John Biggs
08-12-2005, 02:10 PM
I picked this up with some anticipation but am now developing doubts.
From Chapter One alone, here are things that clearly seem to be mistakes:
- p. 17, the authors suggest that with a small stack, "You are more likely to be a target of the big stacks - in general, they will try to bet you off hands."
In my experience this is flat wrong. You're only in trouble here if you play loosely and passively. As compared to this, I think Ed Miller has it right in the no-limit chapter of his beginners' book - a short stack deprives big stacks of the implied odds they would need to get fancy against you; therefore they will spend less time attacking you, not more.
- p. 18, again talking about short stack strategy - "A second strategy that can be used is to play some very marginal hands in late position when there are a large number of callers hoping to hit the flop." The authors go on to give the example of calling a $7 early position raise in a $2/$3 game when you in the cut-off have a $60 stack and hold 97 off, and four players before you have already called the raise. They reason that "If you hit the flop you can win a large pot."
Yes, but how often are you going to hit that flop? That raise is a huge percentage of your stack. Their related reasoning is that in this particular game you can rebuy when you hit $50 - they seem to think this justifies draining off chips as quick as you can to reach that point.. That doesn't seem a good enough excuse to me, unless you really don't care how much you lose in the early going.
- p. 21, under the heading "Big Stack as a Weapon," the authors describe a play in which a large stack raises in late position with 99 vs. two short-stacked limpers; both limpers call. The flop comes Ace-high, the first limper checks, and the second underbets the pot with what might be a feeler bet, committing about a fifth of his remaining stack. Our hero reraises all-in baased on a thought process that rules out either of his limping opponents having a big Ace, plus he's figuring that even if he gets called he has a redraw if he can turn or river a set. The authors further note that our hero knows noting about either of his opponents yet, as they both recently sat down.
This advice seems like a good way to blow off chips from your large stack, if that's what you want to do versus players with whom you're not familiar but who are likely to err on the loose side rather than the tight side, given that it's a small game. And the notion that you have an effective redraw here seems little better than a fantasy.
I read a few more chapters and the book didn't seem to get any better. Compared to HOH or the Reuben/Ciaffone book, this book seems likely to get you in trouble. Heck, it's not even as good as Doyle's advice in SS I.
Anyone make it through the whole book?
From Chapter One alone, here are things that clearly seem to be mistakes:
- p. 17, the authors suggest that with a small stack, "You are more likely to be a target of the big stacks - in general, they will try to bet you off hands."
In my experience this is flat wrong. You're only in trouble here if you play loosely and passively. As compared to this, I think Ed Miller has it right in the no-limit chapter of his beginners' book - a short stack deprives big stacks of the implied odds they would need to get fancy against you; therefore they will spend less time attacking you, not more.
- p. 18, again talking about short stack strategy - "A second strategy that can be used is to play some very marginal hands in late position when there are a large number of callers hoping to hit the flop." The authors go on to give the example of calling a $7 early position raise in a $2/$3 game when you in the cut-off have a $60 stack and hold 97 off, and four players before you have already called the raise. They reason that "If you hit the flop you can win a large pot."
Yes, but how often are you going to hit that flop? That raise is a huge percentage of your stack. Their related reasoning is that in this particular game you can rebuy when you hit $50 - they seem to think this justifies draining off chips as quick as you can to reach that point.. That doesn't seem a good enough excuse to me, unless you really don't care how much you lose in the early going.
- p. 21, under the heading "Big Stack as a Weapon," the authors describe a play in which a large stack raises in late position with 99 vs. two short-stacked limpers; both limpers call. The flop comes Ace-high, the first limper checks, and the second underbets the pot with what might be a feeler bet, committing about a fifth of his remaining stack. Our hero reraises all-in baased on a thought process that rules out either of his limping opponents having a big Ace, plus he's figuring that even if he gets called he has a redraw if he can turn or river a set. The authors further note that our hero knows noting about either of his opponents yet, as they both recently sat down.
This advice seems like a good way to blow off chips from your large stack, if that's what you want to do versus players with whom you're not familiar but who are likely to err on the loose side rather than the tight side, given that it's a small game. And the notion that you have an effective redraw here seems little better than a fantasy.
I read a few more chapters and the book didn't seem to get any better. Compared to HOH or the Reuben/Ciaffone book, this book seems likely to get you in trouble. Heck, it's not even as good as Doyle's advice in SS I.
Anyone make it through the whole book?