it's incredibly detailed and helpful.

http://www.bonuswhores.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4720

[theRealMacoy]

as far as a good general beginner book
the first book i read was
Thursday Night Poker by Peter O. Steiner

it really is a good intro book
i think i ever remember Mason giving it a reasonable recommendation (of course it's not a 2+2 book but hey it eventually lead me here).

cheers,
the Real Macoy

[pzhon]

Thanks for compiling this FAQ. Here are a few suggestions for improvements:

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 1: What's this abbreviation?

UTG and CO should not only be defined, they should be explained. Currently, there is a link to a page that says UTG means Under The Gun, but that isn't enough.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 3: What does "drawing dead" mean?

The example given was AK versus AQ on a board of AKK. That's not drawing dead. If an ace and a non-king come, the pot will be split because both players will have aces full of kings.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4: What does "the nuts" mean?

The definition given makes it sound like an ace-high flush on an unpaired board, no SF possible, would not be the nuts unless it were an ace-king-high flush. It is more common to use "the nuts" to refer to a hand that you know can't be beaten at the moment, not the highest possible such hand.

Also, on a board of Ad 7h 6h 3c, 54 is not the nuts unless at least one card is a heart. 5h 4h is ahead of 5d 4d, and the latter would not be able to call a push correctly with insanely deep stacks.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5: What does "table stakes" mean?

When mentioning that a player can call all-in, it should be mentioned that any additional bets go into a side pot that the all-in player can't win.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 8: Which should I learn first, limit hold'em or no-limit hold'em?

"In NL, you are rarely getting the correct odds to draw at a hand. That assumes your opponents have half a clue or bumble into the correct play. "

This is wrong. Because of implied odds, underbets, the possibility you are ahead, and the fact that your opponent worries that you may have a monster, you often get the odds to draw in NL.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9: Which should I concentrate on, tournaments or ring/cash games?

It's worth mentioning SNGs. They don't have the high variance of MTTs, and they can be a safe way to practice NL.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 11: Is my bankroll big enough?

It's almost an urban legend that 300 BB is the right size of a bankroll. That gets passed on without transmitting meaning. A losing player will burn through 300 BB or 3000 BB, but at low limits a good player needs much less than 300 BB. The figure of 300 BB assumes that a player wins about 2-3 BB/100 and will not step down.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 17: What are the odds of this hand winning?

Sorry, although the flush draw example is common, it is wrong and quite misleading. The question was what the odds are of the hand winning, not of making the flush, and it is rare that the only way to win is to hit the flush unless not all flushes win. Flush draws can win 25-55% or more, or they can be almost dead if someone has an overpair and a higher flush draw.

In the example give, the player has the nut flush draw with two overcards, a monster draw that is a favorite over most pairs, not a 1.86:1 underdog.

Anyway, the calculation of the odds to hit should be simplified. Calculate the odds you miss twice, and subtract from 1: 1-(38/47)(37/46).

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 19: How do you play against a maniac?

The answer seems to assume this is only a preflop problem. There is a lot that can be said about playing post-flop against a maniac. You can call down with weaker hands than normal, but you also may want to raise with weak hands to isolate the maniac. You may want to slow-play more if you feel the maniac is bluffing and won't call a raise, but will bet on the next street if you just call.

It's not always true that you should tighten up against a maniac when you can't isolate. After all, the maniac's preflop raises represent less strength than a solid player's raises would, so hands like KJo that you would fold quickly after a real raise are still playable after a maniac's raise.

[SheridanCat]

Thanks for the detailed response, pzhon.

I definitely see the errors you point out and I'll correct those over the next couple days.

Some of the issues you bring up, such as 300BB bankroll size, are pretty nuanced for a basic FAQ. That particular issue is covered well in the thread I link to and in other threads in the statistics forum. I will qualify the 300BB bankroll size in the answer so that people don't just think you need 300BBs and you're safe.

In any event, all your comments are appreciated and I'll revisit the answers based on them.

Thanks,

T

[SheridanCat]

Okay, I've updated some of the answers based on your comments. Thanks for those. I have a couple issues about what you posted that I want to ask about.

[ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4: What does "the nuts" mean?
Also, on a board of Ad 7h 6h 3c, 54 is not the nuts unless at least one card is a heart. 5h 4h is ahead of 5d 4d, and the latter would not be able to call a push correctly with insanely deep stacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

In the FAQ we're just really defining what "the nuts" means. We're not really worrying about discussing how one plays when drawing to the nuts, etc. There are plenty of books for further reading to talk about that. The nuts is, the highest possible hand based on known cards at any particular time, and that's what is described in the FAQ, I believe.

[ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 17: What are the odds of this hand winning?

Sorry, although the flush draw example is common, it is wrong and quite misleading. The question was what the odds are of the hand winning, not of making the flush, and it is rare that the only way to win is to hit the flush unless not all flushes win. Flush draws can win 25-55% or more, or they can be almost dead if someone has an overpair and a higher flush draw.


[/ QUOTE ]

Quite right. I answered a question, just not the question that was asked. I've fixed this by changing the question. I'm not even sure what the original question meant.

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, the calculation of the odds to hit should be simplified. Calculate the odds you miss twice, and subtract from 1: 1-(38/47)(37/46).


[/ QUOTE ]

This gives you the probability. In order to calculate pot odds, you'll still nead to turn it into odds. It's easy enough to do, of course, but whether you do it the long way I show or the shortcut you show, it's still not going to happen at the table for beginning players.

[ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 19: How do you play against a maniac?

The answer seems to assume this is only a preflop problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

True, I didn't go into any detail on postflop play. I have done so now.

[ QUOTE ]

It's not always true that you should tighten up against a maniac when you can't isolate. After all, the maniac's preflop raises represent less strength than a solid player's raises would, so hands like KJo that you would fold quickly after a real raise are still playable after a maniac's raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't isolate, you're playing against other players which should cause you to tighten up some. Now, it's perfectly possible that the players you couldn't drive out are also playing marginal holdings vs. the maniac, but you're still reducing your chances against the maniac by playing against these other players.

If there is a maniac in who raises, I reraise with KJo trying to isolate, and one or more players behind me cold call or reraise, I'm not very happy. I'm in the middle between a maniac and someone who could easily have me dominated. Worse, if the player after me is a knowledgable player, he knows I'm tasty meat in a sandwich and he's counting on that.

So, thanks very much for the suggestions they made the FAQ better. If I'm offbase on what I've said above, please let me know.

Regards,

T

[SheridanCat]

I've also added two new questions. One is about which hands wins and another about the low in Omaha/8.

Regards,

T

[Uncle Wiggly]

Cat:
As a relative beginner (10K hands in 2.5 months), I find this kind of guide to be invaluable.
It answers many of the questions I've poked through various threads here to get info on.
Your work is much appreciated by those of us striving desperately to get better.
Thanks!

Uncle Wiggly

[SheridanCat]

Thanks, Uncle. Good luck.

T

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4: What does "the nuts" mean?
Also, on a board of Ad 7h 6h 3c, 54 is not the nuts unless at least one card is a heart. 5h 4h is ahead of 5d 4d, and the latter would not be able to call a push correctly with insanely deep stacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

In the FAQ we're just really defining what "the nuts" means. We're not really worrying about discussing how one plays when drawing to the nuts, etc. There are plenty of books for further reading to talk about that. The nuts is, the highest possible hand based on known cards at any particular time, and that's what is described in the FAQ, I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hold'em is a 7 card game, not a 6 card game. Being tied for the best hand after the turn does not make your hand the nuts. This distinction is important in Omaha and some of the time in NL.

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=774083
pokenum -h 5h 4h - 5d 4d -- ad 7h 6h 3c
cards EV
5h 4h 0.602
5d 4d 0.398

On that board, 54 with at least one heart is the nuts because it is equal to or better than any other hand. 5d 4d is not the nuts because it could be significantly behind.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 17: What are the odds of this hand winning?


[/ QUOTE ]
I answered a question, just not the question that was asked. I've fixed this by changing the question. I'm not even sure what the original question meant.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there should be some mention of analyzers such as Two Dimes and Poker Stove. I'm a mathematician, and I don't bother to do the calculations myself. I use these excellent tools.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 19: How do you play against a maniac?

It's not always true that you should tighten up against a maniac when you can't isolate. After all, the maniac's preflop raises represent less strength than a solid player's raises would, so hands like KJo that you would fold quickly after a real raise are still playable after a maniac's raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't isolate, you're playing against other players which should cause you to tighten up some. Now, it's perfectly possible that the players you couldn't drive out are also playing marginal holdings vs. the maniac, but you're still reducing your chances against the maniac by playing against these other players.

If there is a maniac in who raises, I reraise with KJo trying to isolate, and one or more players behind me cold call or reraise, I'm not very happy. I'm in the middle between a maniac and someone who could easily have me dominated. Worse, if the player after me is a knowledgable player, he knows I'm tasty meat in a sandwich and he's counting on that.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but although that is common advice, it is weak-tight and wrong. A maniac is essentially posting an extra blind, and more blind money means there is more reason to get involved, not less, even if you can't steal the blinds.

If a maniac raises and there are two cold-callers and you are in the big blind, you can call with many more hands than if a tight-aggressive player raises and gets two cold-calls. That means you can play more loosely, even though you are not going to be able to isolate the maniac.

While it is true that you could still profit at a table of maniacs by playing very tightly, this does not mean it is the most profitable way to play. The idea that you should tighten up because your opponents are loose is a common fallacy that should not be endorsed by an FAQ.

[AngryCola]

This is why I thought some of the book questions should be left out.
I wasn't even thinking about the play type of questions.

Honestly, I hear what you're saying Pzhon, but the "nuts" argument you are making is not one for the FAQ.
The FAQ needs to stay as simple as possible.

If people have questions they can use the boards, but Cat can't plan for every possible contigency in the FAQ. It would end up becoming a book.

I think you have good intentions here, but you need to understand that FAQs aren't supposed to contain a lot of detailed information. It ruins them.

Sticking to the absolute most basic answers to some of these questions is really the best way to go.
Cat, if you need to use an example for that question, just use the most obvious and simple one you can think of.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I hear what you're saying Pzhon, but the "nuts" argument you are making is not one for the FAQ.
The FAQ needs to stay as simple as possible.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that it should be simple. I elaborated because the example was wrong, not because I felt these details should be included in the FAQ. Wrong examples and fallacies should be left out of the FAQ if possible. I'd be happier with a simpler, correct example.

One place I feel more detail is needed is the discussion of a bankroll. Very frequently, people forget to mention that you are supposed to be a clear winner in order to be safe with a 300 BB bankroll.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Macoy:

I've never read the book and don't have an opinion on it.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Cat:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
The FAQ will remain an external link. Mason was clear that he didn't want 2+2 to appear to be endorsing any FAQ for this forum

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's the best way to do it. There are some things in your FAQ which are probably not appropriate for us to endorse, and there are some things which we for sure don't agree with. (An example of this is your endorsement of the Omaha 8 book by Tenner and Krieger.)

However, feel free to post it every now and then, but just make sure to note that it is your work and not an official Two Plus Two document.

Best wishes,
Mason

[theRealMacoy]

Mason,

My sincere appology for the misinformation. I read a short review of it a few months ago by another poker writer, whom I mistakenly thought was you. After searching I can't remember who it was at all now, nor where I came across it. I think my resarch thesis is finally making me crazy. In the future I will be sure to search the source first before engaging keyboard.

Best regards,
the Real Macoy

[RJT]

Good work Cat. Just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for you efforts.

I look forward to AngryCola's memo to you regarding using the search function on this forum. That has been a frustration of mine too.

I would like to see more informtation regarding Poker Tracker. I find navigating the program itself difficult and also (just started using it) making use of the data a self learning proposition.

Regarding nutz: I seem to remember reading the term "stone nutz" as the best possible hand, e.g Ace hi flush, no pairs, no straight flush possible on the board. (Not sure if this is used only after river - or changes at points in time as play progresses). Might want to include that term after checking for sure its proper usage.

Thanks again and keep up the good work.

[SheridanCat]

Again, thanks pzhon for the excellent comments.

[ QUOTE ]

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=774083
pokenum -h 5h 4h - 5d 4d -- ad 7h 6h 3c
cards EV
5h 4h 0.602
5d 4d 0.398

On that board, 54 with at least one heart is the nuts because it is equal to or better than any other hand. 5d 4d is not the nuts because it could be significantly behind.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're getting at but the point is we're talking about "the nuts" at a given point during the deal. Of course, the hand with the hearts has a significant chance of improving to the nuts on the river, but on the turn it's not the nuts. It's a draw at a better hand but even if it improves to a flush on the river it still may not be the nuts.

We're just trying to define the nuts, not draws at the nuts. We are crystal clear in the FAQ that over the course of the deal what the nuts is changes. I fully understand that to say something is "the nuts" on the flop or turn is a bit nonsensical since there are cards to come, but people hear the word used that way all the time on television broadcasts, so it might be nice for them to really understand what they're hearing.

[ QUOTE ]

I think there should be some mention of analyzers such as Two Dimes and Poker Stove. I'm a mathematician, and I don't bother to do the calculations myself. I use these excellent tools.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, for sure. That was in the original set of questions posted on this forum but I left it out somehow. I'll add it today.

[ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but although that is common advice, it is weak-tight and wrong. A maniac is essentially posting an extra blind, and more blind money means there is more reason to get involved, not less, even if you can't steal the blinds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I give. After spending some quality time with PokerStove last night, I agree with you. I'll modify my answer.

Regards,

T

[SheridanCat]

Thanks for the comments, Mason.

[ QUOTE ]

I think that's the best way to do it. There are some things in your FAQ which are probably not appropriate for us to endorse, and there are some things which we for sure don't agree with. (An example of this is your endorsement of the Omaha 8 book by Tenner and Krieger.)


[/ QUOTE ]

One day I hope to understand why you rated the Tenner/Krieger book so low. I understand the words you use in your review about it being "unintelligible" but I don't see what is unintelligible about it. Maybe its the years I spent studying philosophy mumbo jumbo finally paying off.

[ QUOTE ]

However, feel free to post it every now and then, but just make sure to note that it is your work and not an official Two Plus Two document.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, Mason. Thanks.

Regards,

T

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, thanks pzhon for the excellent comments.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are welcome.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=774083
pokenum -h 5h 4h - 5d 4d -- ad 7h 6h 3c
cards EV
5h 4h 0.602
5d 4d 0.398

On that board, 54 with at least one heart is the nuts because it is equal to or better than any other hand. 5d 4d is not the nuts because it could be significantly behind.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're getting at but the point is we're talking about "the nuts" at a given point during the deal. Of course, the hand with the hearts has a significant chance of improving to the nuts on the river, but on the turn it's not the nuts. It's a draw at a better hand but even if it improves to a flush on the river it still may not be the nuts.

We're just trying to define the nuts, not draws at the nuts. We are crystal clear in the FAQ that over the course of the deal what the nuts is changes. I fully understand that to say something is "the nuts" on the flop or turn is a bit nonsensical since there are cards to come, but people hear the word used that way all the time on television broadcasts, so it might be nice for them to really understand what they're hearing.

[/ QUOTE ]
You keep mentioning draws at the nuts. I haven't said that, and it shouldn't be a part of the definition of the nuts.

The nuts on the turn means a hand that is ahead or equal to any other hand.

I don't understand why you say 5h 4h isn't the nuts, but other 54 hands are the nuts. That makes no sense. Typo? I say 5d 4d is not the nuts on the turn because it is behind 5h 4h. No hand is ahead of 5h 4h on the turn. (This would be true if it only had a flush draw, not a draw to the straight-flush. It would still be the nuts on a board of Ah 7h 6c 3d. So would 5h 4s.) That makes it the nuts on the turn.

The fact that 5d 4d would be tied or ahead of all hand if the game ended after the turn does not make it the nuts, as the game doesn't end on the turn. While the mistake of treating it as the nuts would not be so serious, it would be a big mistake to treat Ad 4d as the nuts on a board of Ks Qs Jc Tc.

Whether you believe me and Two Dimes or not, your example is flawed. There are clear examples showing what the nuts means. Why not include one of those?

[RJT]

Have 2 ideas.

1)Maybe we can all monitor this thread to make sure that it is always near the first few pages of new posts. To do this when one of us sees that it is getting further back in position, we can just send a reply saying "just updating to head of the line" something like that - then it gets to first page. We don't have to keep it front and center. Although, I think it would be a good idea to usually have it on the first page; others might not agree. If we all monitor it, Cat doesn't have to take on all the responsibility. She has already gone above and beyond the call of duty.

2)Cat, can you think a way to note when you have added or edited your FAQs? This way we can see new items. Perhaps, in the index in parenthesis (e.g.updated x/xx/05).

RJT

[Joe B.]

why can this faq be sticky on top in this forum.

the micro limit faq they sticky it in the micro limit forum

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
why can this faq be sticky on top in this forum.

the micro limit faq they sticky it in the micro limit forum

[/ QUOTE ]
First, 2+2 isn't planning to publish a book on microlimits. I believe Ed Miller is writing a book for beginners.

Second, the microlimit FAQ contains less material, and much of it concerns things like posting guidelines.

Third, as Mason Malmuth said, 2+2 does not agree with or endorse much of the content in this FAQ, for example, the book recommendations.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why can this faq be sticky on top in this forum.

the micro limit faq they sticky it in the micro limit forum

[/ QUOTE ]
First, 2+2 isn't planning to publish a book on microlimits. I believe Ed Miller is writing a book for beginners.

I believe 2+2 does not endorse much of the content in this FAQ, for example, the book recommendations.

[/ QUOTE ]


See this thread for details.
Link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=begin&Number=1459467&F orum=f18&Words=FAQ&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=1456 068&Search=true&where=sub&Name=3&daterange=1&newer val=2&newertype=m&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#P ost1459467)

[larrondo]

Great job.

I'm told the Omaha/8 section of super system 2 is quite good, as well. Perhaps it's worth a mention, since there is so little good writing about that game.