here's what im thinking Sklansky + Malmuth

I will quote from a book i am not to fond of and

dare I say written by two authors whose creditials

are suspect. Yet one is a former world champion who couldn't beat a computer. The other has won

more prize money than anyone else at the wsop, but

can't see suited cards might just be better than

non suited cards.


The quote is from championship no-limit and pot limit holdem.


"Players like David Sklansky are very patient players, very good players, but they aren't going to get there very often because they play the same way all through the tournament."


Here's what i am thinking: the above is crap.

However this is "apparently written by the most winning player (by net dollars) at the wsop." I dispute he wrote the book. yup i said it.


I also remember Mr. Mason saying he loves collecting poker books, but wont buy McEvoy/Cloutier at their rip off prices. In essence giving yet another cheap plug for their books.


Moreover, I remember Sklansky challenging (and

i will leave annoymous) a poster to an iq test.

I am not that poster, but david you couldn't even beat me. My iq is approx. 184.


Now i just might have an addiction problem. But don't dismiss me. I am in the same vien as

Unger and Smith. Both are former world champions.


So asking directly what tournaments have Mr. Mason and Mr. Sklansky won at the world series of poker.


So anyone answer this:


1- Ray Zee said no winning information was held

back from the original HPFAP. So why buy the revised addition?

2- How can mason say he likes reading poker books when he won't buy a top selling authors books ?


3- Why can't Mason/Sklansky admit their other

tournament book is crap before marketing another?


I'll tell a story cuz this guy is crazy. Can't even spell because.


Here's the thing, you criticize here, you can't

spell, you can't think, you don't know poker. You lose. They want you to believe that. The fact of the matter is this. No one can teach you disipline. Your in control or your not. You need

money management skills, and emotional control.

If you don't have that you can't play poker. No book will help you. Therein lies the problem.


Here's a true story, with my poker skills. I was 12 learning poker from my more mature friends.

I lost twice. That was enough for me. I went to

the library. They had 2 books, scarne and sklansky. Scarne helped me beat em. Yet I knew

skalansky on poker was more sophisticated. See the thing was my opponents were unsophisticated. One has to play at the level of their opponents.


IceRock (peace out)

Let me try to answer a few of your questions.


"Players like David Sklansky are very patient players, very good players, but they aren't going to get there very often because they play the same way all through the tournament."


I've read that too. My answer is that they certainly haven't read what I've written about tournaments because I say just the opposite, and most of the work that I published on tournament play was written back in the 1980s. See my book [i]Gambling Theory and Other Topics.[i]


"I also remember Mr. Mason saying he loves collecting poker books, but wont buy McEvoy/Cloutier at their rip off prices. In essence giving yet another cheap plug for their books."


Actually I have bought several of their books. What I meant is that I don't recommend purchasing them.


"So asking directly what tournaments have Mr. Mason and Mr. Sklansky won at the world series of poker."


I haven't won any tournaments. Part of the reason is that I hardly ever enter one. Of course, that might change in the future, but I've said that for years.


"1- Ray Zee said no winning information was held

back from the original HPFAP. So why buy the revised addition?"


No information was held back. But as the years went bye we explored more areas of strategy, so in time we had more information. That's why 11 years after the original version we published the 21st Century edition and added 100 pages.


"2- How can mason say he likes reading poker books when he won't buy a top selling authors books?"


Actually, I should say that I use to like to read poker books. I've read so many, plus lots of other gambling books that I'm sick of them. However, as a serious publisher of this type of book I purchase and read almost all of them.


"3- Why can't Mason/Sklansky admit their other

tournament book is crap before marketing another?"


Our other tournament book is not crap. But it is aimed at players starting out who are interested in playing mostly small buy-in tournaments. While it may not be as complete as you like, there are no errors in it.


Hey, I enjoyed your quiz. Did I get a good score?


Best wishes,

Mason

Just a curiosity Mason, your future tournament book is just for low buy-in tournaments? And what do you mean for low buy-in?


Thanks Marco


By the way: your poker essays vol III is what I call a very useful book.

No. Tournament Poker for Advanced Players by David Sklansky is the read deal.

"1- Ray Zee said no winning information was held

back from the original HPFAP. So why buy the revised addition?"


There are significant improvements in the 21st century editions of both H4AP and 7CS4AP. In particular, the sections on loose games are more than worth the cover price, for my money. I really regret that I put off buying the new books for about a year.


"2- How can mason say he likes reading poker books when he won't buy a top selling authors books ?"


I like reading poker books, but I really only enjoy reading good poker books. They don't necessarily have to help my game. My favorite poker books include The Biggest Game in Town, Big Deal, and Total Poker. None of these is going to help your game one lick. I still read and re-read them. I read and re-read 2+2 books because they make me money. I wish Mason would hire a real editor, but the fact that he hasn't doesn't stop me from buying his books. I haven't read anything by Cloutier or McEvoy except the odd magazine article (and some of TJ's are entertaining, if not informative). From what I've read on this forum about their work, I don't think that I'd get any value out of their books. I don't think they'd help my game, and I don't think I'd get $40 worth of entertainment out of one of them.

You are one of my favorite posters. Your posts are so entertaining.


A 184 IQ and you can hardly form a complete sentence much less a coherent string of thoughts.


Don't get me wrong, I believe you about the IQ. I think you are an example of how hard it is to really evaluate a person's intelligence by any one criterion. If your IQ was judged solely on your ability to present ideas concisely and in a coherent manner, I'd give you a bad score of course.


I actually believe you that you are a good poker player and I assume your intelligence shines in the areas that good poker requires.


BTW, are you the ICEROCK who has played on UB 50-100 heads up? If so, I've observed you play.


natedogg

Mr. Malmuth, im sorry for being a jerk. Your always a class act. By just posting I know you don't tilt easy. I truly enjoy your books: they are the best out there. My problems are twofold:

1-I only post drunk. I am drunk about once a week.

2-I think faster than I type. (who doesn't?)


Hence the incoherence, and how one so smart can appear so stupid.


I have a real question. The "bunching factor"

Now then as I recall and my memory might be shot,

McEvoy/Cloutier contend it exists. You gave Championship No limit a 6, since they don't understand the value of being suited, too much filler material, the price, and the bunching factor. I added one: you know which one it is.


I also want to point out you gave a 10 to Bob and Stewart's book, and they to mention the bunching factor. I know part of your rating is comparing it to what's out there.


Moreover, I believe you mentioning that you don't run computer simulations. Maybe this was prior to the updating of your 7 card stud book. And maybe I'm wrong.


So about bunching without computer simulations,

just speaking with words and not numubers (my major was statistical analysis and optimal resource allocation I know your background is similar hence why I want words and not numbers. If that makes sense?) how does

it not exist? If everyone plays for example only a strong ace, I could see how it wouldn't exist.

Since players in early position are only playing it with a good kicker the blinds are not more likey to be sitting there with an ace. However if the table is playing any ace, you know by them folding they don't hold an ace. Therefore statistically speaking the blinds are more likely to have a ace etc etc.


My question is do you run simulations? Did you

one time post you didn't, and why doesn't bunching

exist?


I'll ramble a little. Here's a little jem for anyone bothering to read this. Internet tell. Way

superficial. The pause. When I fist started playing on the internet I told myself "don't worry about the pause" it could mean internet lag or the person is playing two tables. Arguments which mason made. However, I think he doesn't play much internet poker and thinking like the preceding might be limited in thought. An example which comes to mind is pot odds vs implied odds. At one time as embarassing as it sounds is I was

like going for a gut can't be right no pot odds. Yet what about my implied odds. Or another example, What does my opponent have? Hello what does He think I have? What I am trying to say is

you have to go to the next level. Internet lag is rare, playing 2 tables is rare: statistically speaking. These are not legitate answers for the pause. Heres the tell 9 times out of 10. The other

time might be for the preceding. The pause check is almost always because the opponent has nothing

and was thinking of bluffing. Since we know the

opponent has nothing (ace high or better is something) If we have less heads up we bet it and take it.


As for Natedogg thank you for the kind words. I

don't play ultimate bet. I know this though, everyone's name on the internet means something to that person. For example fish, might mean the

player knows he's a fish. He might have a gambling

problem ( subconsciously want to lose), or he might enjoy being deceptive (call himself a fish, when he knows he's getting the money longrun). You'll have to figure out what it means for the individual or just ask. (if they dare to answer, for the most part they will be honest).


Some say the eyes are the temple to the soul. It might be honest. So you have one of three choices in a casino, wear sunglasses, wear a hat, or wear both. True story I knew a guy who would put his sunglasses on his shirt and put them on when he had a hand. How stupid is this guy? My personal choice is wearing a hat. It could be my hair is FU or im bald etc, But you can't see my eyes. Im looking at your hands and your not knowing were I look. For why hands are important see Improve your poker, etc.


As to how I came up with icerock is this, I started playing poker, and lost to those with more

experience. I was about 12. Decided to go to the library. Sad list of titles. (in terms of numbers.) Scarne or Sklansky. Remembering i was 12 honestly scarne helped me more although it is crap. Yet the bottom line is play your opponents. My true thoughts were the skalansky book was powerful. Sadly i don't remember what it was called at the time something like skalansky on poker. He has since changed the name but I don't know why? Later that book was stolen from the library and I refused to buy it.

So anyway at 12 the money we played for was insignificant but ego was everything. As a footnote scarne made his living as a magician. He

did have the best 2nd deal I have ever seen. For evidence watch the sting. The thing is since that is a movie, forget about getting a legit 2nd dealer, pay any one, buy 52 decks of cards, make a deck with all ace of spades and just deal. Thats cheaper than scarnes 10, 000 dollars a night. Not to knock Scarne, but he simply wasn't as good as he seemed. 2nd deal no one can touch him, the sting when paul newman is dealing watch that in slow motion and i'll tell you why its so good. But my bottom deal is better than scarnes.


So anyway, I was a player, but later became a dealer. Dealer's for the most part can't play, nevertheless the important point is I played before I could deal. After becoming a dealer, the casino staff would rent a hotel room and play. I seemed tight, everyone started calling me rock. (I play opposite my image: I bluffed them big time). The ice came from im cold, and bobby baldwin in his book (very much crap: Malmuth gave him 5 which is way too high) he called stu unger Kid ice, i've read the nickname kid but never ice, I feel an affinity with unger the appetite for distruction, photographic memory etc. Hence

IceRock, So what does Natedogg mean?


Later, go get em


I'll try my best to post sober


next time,


IceRock

i bought CNLPLHE from cloutier and mcevoy. im too thrilled with the value. i did learn from it, but that is becasue i know almost nothing about no-limit.


(though i did take 7th in a NLtourney at bicycle once. it was a $15 dail8y tournament. i only raised pocket pairs and all Ahands. never ran into trouble until i made a big reraise preflop with A6s after one guy bet the pot. a third guy finally called, and original raiser mucked. caller had KK!! flopped 667 and check-raised all-in. got called, and busted em. only trouble hand i got into with a weak ace. got busted out from a short stack at final table with AQs. was busted by a call from JTs (same stack size)


anyways, tj and tom's book is too thin (i.e. not enough pages of information) for the $40 i had to pay. but i did learn something.

Here's the thing. Re read the Cloutier book. You said you learned from it. Nowhere in that book does it say to play a weak ace. Moreover he makes the point he wont play a weak ace suited in a limit game. Let alone in no limit. Now im not saying not to. It is clearly correct to play a suited ace in limit depending upon the situation.


I am challenging you to specifically state what

made you think in that book? I think it is a good

book (I have criticized it many times though).


Here are the two best things i've learned from that book. Number one trust your first instincts (assumming your a good player) and number 2 the theme in that book if there is one is, you have to

read the player. Yes read the player. Here's two

facts this guy has won more money than anyone at the WSOP and I think but am not not sure he has more no limit titles than anyone. He is saying reading your opponents body language is important.

I concur. Mike caro agrees ( I think at least since he devoted a book to this topic) Mason doesn't quite agree he says basically your going to get the same conclusion by reading the board and your opponents betting actions. John Feeney also says he agrees with mason. Yet Mr. Feeney also says his essay is conjunctor. It purley is.


Now here is my beef. Maybe someone who understands drunkeneeze can explain this to mason.


John Feeneys book published by 2+2. Mason clearly said, "we were suprised how good it was"

I clearly asked him what essay made him think. He

clearly made no comment. And still wont


Finally the Ice Rock has come back


to 2+2

"I clearly asked him what essay made him think. He clearly made no comment."


There's been plently of discussion of this book on these forums, so this question has been addressed and answered many times.


A quick answer from me would be that Feeney's book shows what it takes to play well and be successful at higher limit games than most people play. And, it shows what you must do to strive to get to that level. This includes the degree of knowledge you must accumulate. how you go about gaining that knowledge, and what you must do to put it in practice.


As I said, when David and I saw the original manuscript we were surprised as to how good the book was. I still feel that way today, I believe that almost all readers will agree, and I think that Inside the Poker Mind will help virtually everyone who reads it.

Your kewl with me. Your books are the standard by which all are judged. Mr Feeney's book is articulate and accurate. I am asking what you personally gained from that book. I know most will benefit and it's an elucidating book.


You side step my question. What did you get out of that book? I am not talking about most. I am talking about you. What did you get? I would love to know. It's all about how people think. I

will give one example.


Teaching people hold'em. They have questions.

Their questions give me their level of thinking.

I have taught many people holdem. Here's a classic. Two pair. There is quite a diffence between having two hole cards which match the board and and having one card in the hole which matches one card on the board giving one two pair, yet neophytes don't get it. I could write a book explaining it. It gives many insights.


It would help many. The majority of the world does not play texas hold'em. I am honestly asking you what you gained from Feeney's book. Not what most gained.


Ice Rock.

"this guy has won more money than anyone at the WSOP"


This is incorrect.

To answer your question honestly when it comes to hold 'em and stud, I already know everything there is to know and it has been this way for many years. So I now get nothing out of every poker book that I read. But I suspect that almost eveyone, and that includes you, will get a great deal out of Dr. Feeney's book and the other books by Two Plus Two.

"david you couldn't even beat me" - I'll take that bet for $10,000

I think this thread seems finished, but as an aside, unless I am mistaken, I believe Einstein had an IQ only in the neighborhood of 150 or 160, yet nobody disputes his genius. In my humble opinion, genius is not a a result of a high IQ, but rather of incredible ingenuity. So while a photographic memory and high IQ may make school a breeze, it does not necessarily mean anything in the grand scheme of things. I do not doubt that a poker player with a "measly" 120 IQ could easily posses a greater ingenuity and skill in the game than a player with a robust 183 IQ. I make no accusations, just an observation that IQ is an arbitrary and meaningless method of measurement. Cheers.


Jake