For Everyone.

I feel bad about this but can't stop myself.

So anyways I'm reading Inside the poker mind by

John Feeney. The cover reads "David Sklansky

strategy consultant" The foreward in the book

by Mason Malmuth reads "...[said book] we couldn't

believe how good it was". How good is page 118-119?


I'll quote, "A loose, not very aggressive, full

game with several players who will call two bets

cold preflop, with nearly any hand they were going

to play for one bet. Some of them have been doing

this in an apparent effort to chase big pots. The

player is under the gun holding :


jack ten of hearts


AVERAGE PLAYER'S THOUGHTS: Okay, this is a playable starting hand. Not good enough to

raise with though. So I'll just call."


ADVANCED PLAYER'S THOUGHTS: We've had lots of

multiway pots. And raises don't knock these guys

out. This is a nice multiway hand. If I raise

I may well get a bunch of callers and create an

especially big pot. Then they'll be tied onto it

if I flop a good draw. It will add a little

deception to my game as well, as most of these

players automatically put me on big pairs or big

cards when i raise in early postion. I'll raise."


This is a terrible play. I'll give a few reasons.


1-Jack Ten suited is a drawing hand (ie you have nothing). When you raise you lower your

implied odds.


2-Since when do you have to tie "calling stations" onto a hand? (read the next example in the book Johnny calls them just this)


3-Lets say the flop gives you a draw. You just

swelled the pot. Even calling stations understand

playing the pot more aggressive when its big. Authors own words are "chase a big pot". Now they are going to make you pay to draw and are correct to do so. They don't necessarily chase that "big

pot" by calling. The raises just might start going

in.


4-Since when do you need to add deception to


play profitablely against loose timid


players. Ie they are not paying attention


or don't have the skills to understand what


your doing. After all J ten suited is a legit


raising hand to them in any situation.


5-Why do you care if they put you on big pairs

or big cards, unless thats all you ever raise with? (who even says loose timid players are thinking?)


6-An expert knows what your "trying" to do. If

your read on him is wrong so is your profitability.


7-I play by instinct. And you and Mason simply

aren't in my league. I say instinct since I know

this example is clearly wrong yet can't articulate

why to the ordinary player, cuz im extraodinary.


8-My favorite Mason line is (only in idea) "you didn't like this book because you suck, may I suggest a more remedial book. And guess what, I happen to publish that book.


Peace Out,


Ice Rock.

Feeney's play has a lot of merit. Let me address some your arguments.


"Jack-ten suited is a drawing hand (i.e.-you have nothing).When you raise you lower your implied odds."


True but in the type of game John is describing you should be limping in anyway. Jack-ten suited is a fold from early position in tight, aggressive games where most pots are raised and only one or two players take a flop on average. But in this game, you should at least limp. Now given that you will limp, you would certainly call if someone else raising behind you. So in many cases you will be paying two bets to take a flop anyway. Your raise does not cost you much under the circumstances John is describing.


"Since when do you have to tie calling stations into a hand. Lets say you flop a draw. You just swelled the pot...."


If you make a straight, it will be the nut straight. If you make a flush, it will be a decent sized flush. You want to make sure everyone else having overcards, pairs, two pairs, and baby flush draws is fully encouraged to participate.


"Since when do you need to add deception to play profitably against loose timid players.."


If you are viewed as a solid player, like John is, your opponents will most likely put you on a big pocket pair or two big cards headed by an ace when you open raise from early position. When you raise with jack-ten suited, there is no way anyone (even an expert) is going to put you on this hand. If the flop comes ace-high, they will assume you got a piece of it frequently. If it comes with cards that fit your hand, they will never know what hit him. Sometimes timid players fold when they shouldn't and hang around when they shouldn't because they misread the situation.


This is not a play that should be done routinely but you need to recognize when opportunities to vary your play at little cost present themselves and take advantage of it.


Jack-ten suited is a great hand to put in a deceptive raise once in awhile.

John is describing a thought process and the rationale of an expert player, not playing strategy.

Ice Rock, you said yourself that you can play well but are unable to express your thoughts in writing. Most great players have that same problem, as they are not writers. Why put down some of the great players who not only can express their thoughts, but are willing to share them with the rest of us?

geez rock when the hell are you going to back off JF...You`ve been going on about this great book for months...

I have gotten to know john as a very decent and knowledgable person through our many communications...

I hope you get your drinking under control...

Please find some other childish endeavour...


jg

kind of sounds like mason's criticism of lee jones advice about 7d6d on the button. (which was same as in HFAP, but in the lee jones example everybody was a calling station anyway, so mason says no need to 'tie them on').


but having said that i havent pulled out my copy of JF book and looked at it. i thought it was a good book.


brad

... cuz im extraodinary


You are right about that. Ice Rock I never pass over your posts. So highly entertaining.


natedogg

nate-web@thegrovers.com

That would be my advice. You have a hard-on for Feeney, which is an unfortunate way to spend your days.


The value of the book for most players is mostly concentrated in those chapters on tilt. If these chapters don't work for you, fine, but spare us.

Clearly the examples in that chapter are independent, not meant to suggest the same lineup from one to another. I could see how John's wording in the next example could make it seem otherwise, but I doubt that was his intent. Obviously he knows you don't need to tie on players who are already tied on, so I think we just need to read what he states in the example in question without trying to bring into it things from the other passages in the chapter.


FWIW, it may be debatable how often you have the right conditions for the play, but when you do I think it's a good one.

I've never met anyone here. No one has been

my opponent. Somehow, no one who plays poker

with me can beat me. Who am I beating? I don't

know but they must be weak (who else could I beat?)


Now Mr. Brier, I remember when you gave many

problems that were in doubt to what Sklansky and

Malmuth were saying. I'll only give one example:

they were holding 10,9. Its now classic, and

it makes sense to me. Now what I like about you

is you don't kiss their ass, like everyone here

will, and mason himself said, "we learn more from

our enemies" David is too proud to admit he

learned from anyone. So I wont go there.


People here, totally misread me. They are my

typical opponent. I have you thinking one way

yet I am playing different from my image. Thats

a key. I'll give but one example. I'll read

red rock. So how much do like gran turismo 2?

I need therapy, but i'll still kick your ass

at holdem.


I'll give one more example from Inside The

Poker Mind. When one reads the book, he's so

obviously a disciple of S+M. In the book he says

as much, I bought their books, and paid to talk

to sklansky one on one. The way I wrote the book

was inspired by Malmuth's poker essays. I love

this, he wrote an essay on conjecture. Conjecture, hello look this up if you don't know

what it means. Yeah I want to buy an essay on

conjecture. Can you dig that. Moreover Malmuth

is like you can't make that much on tells. I'm

Malmuth. BULL SHIT. HE'S SO WRONG.


So Mr. Brier you wrote "So in many cases you

will be taking the flop for two bets" Hello, read

don't interpret. what does he say, "its a loose

not very aggressive full game" Since when do timid

players make you pay two bets? TIMID, these are

TIMID PLAYERS.


The example is clearly wrong. Mike Caro would

say so too. He just doesn't post here. Moreover,

I remember when Mr. Sklansky said holdem is not

Mikes best game. To goat him into posting.


If This is incoherent, I couldn't care less.

The ideas are there just read em.


I didn't understand a word either. But

I didn't hear mason or david defend a word. Because they can't. here's the point: and

i'll try to be coherent.


Mr. Feeney says in a loose timid game you want to raise JT suited against calling stations.


Natedogg, peace out.


IceRock.


Okay I'm mad, I'm comming back sober, and I dare

anyone to debate an idea.

I'll make this clear its idea.

I did not think this was about the actual play of a hand or strategy. I was thinking that this was about the thought process that an expert player goes through. I would never go into a game thinking that I would make this play, unless somehow it came up. I simply enjoyed learning and understanding that if you have several end results in mind before you enter a pot, you will have a huge advantage over most opponents just playing their hands. I guess it is like any game of strategy, like chess, if you play just the next move any player thinking a few moves ahead will probably kick your butt. Oh well, it seems that most of this forum agrees – it is simply about the forethought an expert player makes that most do not. Like knowing what you will do if you get re-raised instead of waiting until you do to decide.


By the way, I think I did actually get the point...

"TIMID, these are TIMID PLAYERS."


Huh?


In the book he just says, "A loose, not very aggressive, full game with several players who will call two bets cold preflop with nearly any had they were going to play for one bet." That leaves room for a range that does not just equate to "TIMID." But I don't think that's too important anyway. If you read the whole passage without filtering it through your bias you'll see that the rationale makes sense. But the whole rationale obviously isn't even included, because as another poster pointed out, it's not supposed to be. The passage is meant to reveal what some good player's thought process might be, not to provide detailed strategy discussion.

defend a word. I dare you? And i will come back

here sober. Me and you heads up. what are you afraid of.


IceRock.