Andy Glazer on AQ

I was just over at pokerpages when I happened across an article by Andy Glazer on what a dubious hand AQ is. Now, I'll step right in line with him when he says that AQ is a notch down from AK, but I have to shake my head at his other assertions.


According to Herr Glazer, the hands you really want to make with AQ are a) straights, and b) two pair. Which brings me to the crux of this post; namely, WHO THE HELL EVER MAKES A STRAIGHT OR TOP TWO !? I've picked up on this line of thinking from other writers as well, and I'm starting to get sick of it-- this idea that with certain playable hands you're looking to make two pair or better.


My problem with this idea is twofold. First, the fact remains that catching broadways and top two happens maybe once every twenty hours, which means you'll grow long in the tooth before you make an acceptable hand. And second, it ignores that fact that AQ is an absolute monster in an unraised pot, since as a rule the hands that dominate AQ will pop it pre-flop. That being the case, when you flop top pair with AQ in an unraised pot you have what is known as a formidable holding.


When I have AQ, I'm looking for one of four flops.


Flop 1) contains an A

Flop 2) contains a Q and no K

Flop 3) contains a J and a T

Flop 4) Two pair or better.

Flop 5) a paired board where the highest card's a 7 (applies only to pots being contested by 4 or fewer players)


Sure, some of these flops are better than others. But hoping to make a concealed two pair?! We should all be so lucky.

With AQ I'm not hoping to make two pair. I'm hoping to win at least one fourth of the badbeat jackpot, as usual. If that doesn't work, then I hope to be checked to on the river, as usual.


Tommy

Take out your Flop 3 scenario and I agree 100% with you.....

Bad beat jackpots at the mid limits? Where's this at?


LOL about being checked to on the river. I guess my point is that I tire of hearing pundits say that what 'you're really looking for is two pair or better' with a given hand. Well, duh. That said, I'll take an ace on a two tone flop any day and take my chances.

Flop 3 may be debatable, but I'll take a likely seven outer (and maybe a ten outer) any day of the week. Those of us who aren't in the business of routinely flopping quads with AQ have to take what we can get:)

I suspect that what happens is that some of these writers confuse no limit and limit hold 'em, and that this is why you see this type of advice.


While not quite the same subject, here is a small excerpt from Tournament Poker for Advanced Players by David Sklansky where David is talking about ace-king. The same comments would apply to ace-queen but even more so.


"The specific hand, ace-king, in the specific game, no-limit hold ’em, deserves some special attention.


In limit hold ’em, ace-king is a very good, but not great hand. Especially when it is not suited. But what about no-limit hold ’em? Does its value go up or down when compared to the limit game?


The answer is actually both. When you have lots of money in front of you, ace-king can be a very tricky hand to play in no-limit, because, when you get involved, you usually have made only one pair. Of course that pair is top pair with the best kicker, which, in a limit game, is all you ever need to win all the money. But in no-limit, that same hand can get you into trouble. Weaker

players will tend to win a little with it frequently, but sometimes lose a lot with it. And those losses might add up to more than the wins."


So when looking at it from this point of view ace-queen isn't so hot. But at limit hold 'em, when played properly, it is a big money winner, and you don't have to flop top two or make a straight.

I suspect that after writing about tournaments for a couple of years, Andy decided he was an expert. I'v never even seen him play in a live game, so I don't know how he developed his skills. He is definitely one of the last people I would take advice from.

I agree with this post completely. Infact, if any of you have ever read his book on general gambling you would probably conclude that the above words are rather mild.

Along the same lines, not in tournament play, I see a lot of players raise with this hand and hands like AK, especially unsuited, out of the big blind. To me this seems like a poor play, why raise in that position? You are not driving out anyone already in, all you are doing is making the pot bigger for everyone to chase after the flop, good if you flop aces full, bad if you flop top pair and someone else a lower pair or someones small pocket pair. Comments appreciated.

Your points are correct, but if they really are playing bad and are in there with garbage all the time, then you should be more inclined to raise.

"I suspect that after writing about tournaments for a couple of years, Andy decided he was an expert."


He is. He's an expert on writing about tournaments.


"He is definitely one of the last people I would take advice from."


I don't know about all that, but for what it's worth, I did sit on a Q&A panel with Andy (and Mike Sexton) and I was most impressed with both.


Tommy

Point of clarification on flop 5: " a paired board where the highest card's a 7 (applies only to pots being contested by 4 or fewer players) "


I would be thinking more along the lines of a paired board where the highest card's an 8 and the pot is being contested by 3 or fewer players.


Any comments?

It may be unfair to base this presumption on that short excerpt, but if that's Slansky's view on the significance of AK in NLHE tourneys, he hasn't much experience in playing them, especially in their later stages. AK is flat-out the most significant pocket holding in NLHE tournaments, primarily because of its importance in mid and later stages when pre-flop all-in raises and calls determine outcomes. The reason that AK is so key is that with the exception of AA and KK (which obviously are much rarer), you can be no worse than about a coin-flip with any hand that you go up against pre-flop.


While it has often been said that 22 is almost as strong as QQ against AK, this is highly misleading. To understand why, think of pre-flop play in the late stages of NLHE tourneys as the poker equivalent of rock/paper/scissors. Yes 22 is favored slightly against AK, as is 99. But 22 is a huge dog against 99. AK is only a huge dog against AA and KK. It is a huge favorite against other non-pair hands opponents may be making a move with, e.g. AQ. The single biggest difference between NLHE tournaments and limit tourneys and cash games and NL cash games is the paramount importance of heads-up, all-in pre-flop play.

22 isn't even a slight favorite over AK; it is something of a dog! The reason is that, even though AK won't necessarily improve, the board will sometimes pair twice, counterfeiting 22's pair of deuces, and AK's ace kicker beats 22's deuce.


I believe that 22 is the only pocket pair which is a dog versus AK; the pairs' edge grows slowly as their rank increases (unless the pair is AA or KK!)

David is visiting me right now. The following is from him.


I do not disagree with your opinion of the importance of ace-king late in a no limit tournament. I don't understand why you think the excerpt would indicate otherwise.


DS

Well, you guys did it, thanks to someone who tipped me that a little Glazer-bashing was going on at 2+2, I finally checked out to see if it ran sufficiently quickly with a cable modem, and it does, so I'll probably be back, as I've been told that this forum often has useful things to say.


Now, as to the various points made so far:


First, to the initial poster, I think if you're going to reference an old article (about a year old, I think), you'd do everyone a favor to include a link to it, so they can judge the article on what's in it, rather than on what you say is in it. The gist of what I wrote (and no, I don't have the link handy, but if you read it I assume you do) was that in softer games (or shorthanded games) where people play lots of aces with weak kickers, A-Q can be a big moneymaker, but in tighter games where you don't see a lot of A-J and A-10 getting played, never mind worse, A-Q can be a troublesome hand for the same reasons that all ace-weak kicker hands can be troublesome: you only get a lot of action when you have kicker trouble. I believe I also mentioned things like playing it gets much easier in late position and much easier if you're capable of throwing it away after the flop, but your brief summary includes none of that.


As to 3 Bet Brett, if you've never played with me, how can you know my game is as bad as you seem to think it is? I guess you think my analysis in all my articles stinks. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Will I be seeing you in the Big One at the WSOP this year? Perhaps we'll get a chance to learn a bit more about each other's game there. And in case you're wondering why I mention meeting in a tournament, I've never made it a secret that not only do I prefer tournaments, I think I'm a much better tournament player than I am a money player. In other words, I have enough self confidence to admit to my (relative) weaknesses.


Mason, you disappoint me. Aside from the mistake about when Binion's will accept huge bets, and the publisher's typo in the BJ basic strategy chart that is corrected by an errata sheet by anyone who gets the book from me, I stand by "Casino Gambling the Smart Way" (CGTSW) as an excellent guide for recreational gamblers who are trying to survive a trip to Las Vegas without getting slaughtered, a guide for how to get more bang for their buck, more entertainment value for their gambling dollar, and that's all a guy who plays craps can ever realistically hope for.


For those of you who think Mason has never made a mistake, I encourage you to read CGTSW and see if you feel the book rates the sort of lambasting that Mason gave it. I'm not really sure why Mason would decide to come after me like this, as I have routinely told the world that his books are terrific (in fact I believe in one article a few months ago I wrote something like "I haven't read Poker Essays Vol. III yet, but you should still get it because it's impossible for me to imagine Mason writing a bad book."


Not only that, but back in the days when I was a Card Player guy and you were a Poker Digest guy, I wrote that Schoonmaker's (2+2/PD) book was the book of the year for 2000, so I'm not exactly a partisan reviewer.


Just because I've said kind things about Mason's books (kind things that these books have earned) doesn't, of course, mean that Mason should say kind things about a book of mine if he thinks it hasn't earned it, but Mason is the first person from the gambling world has read it and hasn't liked it--or at least the first one to come out and slaughter it. I find your timing a little strange. The book has been out for three years, and I believe the last time we communicated about anything, you (might have been David, I'll have to check my files to be sure) were sending me an email praising my Wednesday Nite Poker newsletter and indicating you wanted to exchange links on it. That was two years after CGTSW came out. What happened in the interim?


Hmm, come to think of it, I have said that while your poker books are "must reads," I have agreed with your own remarks in prefaces like "A Note on the English" where you explain that you and David are professional poker players, not professional writers. Sorry if you found that offensive, but I didn't say it until after you did, and I also concurred that this didn't detract from the books as hugely valuable poker resources.


CGTSW isn't designed as an aid to professional gamblers; the back cover and introduction make that quite clear. The Detroit Free Press thought so much of the book that when gambling was going to come to Detroit, they decided they wanted a gambling columnist who would help educate the local populace, and went looking for one by reading the available general gambling books on the market. After reading CGTSW, they approached me, unsolicited, to write a general gambling column for them, a column that has been running for more than two years now.


I won't speculate, at least publicly, about what psychological reasons might have led you to attack a book (and to some extent the book's author) written by someone who has always supported your efforts, especially when that book is indeed very useful to recreational gamblers. About the only thing I can figure is that you assume if a book doesn't speak to the audience that might pick up "Gambling for a Living" it must be crap. I'm surprised you'd have that sort of tunnel vision.


As for everyone else, I urge you to evaluate the original source material, rather than what someone else tells you about it. Read my A-Q article, read Casino Gambling the Smart Way, and/or play a tournament against me. I'm willing to let my work and play speak for itself. What I'm less willing to do is to let your view of my writing or poker playing spring solely from someone else's incomplete (or, for some reason, biased) report on it.


I guess I do have one flaw as a writer (well, actually, I'm sure there are many more than one, but one stands out). I'm willing to write about/analyze hands where I made a mistake, because I understand that I make them and the mistake hands usually offer lessons that others can benefit from. I know a lot of columnists only write about brilliant plays they made. Perhaps that might be smarter from a marketing point of view.


Anyway, thanks for the kick in the rear that got me to check out 2+2 now that I have faster Internet access, and thanks for letting me know a little more about the ideas of some of the folks who post at 2+2. I'll be at the whole WSOP this year, in case anyone would like to chat. I might even enter a stud tournament, even though I think no-limit is my best game. I've entered two stud tournaments in my life. Got third in the $500 entry stud at the 2001 TOC, and fourth in the $500 entry stud at the 2002 LA Poker Classic. Not a terrible start, I suppose.


In conclusion: Mason, your remarks don't detract from what I think of your books' value. They do detract from what I think of your ability to see a larger picture, and from what I think of your ability to review the work of someone who takes an approach that is different than yours, or who is speaking to a different audience than yours. If you want to say your articles analyzing poker hands are more useful than mine, please go right ahead: you do know a lot more about poker than I do. But you're way off base in your judgment of Casino Gambling the Smart Way.


Andy Glazer

AuthorAndy@aol.com

I found the link at pokerpages. I should have discussed shorthanded games more. As to the rest of it, judge for yourselves whether GD's characterization of the article is accurate:


http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/glazer05.htm


Andy Glazer

You need to reread my post. I didn't say I had never played with you, I said that I had never seen you in a live (or as you call it, money) game. I find this unusual, since you live in the poker capital of the world.


I don't value the opinion of anyone who can't beat the game. And by your own admission, you aren't very good outside of tournaments. As for your tournament record, I really don't know the specifics, but I doubt you are among the top money winners, since I hardly ever see your name in the tournament results.


If I go to the wsop this year, I will probably be playing in the side games at Bellagio. You see, the tourney players give great action. The real money is in these games. That's not to say I might not play a tournament or two as a lark, but for the most part, I will stay where the real value is.


But if you just want to play against me, that's easy. I'm a regular in the 80-160 games at the commerce. Or you might find me in the 150-300 stud at the Hustler. I don't claim to be the best, but I do play often, and I beat the game. When you can say this, then your advice will have more meaning.


I think it was very arrogant of you to berate the poster for not including a link to the article when you couldn't produce one either. Practice what you preach. And if you want to prove yourself as an expert, stick around the 2+2 forum. Your ideas and analyses are welcome here, but be prepared to have them put to the test. The posters here aren't rgp types who only play for fun. They truly understand the game, and are very capable of pointing out when, where, and why you are wrong.

I urge anyone who cares, and I suggest that most people shouldn't, to carefully read what I posted and what 3 Bet posted and compare them side by side. I think your words do a good job of speaking for themselves. I'd rather stick to poker. If you want to call me names, misconstrue my remarks, or put words in my mouth, have fun.


Andy Glazer

'I urge anyone who cares, and I suggest that most people shouldn't, to carefully read what I posted and what 3 Bet posted and compare them side by side.'


i vote for brett even though he yelled at me once when i beat his KT with my AT on T high flop.


brad

"The gist of what I wrote (and no, I don't have the link handy, but if you read it I assume you do) was that in softer games (or shorthanded games) where people play lots of aces with weak kickers, A-Q can be a big moneymaker, but in tighter games where you don't see a lot of A-J and A-10 getting played, never mind worse, A-Q can be a troublesome hand for the same reasons that all ace-weak kicker hands can be troublesome: you only get a lot of action when you have kicker trouble."


While there is no question that AQ will drop in value in very tight games, that's because all hands will drop in value in these games. But if played correctly, which means that you now frequently fold it if there is a legitimate raise, as opposed to a steal raise, it should still be a very good hand. By the way, I see very few tight games anymore. I do remember when they were fairly common, but then in 1987 hold 'em became legal in California and the continuous influx of new players since that time has kept most game fairly loose (and somewhat aggressive).


As for your book, here is my review of it.


Casino Gambling, The Smart Way (2) by Andrew N.S. Glazer. Even though it is written in an entertaining style, this is a fairly worthless book that contains virtually no advice on how to gamble. Furthermore, it contains almost no descriptions of casino games or how they work. But it does contain a fair amount of silly “money management” advice that seems designed to keep you from losing too much. For example, the author recommends that you set a stop loss and a stop win for each casino. Then when you hit one of these numbers, it’s time to walk to the next casino.


"The book has been out for three years, and I believe the last time we communicated about anything, you (might have been David, I'll have to check my files to be sure) were sending me an email praising my Wednesday Nite Poker newsletter and indicating you wanted to exchange links on it."


We established a link to your web site and I informed you of that, but I have never read your Wednesday Nite Poker newsletter, and I'm very sure that David never has either. I suspect that you are confusing us with Alan Schoonmaker. As for your book, because Alan was saying some positive things to me about you, I went and got it and read it in January of this year.


"I won't speculate, at least publicly, about what psychological reasons might have led you to attack a book (and to some extent the book's author) written by someone who has always supported your efforts, especially when that book is indeed very useful to recreational gamblers. About the only thing I can figure is that you assume if a book doesn't speak to the audience that might pick up "Gambling for a Living" it must be crap. I'm surprised you'd have that sort of tunnel vision."


Well Andy, you can speculate all you want. I don't really care. I have been reading and reviewing gambling books for a very long time, and I pay for virtually all of them with my own money. (In fact, my first lenghty article reviewing gambling books appeared in 1986 which was a year before I self-published my first book.)


My reviews are known to be very accurate, and as has been pointed out on these forums recently many non-Two Plus Two books have been rated highly by me. But many other non-Two Plus Two books have received poor ratings, and yours falls into this category.


As for your audience comment, we have four small books called the Fundamentals that are aimed at people who are brand new to gambling. If you read them, you'll see that none of them recommend silly money management advice like you do shcu as "Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee."


"In conclusion: Mason, your remarks don't detract from what I think of your books' value. They do detract from what I think of your ability to see a larger picture, and from what I think of your ability to review the work of someone who takes an approach that is different than yours, or who is speaking to a different audience than yours. If you want to say your articles analyzing poker hands are more useful than mine, please go right ahead: you do know a lot more about poker than I do. But you're way off base in your judgment of Casino Gambling the Smart Way."


Andy, as for someone who doesn't see the big picture, we have built the most successful gambling book publishing company ever. In a few days we will be releasing our 26th title, and there are now ten authors in our Two Plus Two family. Plus there is this web site which has been far more successful than we ever thought possible.


As for being way off base in the judgemment of your book, here are a couple of books which cover some of the same things that your book supposedly covers which I have given much better reviews to.


Caro on Gambling by Mike Caro: 9

On Casino Gambling by Darwin Ortiz: 8


Finally, and this is mostly for everyone else's comsumption, I have received these kinds of complaints/objections from other writers for years. What tends to happen is that even though they accuse me of only giving good reviews to our books, not understanding the audience that the book was intended for, not understanding cetain psychological aspects of gambling, or even having "tunnel vision," it still doesn't make their book good. But it sometimes has the effect, after the author gets over the initial sting and begins to realize how misguided their advice really is, of spurring them on to do much better in the future.


Hopefully that will be the case here and that we'll see more of Andy Glazer on these forums. I'm sure if he decides to participate here he'll benefit from it and well as those who read the threads that he participates in and become a much better poker player and all around gambler.

Andy:


Welcome to our forums. If you wish to post here, as 3 Bet Brett has just told you, your knowledge will be put to the test. And I know from experience, he and many others have challenged my ideas and advice many times. That's what's happening to you. Just because you write about the game doesn't mean you have automatic acceptance here. There are many authors who post here, and a few of them, and this includes me, have had tough times at times. But we all benefit from the discussion, and we do require that everyone remains civil towards each other. So enjoy the forums.


Best wishes,

mason

"i vote for brett even though he yelled at me once when i beat his KT with my AT on T high flop."


I bet you were playing at Commerce that night instead of Hustler.

no i dont play that high and live in arizona. it was a while ago.


but it was really funny because he was getting pounded (by a bunch of idiots, including me), and after that hand he just screams 'this has *got* to stop!'.


it was really funny.


brad

Okay, I just read your article. And to be honest, it sounds like a shot at our stuff. (As an aside, I always find it somewhat amazing the way other writers get mad when we are critical of their material, but they seem to have no problem with presenting our material totally our of context and taking lots of shots at it.)


For example, here are your first two paragraphs.


"A lot of the books that teach hold 'em to beginning and intermediate players try to clump starting hands into groups ("Category 1, Category 2, Category A, Category B," etc.). While this is almost certainly a useful teaching tool for those who are getting started and are trying to assimilate a large quantity of information all at once, after you have played for a while, it becomes clear that the hand groupings really offer very little practical help.


For example, many "groupings" list A-A and J-J in the same category, and while we've all heard poker players gripe about getting aces cracked, no sane, experienced player would contend for a moment that these two hands play similarly, or have similar expectations. The number of differences varies depending on the kind of game you're playing (for example, the jacks have almost no chance of winning in games where a lot of people see the flop, unless they flop a set, but they play pretty strongly short-handed), but there very clearly are very big differences."


Now if you're not talking about our stuff, I'm really at a lost since the only "grouping" that I know of that puts AA and JJ both in Group One is ours (or something that is obviously copied from ours). But let's look at it in a little more detail. In HPFAP-21 we give a chart of what is known as the Sklansky Hand Groups. This chart tells you absolutely nothing about how to play. However, there are about 35 pages that accompany these charts discussing play on the first two cards. The chart is a short hand. Without it we would probably have written twice as many pages. Furthermore, if you would read what we have written, you would see that our advice for two jacks is very different from two aces.


For example, on pages 25 and 26 of HPFAP-21 we write:


"One hand that we have not yet addressed is a pair of jacks in the pocket. If no one has opened and you are in an early position, it is usually best to raise with JJ in a tight game and to just call with it in a loose game. With two jacks you would prefer either to have no more than one or two opponents in the hope that your hand

holds up without improvement, or to have as many opponents as possible when the majority of your profits come from flopping three-of-a-kind. The worst scenario is when exactly three or four

opponents see the flop with you. This most likely would occur if you called in a tight game or raised in a loose game.


If you hold JJ and the pot has been raised and reraised before the action gets to you, you should fold. This is correct even when you are in a middle or late position. However, if you have already opened with JJ and the pot has been raised and reraised behind you, then it is correct to go ahead and call because of the pot odds. What you are hoping to do in this situation is to flop trips. If you do not make a set, be prepared to fold (although folding is not necessarily automatic)."


Also, we discuss this hand in some of our other books. Specifically, in Poker, Gaming, & Life by David Sklansky there is an essay where he states that from the blind in a many handed pot you should raise with AA, call with QQ and JJ, and raise with 99. This has been debated on these forums in much detail and I suspect that it will come up again in the future.


As for the rest of your article, I'll let others elaborate, but I found it to be confused. For instance, AQ is not always a drawing hand. It can frequently win the pot without improving.

Mason:


Out of respect for the very good work you have done in poker, I would like to respond to your most recent post, rather than just deciding I don't have the time to deal with this. Although I would like, after this post, to move on and stick to poker, if you feel the need to respond, do what you will, and I will try, if at all possible, to give you the last word and stick to poker.


1) "Casino Gambling, The Smart Way (2) by Andrew N.S. Glazer. Even though it is written in an entertaining style, this is a fairly worthless book that contains virtually no advice on how to gamble."


It's a book about gambling philosophy, not a "game strategy" book.


2) "For example, the author recommends that you set a stop loss and a stop win for each casino. Then when you hit one of these numbers, it’s time to walk to the next casino."


No, I did not recommend the reader do this. I suggested that trying what I call a "long march" is an EXTREME example of what I still consider a useful principle for a recreational gambler, i.e., figuring out a way to spend as little time gambling as possible and as much time engaging in non-gaming activities in a trip to Vegas. I also believe that the vast majority of people who read Chapter One, "Float like a butterfly..." understand that I am not advocating stop loss systems as methods for improving one's gambling results, but rather developing a means to improve one's trip PSYCHOLOGICALLY; that is, by stopping and breathing occasionally when the unlikely happens and you win, you get to feel good for a little while before the casino comes back and does the inevitable, which is winning the money back from you. I'll be glad to post Chapter One here if you or anyone else think that would help make it clear whether I'm full of it or not. It's only about 1,500 words long.


I believe (pure speculation here) that you saw those words you (justifiably) hate, "money management," and saw what you expected to see, that is, the kind of pathetic nonsense that a lot of gambling hucksters sell as winning systems, while in fact nothing of the kind was being discussed. Indeed, one could argue the entire book is a battle against those people who think that by some sort of magical money management strategy they can gain the advantage over the casino, which is of course ludicrous. I was writing about feelings, not about EV.


3) "As for your audience comment, we have four small books called the Fundamentals that are aimed at people who are brand new to gambling. If you read them, you'll see that none of them recommend silly money management advice like you do shcu as "Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee."


See my answer above.


4) "In conclusion: Mason, your remarks don't detract from what I think of your books' value. They do detract from what I think of your ability to see a larger picture, and from what I think of your ability to review the work of someone who takes an approach that is different than yours, or who is speaking to a different audience than yours. If you want to say your articles analyzing poker hands are more useful than mine, please go right ahead: you do know a lot more about poker than I do. But you're way off base in your judgment of Casino Gambling the Smart Way."


"Andy, as for someone who doesn't see the big picture, we have built the most successful gambling book publishing company ever. In a few days we will be releasing our 26th title, and there are now ten authors in our Two Plus Two family. Plus there is this web site which has been far more successful than we ever thought possible."


Please read my comment again. I was praising your gambling books. There was no need to defend 2+2. I repeatedly noted in the post (and in other articles I have written) about the excellence of your work. This is exactly what I meant about "tunnel vision," though. Your books are EXCELLENT for what they do. I was doing something very different, but because I came at it from a different angle, you either saw what you expected to see, or rejected it as being useless, in effect saying, "My point of view is the only acceptable point view, and anyone who approaches gambling writing from another angle is wasting people's time." Obviously, we disagree.


5) "What tends to happen is that even though they accuse me of only giving good reviews to our books, not understanding the audience that the book was intended for, not understanding cetain psychological aspects of gambling, or even having "tunnel vision," it still doesn't make their book good. But it sometimes has the effect, after the author gets over the initial sting and begins to realize how misguided their advice really is, of spurring them on to do much better in the future."


No, I didn't accuse you of giving good reviews only to your own books. I did "accuse" you of tunnel vision, and I decline to accept your premise that if someone disagrees with you, his advice is misguided. You're good, not god.


6) "I'm sure if he decides to participate here he'll benefit from it and well as those who read the threads that he participates in and become a much better poker player and all around gambler."


Possibly, but when my "welcome" (that was more Brett's concept than yours) to the forum is your blanket statement not only agreeing with someone else (Brett) who says that I'm the last person he'd take advice from, but going on to say, as you did, that if someone read my book, they'd consider Brett's comments mild, that doesn't strike me as a welcome to the forum. It strikes me as a "get lost, you have nothing worthwhile to say, and those of you who read his posts should keep that in mind." It appears to leave me three choices:


a) Lurk rather than post. Fine for me, but not much of a contribution to the open poker forum.


b) Bow to your view of the world, rather than merely acknowledging it as very valuable and useful, and abandon the style that many non-professional gamblers consider relevant, that is, a belief that because many people gamble for reasons that involve matters other than maximizing EV, it's appropriate to write articles that address these concepts. I see room in the universe for more than one kind of article.


c) Take my ball and go home, because after all, it is your forum. If you don't advocate a free exchange of ideas that avoid, to the extent possible, ad hominem remarks, and don't believe interpreting the poster's remarks to be inferior to quoting them (Brett did this, rather than you, when he changed "I'm better at tournaments than I am at live games" to "by your own admission, you're not very good at live games"), then I should probably go. If you believe that reasonable minds can disagree, then my cable modem and I will probably be back, and I will do my best to offer useful remarks, rather than just lurking and taking what I can get without trying to give something back.


I'm not going to try to be you, because you already do an excellent job of being you and performing analyses that either I could not do, or could not do as easily as you. I'll be me, and that means an approach that treats poker as a people game played with cards, rather than as a card game played by people. I'll also tend to discuss poker from the viewpoint of someone who plays live mainly in the 15-30 to 40-80 range, rather than higher, and who plays more tournaments than live. If you think there's room for that, and for someone to praise you and (sometimes) offer an opposing viewpoint simultaneously (after all, many times I expect I will agree with you), I'll be back. If you want this forum--and yes, I understand it's your forum--to discuss high stakes live EV only, then it probably doesn't make much sense for me to remain. Maybe I have tunnel vision too--I HAVE NEVER HIDDEN THE FACT THAT I KNOW I HAVE FEET OF CLAY--but that's how I see what's happening here. I would think that someone as brilliant as you would be able to see that there are different valid ways of looking at related topics, but I could be wrong.


No matter what the response vel non, it will probably take me a while to get back here, because I am rather busy with some writing projects right now--project that, while I love them, keep me from playing as much poker as I would live, even though have now lived (for about 18 months) in the city that is, as Brett noted, the poker capital of the world.


Andy Glazer

I'm getting older. I hardly ever yell any more. I just say it under my breath and move on. But thanks for remembering.

also what about when i straddled and you had KK in the BB and an Ace flopped.


as the brother said in 'The Quiet Man', "its been a pleasure beatin ya."


brad


p.s. ive gotten a little better since then

Feel free to post your first chapter if you wish to do so.


As for your other comments talking about debate and exchange of ideas, that's exactly what we do here. If you spend time on these forums, you will see many posts that disagree with what David, Ray, and I say, and much discussion about those differences.


There is also a very active tournament forum that may interest you.

While my experience pales to most of the posters here, it seems to me that while poorly worded to avoid misinterpretation, Andy was not trying to take shots at 2+2 material. I have not read the article myself, but from the quotes you provided he appears mostly to be pointing out just as you noted that HPFAP points out, that while hands can fall into certain general categories, this does not mean that every hand in a category is played in the same manner. I see no plan to defame 2+2. I may be the one misinterpreting the text, but the gist seems to point out that to blindly follow explicit hand rankings is clear folly. Of course there are many other considerations that need to be taken in. He may have been referring directly to Sklansky's own hand rankings, but even if this is true, as pointed out by your own quote, you also note the differences in playing hands of the same group. Personally, I do not sense an implication that he thinks that you have not covered this fact or that he knows better. When I was a beginner I know that some of the first things I encountered were various lists of hand rankings and if I were the type to look for a quick fix for my game (read: if I did not buy a serious book on poker), I might have been inclined to simply use those to play. Of course that would have been a mistake. Now again, I will admit that this response is coming from someone who has not read Andy's article in it's entirety, but from the one quote provided, it really does not seemed aimed at slandering the good works of 2+2. As for the tactical soundness of the advice in the article, I need to read it first, but would be more inclined to allow the more experienced players participating here to make any final determinations. I make this post merely to point out my own thoughts on the implication of the excerpt.


Jake

Get over it Mason - good grief!!!

It "sounds like a shot at your stuff" even though the article never mentions you and also specifically states: "Again, I say this NOT to attack the writers who help beginners with hand groupings, because I think those hand groupings play a useful role in getting players started."?


Seems like a non-attack to me, especially when one compares it to what you wrote about me and my book (to refresh your memory, you used or seconded phrases like "the book is useless" and "Glazer is the just about the last person you'd ever take advice from"). You have an interesting view of what does or doesn't constitute a shot, Mason.

"Glazer is the just about the last person you'd ever take advice from"


I didn't write that.


As for your article, here's a couple of more quotes:


"Again, I say this NOT to attack the writers who help beginners with hand groupings, because I think those hand groupings play a useful role in getting players started… kind of like training wheels are useful for someone learning to ride a bicycle."


"Although most writers do put A-Q in a separate "category" from A-K, many do group A-Q suited with A-K, and the two play very differently, especially as you move up the poker ladder."


I view both of these as sort of "code words" for attacking our stuff. This is especially true of the "training wheels" comment which I believe first came from Steve Badger when he wrote a Card Player article attacking the hand groups and stating that charts for hold 'em are no good. Of course, he has also stated that he has never read our book. I believe you know most of this and should know better. So yes, I believe that your article was simply a subtle attack on some of our work.


By the way, if you disagree with any of what we say. There's no reason to be subtle. Just come here and we'll discuss it.

Oh come on Mason don't lower yourself like this. When you post:

"Glazer is the just about the last person you'd ever take advice from"


I didn't write that. >>


You REALLY blow your credibility to hell here. I DIDN'T say you wrote it. I said "you wrote or seconded it," and you know VERY well that you seconded that PRECISE message when you said "if you'd read his book, you'd think that comment was mild."


Get real, please, and don't try to play word games with me. I don't use "code words" to attack people. (Where were the "code words" when I said all the nice things about the value of your work?). I say what I think is true. What I think might be wrong, but I say what I think.


"So yes, I believe that your article was simply a subtle attack on some of our work."--I mean, COME ON, why would I write literally dozens of articles very clearly praising your work, to say nothing of coming on here and praisig your work, and then use secret codes words to attack it? Why would someone who has it out for you write "go ahead and buy Poker Essays Vol. III even though I haven't read it yet because it is impossible for me to imagine Mason Malumuth writing a bad book?" 25,000 subcribers to my newsletter read those very words, so before you claim I never wrote them, I have a couple witnesses.


"By the way, if you disagree with any of what we say. There's no reason to be subtle. Just come here and we'll discuss it. "


What I want to do is come here and discuss poker. You jumped all over me in a non-subtle way and have been trying to play word games to avoid taking responsibility for what you said. You have ignored dozens of obvious pieces of praise in order to look for subtle attacks. There's an old saying, "the guilty fleeth where no one pursueth." Maybe you're used to getting attacked and so see what you expect to see. The reality is you are taking someone who was one of your biggest fans and doing a fine job of making him question his views about you.


Andy Glazer

Andy:


Even though I see lots of articles by you all over the place, I don't read them. Sorry, but I quit reading the magazine articles years ago. I just got tired of them.


Because of Alan Schoonmaker I did go ahead and read your book. (Also, as a publisher of poker/gambling books I do try to read other books that are written. But after having read so many of them it is getting harder and harder for me to do so.)


So, believe it or not, your ace-queen article is the first article of yours I have ever read in it's entirety. If you have been praising me or attacking me I wouldn't have known it (and no one has ever indicated to me one way or the other).


Now with this being said, if you want to come here and discuss poker, please go ahead and do so. You made an offer/suggestion to post the first chapter from your book and I said that that's fine with me. In fact, you're welcome to post all the chapters that you want. I'm sure that you will get lots of comments from the many posters that we have and there will be lots of discussion.


And if you are recommending to all those subcribers you have that they read our books (including Poker Essays, Volume III then that's great. I however don't recommend (or not recommend) books until I have read them.


One other point. And this is something that we have discussed in detail on these forums before on several different occasions. It's that we will hold people like you who, becuase of the magazine articles/books, have name recognition, to a higher standard. Of course, David and I need to also be held to that standard as well.


The reason we do this is because there is a very large number of people in the poker/gambling world that now look to us for guidance and advice. That means it has become part of our mission to steer people towards good information and away from bad information. So keep in mind that if you are going to post here and participate in the advice giving we will be tougher on you than we would an unknown poster, and that's the way it should be. I'm sure you'll agree.


And finally, when you complain about "Glazer is the just about the last person you'd ever take advice from," as I said, I didn't write it. It was posted by Three Bet Breet in one of the posts above. But just so there is no misunderstanding and to emphasize to you that I don't play word games, I do agree with the statement. You will have to come here and show that you know your stuff before I would agree that you are some sort of authority. By the way, we have a bunch of posters on this site who have shown that they know their stuff and are probably very good poker players. So if you get a few things wrong or have a few controversial ideas, don't worry, there will be lots of very knowledgeable people for you to discuss them with.


Best wishes,

Mason

Mason:


We're getting close to a resolution. I agree with a lot of the things you said and I well understand that you could have grown tired of reading the magazines and never read any of the nice things I've said about your work. I don't think the world revolves around me or my articles. I said all those nice things here too, but forget that for now. You're right that "alleged" experts should be held to higher standards and I don't mind it: it comes with the territory. I would just like to get one straight answer out of you about one issue and we can move on to poker and other gambling issues.


You said, AGAIN: "And finally, when you (Andy) complain about "Glazer is the just about the last person you'd ever take advice from," as I said, I didn't write it. It was posted by Three Bet Bret in one of the posts above."


Yes, I know you didn't write it. I have been posting in terms of your "writing or seconding," and what I have been trying to get you to acknowledge is that in response to Bret's post, you wrote:


“I agree with this post completely. In fact, if any of you have ever read his book on general gambling you would probably conclude that the above words are rather mild.”


Did you post that, or didn't you? Yes or no? However, please don't just post a one word answer. I don't want readers to have to guess what that one word might be referring to. Take responsibility for your words by copying what I've included here (Bret's post and your reply post) into a new post, and acknowledge that although you did not write Bret's first post, you added the weight of your opinion to it with your "the above words are rather mild" comment. That way, we aren't making anyone comb through a rather long thread to understand what you said or didn't say, and it establishes where we are starting in the "higher standard" to which you are referring. You're entirely free, of course, to disagree with my conclusions about what it establishes. I just want your remarks clearly on the record in one post.


If you didn't post the "those remarks are rather mild" reply, I need to know, because then I must conclude your system and/or passwords are hackable/too well known, and that as a result I can't ever know that something allegedly posted by you was in fact posted by you.


Andy Glazer

Hi Andy!


I think you are one of the most informative and entertaining writers on the poker scene today and I enjoy reading your articles. But I must give you a word of warning. I have been posting on 2+2 since September 1999. I have discovered that when you challenge someone's poker advice it is tantamount to kicking their kids. It gets even tougher when you start writing magazine articles and books since you now become fair game. You really need to thicken your hide and simply try to ignore any perceived personal attacks. I know it is not easy. But if you don't, then what starts off being an intellectual discussion about a piece of poker advice degenerates into an all-out flame war. This is why some authors avoid posting here. You have to decide whether "the juice is worth the squeeze".

" ... we will hold people like you who, becuase of the magazine articles/books, have name recognition, to a higher standard."


Unless you're kinda goofy. Andy, they still let me pee in the corner now and then.


Tommy

Andy:


Yes, I wrote the above statement, and upon review I agree that it was too harsh on you. For this I do apologize.


Hopefully, you will stick around and participate in our forums. This will allow you to demonstrate your expertise and/or develop expertise, or perhaps some of both. As I said earlier, we have a very active tournament forum which will probably interest you the most.


As for how hackable our passwords/system is, I am not very knowledgeable in this area. You will need to ask our web site administrator Chuck Weinstock. He is our expert here.


As for your book, my opinion of it is as I have written above. It got a rating of 2 and that is a poor rating on my scale. If you happen to rewrite it in the future I will be glad to read it again to see if my opinion of it changes.


Best wishes,

Mason

Thank you, Mason.


That's all I really wanted to know: was I entering a forum where I was entering a "can't win" situation, or where I would have a chance to have my analysis considered correct, although it would be subjected to vigorous review. I don't mind vigorous review: I still have a lot to learn, and my favorite teachers were always the ones who were tough on me.


I appreciate that you were willing to reexamine your earlier remarks. I've certainly worded things that, upon reflection, I wished I had worded differently.


Case closed. Let's talk about poker. Although I will throw Chapter One, "Float Like a Butterfly", up here some time, to see if people think it is sending a useful message about psychology or a bad message about money management... because when it comes to the extremely silly subject of money management, you're preaching to the choir with me, Mason. I agree with your basic tenets completely. As far as something that affects long term EV, 99% of the time it money management is raised it is done so in a silly, useless context, and the words are usually used by windbags to impress fools. Probably half the letters I get from Free Press readers are from folks who have been offered (via email or snail mail) some snake oil salesman's promised dream of riches via money management. I guess the snake oil salemen have figured out that even the dumbest amongst their audience now understand the casino holds the advantage in almost all games, so rather than fight that concept, now they say "of course you can't beat the casino edge playing regular strategy, but with my magic money management scheme, the poor casino has no chance against a sharp player like you, a man of distinction who also probably wants to buy my fine $39.95 naugahyde wallet."


Chapter One aside, I will probably keep the rest of Casino Gambling the Smart Way out of here, because it isn't a poker book, and it's certainly not appropriate subject matter for a forum where people analyze serious and complex poker issues.


Thanks again for restoring one of your biggest fan's faith.


Andy Glazer

'I have discovered that when you challenge someone's poker advice it is tantamount to kicking their kids'


i almost cried that was so funny!!

ok, Tommy's peeing in the corner, Jim's goin around kickin people's kids, and Andy and Mason agree (sort of) and are gonna talk poker again. all that's left is for eLROY and Andy Fox to get married in a Hawaiian Synagogue...