Sklansky&Malmuth, Ciaffone&Brier, or Abdhul???

[FletchJr.]

Do you play more like Bob Ciaffone and Jim Brier preflop, or Skalansky or Malmuth, or do you play like Abdul (don't know spelling)??

Of course the perfect preflop would be totally dependent on the players entering the flop and knowing exactly what they had but let's be honest, that's impossible. There are differences in the stlyes, what style do you think is best, and which pre-flop would you relate your play closest to?

I personally am an internet player and do not like to mix it up with many limp-reraises or fancy ep raises with suited connectors. I'd say i play more like bob ciaffone and jim brier's outline in "middle limit Holdem".

[MCS]

I'm most comfortable with Brier and Ciaffone, and that's the way I usually play. I like making top pair with big cards. But of course, as you mention, different situations call for different approaches.

[John Feeney]

When it comes right down to it, there isn't that much difference of substance in the recommendations of the three you mention. (Admittedly though I'm working from vague memory regarding the Ciaffone/Brier recommendations since I haven't looked at their book in a while. I remember more of Abdul's stuff because I used to read it in so many of his posts.)

For instance, Abdul has you employing a somewhat more formalized way of mixing up your play (he refers to "balancing" it), but the same essential idea is found in slightly differing forms in the other writers' material. I think it's that way with most of the important stuff, while different writers may advocate or warn against different specific plays, most of which matter little to your bottom line.

More importantly, I'd submit that if you work your way up the limits and come into contact with the very best hold'em players you'll be hard pressed to spot an "S&M player", an "Abdulian," or a "Ciaffone/Brier-ite." They all tend to be tight, aggressive, deceptive, thinking players who read hands very well, and adjust to players and situations very effectively. But if their styles were dissected they would probably display elements of all those authors’ approaches plus things not associated with particular authors. The value of the works of all those authors is, IMO, to get you thinking about how the game works, to develop your ability to evaluate situations and plays, and ultimately to be able to make sophisticated on-the-spot evaluations at the table so as to maximize your EV in that spot and/or overall.

I don't mean to dismiss your question; it's a good one. It's interesting and certainly worthwhile to examine differences in these authors' recommendations. But I'd caution against coming to identify yourself too strongly with a particular author's peculiarities, lest you end up ignoring the useful ideas of others as well as your own ability to develop new strategies and tactics. That said, adopting the approach of a particular (good) author up to a pint, while you’re developing a foundation, is not going to hurt you, and may be useful as long as you stay aware that in time you’ll want to become “your own best theorist.”

[Deadbuddha]

i play a lot like sam farha(sp), hes deadly against lose players i think

[crockpot]

as i recall, Dr. Feeney, your book included an excellent essay on why cold-calling a raise from a solid player with AQo is a poor play, but one that many otherwise good players who fail to properly analyze your game make regularly. both Ciaffone's and S/M's books also specifically single out AQo as a hand that can get you into a lot of trouble if you call a raise from a tight early position raiser, as you will often be dominated by their hand.

as you can see, all these three books are basically pointing you in the same direction. whether you set your UTG standards for pairs to 77 or 66 is not going to make a big difference (unless you did this because you read Hellmuth's book), as these hands are around the cutoff for a reason: playing them will not affect your long-term expectation by much. what will make a big difference is that you understand how the composition of your table should affect your preflop playing standards, something many players fail to do.

oh, and on a side note, i finally got your book back from a friend who borrowed it for the summer (and found it very useful), and as further reading is helping me better analyze my play, i'll give it a rating boost the next time i update my books page. (not that this sort of thing matters to a professional like yourself...)

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
(not that this sort of thing matters to a professional like yourself...)

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, a thing like a little boost certainly doesn't matter to someone of my stature. And at times like these such thing should be the least of anyone's concerns. Moreover, I doubt there are more than two authors who would disagree with the points I'm making here. Anyone who would must have problems that would be a real hinderance to an otherwise nice life. Know what I mean? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[crockpot]

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi John:

I think the differences are more than you indicate. They have to do with philosophy. The C&B advice is much more cautious than what we recommend. While the Abdul advice was much more aggressive in nature.

However, on many hands there would be much agreement. But the philosophy differences carry over to the later streets as well where decisions can impact a lot of money. So a difference only every now and then could easily mean a long term difference in results.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
When it comes right down to it, there isn't that much difference of substance in the recommendations of the three you mention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember C/B very well but Abdul's stuff differs from S+M in many common situations. He wrote a bit detailing the major differences; it's posted at posev.com.

[John Feeney]

As I understood it, Mason, FletchJr was referring to preflop differences, which I don't think amount to all that much. (Again, I’m working from hazy memory concerning some of the C&B stuff.) Yes, the postflop differences may have more impact.

In any event, my larger point was that the differences in emphasis from one author to another are not so profound that a student of the game, who may see the advice of one author or another as his foundation, but who continues to advance, will ultimately remain identifiable as an "S&M'er," and "Abdulian," or what have you. For instance, I don' t recall ever playing with anyone at a limit above 40-80 who appeared to be playing strictly by anyone's book. This, though many had of course been influenced by your books, and others. It's just that a player eventually grows into a more independent, perhaps eclectic approach as his understanding of all that's in the books as well as his own thinking help him to develop his own additional insights. Well, I guess then he just becomes what I once referred to as UPNI. (Ultra Primo Nearly Irish) /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[John Feeney]

Yeah, I was there as he was hashing out a lot of it in posts. But while some play up the differences, few of them, IMO, are that big a deal in the final analysis, especially with regard to the preflop stuff. Take, for instance, his warning against the S&M advice concerning raising with a small pair behind a long string of limpers. Whether you never raise here or do so in select situations is not going to matter much. Moreover, Abdul knows that under the right circumstances such a raise can increase your EV. (We discussed it in some threads here.) He just doesn’t think those circumstances are likely to happen. So that issue amounts to fairly minor differences in the way games are perceived. See also my mention of his “balancing” versus less formalized ways of mixing up one’s play.

I suppose the question of how big the differences are from one (good) author to another is a subjective one. To me, though, they’re not all that big, and certainly aren’t very important once a player reaches the stage where he’s incorporated all the valid ideas of all the authors and then some, and has arrived at an integrated approach to play which is unlikely to have any author’s name on it.

[Robk]

I pretty much agree with you on the examples you mention... I was thinking mostly of the big offsuit cards when I said "common situations". I do think this is a big difference... I mean, he advocates raising limpers on the button with A9, a hand S+M specifically warn against playing (in the loose games section). And also folding T9 etc. where S+M say to call. But anyway I agree with your main point so I don't mean to nitpick. Mostly I just posted to get the posev link in the thread as it seemed like people weren't aware of it.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was there as he was hashing out a lot of it in posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was before my time. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Collin O'Mahon]

how does farha play, in a nutshell

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
how does farha play, in a nutshell

[/ QUOTE ]

About as well as he plays in a platex girdle. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[John Feeney]

In my post above I said:

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, I don' t recall ever playing with anyone at a limit above 40-80 who appeared to be playing strictly by anyone's book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I was reading a post by “Speed Racer” on rgp which talked about “HFAP/2+2 style players” in the 40-80 through 80-160 games in L.A.

In case some eagle eye was wondering about this seeming contradiction I’ll briefly address it. First, while my comment was true in a very precise sense I agree that you can run into players who more or less reflect certain writers' advice. In that sense you might run into an “S&M’er” or more rarely an “Abdulian” or some other species in one of these games. But I’d maintain that most players -- certainly most regulars -- in such games have gone on to at least some degree to develop their games as I described in the previous post. As I suggested, many have done so to a degree that would preclude their being identified as “S&M’ers,” “Abdulians” or what have you.

Also, I think Speed Racer was probably applying the “HFAP/2+2” label a little casually. Because of the pervasive influence of HPFAP (something at which David and Mason must marvel), some have come to label anyone with a fairly “standard” style a “HPFAP player” or an “S&M’er.” For practical purposes that’s okay. But HPFAP describes a lot of play that is necessary for any player to do well. Thus some players who learn to play without this book nevertheless exhibit much of the play described therein. They might sometimes, to some degree, be mischaracterized.

Also, Speed was talking mainly of players who had come into town for a big tournament. A large portion of these players were undoubtedly playing up from their normal limits. They were not regulars in the games. Thus they were less likely to have the more fully developed styles I described above.

Finally, it could be that the recent poker boom has created more “book” players as lots of new players seek to become “pros” overnight. As I haven’t been playing recently, I wouldn’t know. Well, I do hear there’s a nice crop of “Hellmuthians” out there. /images/graemlins/smile.gif At any rate, I don’t think Speed and I disagree.