If Loose Aggressive Works - Can You Explain Cloutier

[Magician]

Read his book and he strikes me as methodical and cautious.

Or is that just an image he keeps but he is actually stealing a lot of pots subtly.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

TJ's books all suck. Well, I can't say that. I've read two of them, and they sucked. The others I have been unwilling to buy or borrow.

What he writes is a prescription for weak-tight play. Of course you can learn something from anything, but if you actually try to carefully follow his advice, you're almost sure to be a small loser, except in tourneys, which you will never win (though you will outlast the majority of the field, on average).

He does typically play pretty tight, especially early in a tourney, but he's capable of much more than he has written.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Magician]

I find reading his stuff makes my head hurt - he really should hire an editor.

And when I try to follow his advice, I end up losing money.

It's like whenever I try to apply his stuff I mess myself up.

[Magician]

Is this B.S. or is there something to it?

[Wardfish]

I have only read his PL / NL Hold'em book and have to agree that he has left plenty of tricks up his sleeve.

He did open my eyes to playing different styles at different times of the tournament, going against the flow, but he added next to nothing over and above a basic tight strategy.

All good tournament players have 'moves' that win them a lot of chips. TJ kept all his moves to himself.

[J.R.]

Dan Harrington's play has been characterized as "methodical and cautious". One style does not fit all, and you can't argue with success.

[cferejohn]

[ QUOTE ]
Dan Harrington's play has been characterized as "methodical and cautious". One style does not fit all, and you can't argue with success.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but look at the year that Harrington won. He was fairly 'methodical and cautious' up to the final table, at which point he turned on the Gus Hansen switch.

[cferejohn]

Well, Sklansky mostly writes material that applies to limit hold 'em. He does discuss NL in his Tourmanent book (which is, IMHO the only book on tournament strategy worth getting) and Theory of Poker (which everyone should read over and over). Theory of Poker in particular can be very dense, since its pretty much a textbook (and yes, he could use an editor), but once you start understanding some of the stuff in there, its like a little light goes on.

Personally, the Pot-Limit/No-Limit book I have found most useful is Bob Ciaffone/Stewart Ruben's (can't remember the name; something like "Pot-limit and No-limit poker"). It discusses Hold'em, Omaha, Stud (ever play PL stud? seems like it would be brutal for teh inexperienced player), and London Lowball. Obviously the Stud and Lowball sections don't have much application in most games we'll be playing but I read them anyway, since I thought the general poker concepts were interesting and useful.

I've never read TJs stuff, but most people I know who have don't like it much and pretty much share Greg's opinion. The only exposure I have to it is kind of indirect from reading Positively Fifth Street, where McManus uses it as his primary guide. He did place 5th, but I thought he made some pretty questionable plays...

[Magician]

I tend to be cynical - like "Bob Ciaffone? Who is that? How many bracelets does he have"?

Which is why it's one of the few books missing from my library.

How much is it and is it possible to buy it from a bookstore rather than ordering from Conjelco (I prefer to buy material in bulk to save shipping and handling).

On a totally unrelated note, I noticed Sklansky was quoted at like 600 to 1 to win the WSOP main event on Betfair (like 500 to back him, 700 to lay him).

Whereas players like TJ and Chan and Phil Ivey were trading at 100 to 1.

Not to be mean - but what does this imply about him? Is it a case of people knowing he is content with moneying and hence he is unlikely to win it all? Or does he have poor reading skills or give out too many tells?

In summary, can you tell me what the main takeaways are from Ciaffone's book?

Like 5 bullet points.

[J.R.]

I agree, just pointing out another successful player whose general style is more on the conservative side. Of course you have to switch gears at times, but as opposed to slowing down/tightening down like many others, he speeds up/loosens up when its time for a change.

[cferejohn]

I don't think tournament NL hold'em is Sklansky's top game. He's not a specialist in it the way Ivey, Chan, and TJ are anyway, so one would expect somewhat lesser odds on him.

Bab Ciaffone placed, umm, third I think, in a WSOP main event in the late 70's/early 80's. I think he plays mostly NL cash games, rather than tournaments. He also writes regularly for Card Player, so its not like he's just some guy who decided he knew something about poker. The book in general is about cash games but a) there is a section on tournaments and b) the strategy in both is often quite similar.

I think I found it at a Borders or a Barnes and Noble or someplace like that (though I may have got it from Amazon; can't remember now), so it certainly can be found at a bookstore.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to be mean - but what does this imply about him? Is it a case of people knowing he is content with moneying and hence he is unlikely to win it all?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think so. My understanding is that he plays to make it into the money, not necessarily to win. On the goodgamblingguide, Jesse May wrote a quasi-daily WSOP report where he makes note of the tight Sklansky style, noting that "Actually, for Sklansky anything over six thousand is three hours of antes. It must be lovely to sit on the left on David Sklansky." Which is in reference to the tight, I'm not gonna steal your blind style he perceives Sklansky as playing. But then again I've never played with Sklansky, so what do I know.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I tend to be cynical - like "Bob Ciaffone? Who is that? How many bracelets does he have"?

Bad way to think. Many people familiar with the game suggest that some of the best poker players in the world *never* play in tournaments. In fact I'd suggest that there are players who regularly make more money at the WSOP than a handful of the tournament players yet never play in a single tournament event.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to be cynical - like "Bob Ciaffone? Who is that? How many bracelets does he have"?

[/ QUOTE ]

None, but he placed third in the main event of the 1987 WSOP. Mason has endorsed his book as the single best book to read on PL/NL poker.

http://www.diamondcs.net/~thecoach/awards.html

[Guy McSucker]

How much is it and is it possible to buy it from a bookstore rather than ordering from Conjelco (I prefer to buy material in bulk to save shipping and handling).

In the UK, Amazon have the book for about 15 quid.

The High Stakes bookshop in London has it too. They're on Great Ormond Street, and have a webpage at www.highstakes.co.uk (http://www.highstakes.co.uk)

I recommend the book unreservedly.

Guy.

[Magician]

OK I take your word for it that Ciaffone gives better advice than Guccione.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Then I recommend working on it some more. While it can sometimes be hard to read, it is always correct once you've gone through it carefully. Read the words keeping in mind exactly what's being said. If he says occasionally raise in early position with suited connectors, that doesn't mean do it once per hour. It means of all those times you're dealt suited connectors in early position, only occasionally should you raise with them, and you'll fold them most of the time. That might end up being once every 8 hours or so.

In some cases like this, where there are two or more possible meanings to what Sklansky wrote, it is unfortunately necessary for the reader to be able to use proper judgment and figure out which was intended.

But, if you're going to learn via books rather than experience alone, you've got to eventually be able to fully understand and apply Sklansky's writings. Even those who never read a book apply what he wrote, if they're strong winning players. They just don't realize that's what they're doing.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Magician]

Well yes, but I play only no-limit.

And most of his stuff is geared to limit.

I think my big leak was playing hands like KJ and losing a lot of chips when I hit top pair.

[Guy McSucker]

Guccione?

Am I being thick?

Guy.
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Magician]

Guccione - publisher of Penthouse magazine
Caffione - the poker writer

Both have the same first name Bob and their last names rhyme.

Speaking of which did you read about how Larry Flynt bribed players to reach the final table at the WSOP stud event one year?

[Paul2432]

The player who wins the most tournaments is no more the best tournament player than the ring game player who wins the most pots.

That is assuming your goal is to win money.

Mason wrote about this in Poker Essays.

Paul

[happyjaypee]

[ QUOTE ]
On a totally unrelated note, I noticed Sklansky was quoted at like 600 to 1 to win the WSOP main event on Betfair (like 500 to back him, 700 to lay him).

Whereas players like TJ and Chan and Phil Ivey were trading at 100 to 1.


[/ QUOTE ]

Some exellent law teacher would'nt far well in court.
Some exellent lawyers could never teach Law school

Sklansky is an exellent teacher/poker theorist
The others are great Bigbet/tourney players.


-Happy /images/graemlins/laugh.gif