SS2: TDL Chapter is Awful

[Al Mirpuri]

Anyone who has dealt out a few hands of TDL would figure out how to play them as well if not better than the advice given in Negreanu's chapter on TDL.

This chapter was supposed to be one of the highlights of the book. The book is not very good, and that is classic English understatement.

[kirisim]

I gotta disagree with you there. The advice given in the chapter has given me a huge edge in the smaller TDL games on UltimateBet. (Where else would I play the game?)

[InfernoLL]

While the quality of the book overall may be lacking, I think almost everyone would disagree with your assessment of Negreanu's chapter. I'm sure any real player would love you sitting in their games after "dealing out a few hands" to learn how to play. Some actual criticism of the chapter would be nice, otherwise you just sound like a flamer (reputation of the poster notwithstanding).

[monroe]

In football, a commentator's analysis may seem reasonable (good) if we know little about the sport ourselves. But his analysis of baseball may seem very weak (or naive) if we are very knowledgeable about the game.

When we are ignorant of a subject, we are more likely to be impressed by someone's analysis (if it seems reasonable). If we're unfamiliar with the subject matter it is harder to pick out any faults in someone else's analysis.

[Mike J]

I also have to respectfully disagree with the poster. I too have been successful with the game after reading the chapter. Especially the breakdown on hands to play pre 1st draw. Could you maybe tell us some things you have learned about the game, "dealing out a few hands" that Daniel did not mention in the chapter.

[TheShootah]

Yeah I don't understand this either. He just came in here and trashed the book and didn't say what was wrong with it, or why he plays it better. I think Negreanu is the man for the job here. You can check his blog: he plays in a mixed game that has triple draw at the highest stakes! I doubt someone "dealing out cards" can figure a game out better than him. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[monroe]

Just because Daniel plays in the big game, it doesn't mean his anlaysis is great. Well-respected players are certainly capable of writing sub-par stuff. If there were more written about triple-draw (along with more players with experience) we'd have an easier time figuring out just how good Daniel's chapter really is. See my post above.

Having said that, it would be nice if the OP could elaborate on his criticism. Triple-draw isn't necessarily an intuitive game for a beginner, so just dealing out cards may not help someone "crack" it.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

give us an example please.

[lighterjobs]

I thought it was weird how DN said 2-7 TD was a new game. I thought it had been around for years.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
In football, a commentator's analysis may seem reasonable (good) if we know little about the sport ourselves. But his analysis of baseball may seem very weak (or naive) if we are very knowledgeable about the game.

When we are ignorant of a subject, we are more likely to be impressed by someone's analysis (if it seems reasonable). If we're unfamiliar with the subject matter it is harder to pick out any faults in someone else's analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do not need to be a mathematician to know 2+2=4.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
While the quality of the book overall may be lacking, I think almost everyone would disagree with your assessment of Negreanu's chapter. I'm sure any real player would love you sitting in their games after "dealing out a few hands" to learn how to play. Some actual criticism of the chapter would be nice, otherwise you just sound like a flamer (reputation of the poster notwithstanding).

[/ QUOTE ]

Did anyone really need Negreanu to tell them that if you draw one and your only opponent draws two then you should bet whether you fill or not?

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
I also have to respectfully disagree with the poster. I too have been successful with the game after reading the chapter. Especially the breakdown on hands to play pre 1st draw. Could you maybe tell us some things you have learned about the game, "dealing out a few hands" that Daniel did not mention in the chapter.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not that I dealt out a few hands and learned any dark secrets...I learned just what Negreanu wrote...aside from some details...It may well be the best thing in print on Triple Draw Lowball but rest assured it will not be the final word.

I boobed by using the word "awful". I just meant it was not all that enlightening and even with this caveat it is possible for players to learn from it and improve their games.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
give us an example please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dealt out three or four hands and it was obvious that in Triple Draw Lowball you are drawing at the nuts. In this respect, it is similar to Omaha High. Did anyone really need Negreanu to put this down in print for them?

[kirisim]

[ QUOTE ]
I dealt out three or four hands and it was obvious that in Triple Draw Lowball you are drawing at the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Of course this is not true. Making a wheel is rare, and almost every hand you are making close decisions. For example, against some players, you might raise with an 85 if they bet into you after the 3rd draw.

There are many aspects of winning 2-7 that are not obvious. Negreanu's chapter made me realize some of these things.

[Mike J]

2-7 single draw lowball, (aka Kansas City Lowball) has been around for years, but triple draw is pretty new, I guess.

[monroe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In football, a commentator's analysis may seem reasonable (good) if we know little about the sport ourselves. But his analysis of baseball may seem very weak (or naive) if we are very knowledgeable about the game.

When we are ignorant of a subject, we are more likely to be impressed by someone's analysis (if it seems reasonable). If we're unfamiliar with the subject matter it is harder to pick out any faults in someone else's analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]


You do not need to be a mathematician to know 2+2=4.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Your original post suggests one could find better ways to play certain hands. I was saying that people who don't know much about TDL may not see this (if it is in fact true) because of their unfamiliarity.

My point was that many people that rave about the chapter probably wouldn't be able to tell if it was actually mediocre (because so little has been written about TDL).

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
2-7 single draw lowball, (aka Kansas City Lowball) has been around for years, but triple draw is pretty new, I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been playing it since the 60's. It seems to be a niche game that comes and goes. I'd never seen it played as a limit game until recently, however.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that many people that rave about the chapter probably wouldn't be able to tell if it was actually mediocre (because so little has been written about TDL).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in complete agreement with this point.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dealt out three or four hands and it was obvious that in Triple Draw Lowball you are drawing at the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Of course this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol nothing. Negreanu states as much and it is obvious. Though, I am not arguing that to maximize profits you have to exploit the playing styles of your opponents.

[lighterjobs]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing it since the 60's. It seems to be a niche game that comes and goes. I'd never seen it played as a limit game until recently, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

kc lowball seems like a pretty boring game if played as a fixed limit.

[BluffTHIS!]

I have to disagree as well and believe that it was a very good chapter for the simple fact as another poster stated, that there has never before been a comprehensive treatment of triple draw lowball. Having said that, I would agree that for an experienced TDL player there isn't really anything new, because you have indeed already figured out all he said or you gave up playing after losing your ass multiple times. My main fault with his chapter is his failing to empasize the critical importance of driving out a 3rd player in 3 way pots when you have a good 1 card draw but know another player either is already pat or has a good 1 card draw himself. Thus you either bet to induce a raise or raise yourself to try to get that 3rd player out. This of course allows you to win when you make a low that beats the pat hand or with a better bust or a bluff of the remaining player.

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing it since the 60's. It seems to be a niche game that comes and goes. I'd never seen it played as a limit game until recently, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

kc lowball seems like a pretty boring game if played as a fixed limit.

[/ QUOTE ]


I meant triple draw. I've never seen 2-7 played limit.

[InfernoLL]

Yes. Believe it or not, most of the "obvious" plays in a new game aren't always so obvious. I challenge you to teach triple draw to anyone who's never heard of it and see how many people instinctively bet when a card ahead. I would be surprised if more than half did.

[InfernoLL]

With all due resoect, that's BS. You did not figure out in 4 hands how important drawing to the nuts is. Furthermore, I really can't believe that you think most new players to the game aren't making the mistake of drawing to weak hands. That's probably the most common mistake among new triple draw players.

[TheShootah]

Actually I have a good story. I was at school just doing exactly what Mirpuri said he was doing on my bed AFTER I read the chapter. My roommate, who is a decent poker player, walked over to the bed and asked what I was playing, and I told him. He took over 3 of the hands, and really played badly. He just called with one card draws, barely raised anything, didn't bet when a card ahead. I mean you name it he did it wrong. With the exception of standing pat vs. one cards on the last round with the right hands, he pretty much blew it! Hehehe...just thought I would throw that in.

[TomBrooks]

What do you think of the Lowball chapter in SS1?

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think of the Lowball chapter in SS1?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was generally thought to be the weakest of all the chapters in SS1. However, I thought it contained a lot that was very good in relation to A-5 lowball draw and the rest of it was mediocre (2-7 lowball and razz). Read alongside Zadeh's Winning Poker Systems and Malmuth's Winning Concepts in Draw and Lowball I thought it could hold it's own where it concerned the A-5 advice.