HEPFAP Poor Review on Amazon (LONG)

Hi All--


The following review is the first review seen on Amazom.com re: HEPFAP by Sklansky & Malmuth. I'm posting this in order to get any feedback readers may have to offer...


Suggested play is way too loose No help for advanced players, September 3, 1999

Reviewer: gambolero@prodigy.com from Eastern Kentucky

The ideas contained in this book are outdated and useless, even harmful. The concepts were developed by Sklansky in another era for another game. The modern game typically has two to three players seeing the flop for two to three bets. When Sklansky wrote his original book based on his experiences in relatively low limit games i.e the 10-20 game at the Gold Nugget) where a tight game was described as one where around five players saw the flop for half a bet or a full bet. Another section of the new book talks about games where no one at the table takes the game seriously. Those games just don't exist at levels high enough for the player to have a chance to overcome the rake (20-40 or higher).


Particularly dangerous is the book's oft stated theme of rating suited hands much higher than non-suited hands. For instance, 10 J suited is rated equivalent to A Q offsuit. Playing small suited connectors is suicide in the average high limit game (seeing the flop against one or two opponents for two to three bets). There is only a minimal difference between say A Q offsuit and A Q suited in this type of game because (1) you hit flushes very rarely (about 4% of the time when you're suited) and (2) you'll actually make more flushes with the off suited hand. Playing garbage hands in hopes of hitting a 1 in 25 flush is the biggest single error made by bad players and this book sytemically reinforces this error. This 1 in 25 shot is particularly ill advised when you play in game with lots of two or three handed flops.


The other problem is that strategy suggestions repeatedly encourage calling way too loose and raising way too tight, just the opposite strategy that consistent winning players employ. I suspect that Malmuth knows that the strategies suggested won't work in high limit games and are thus of no use (or even detrimental) to advanced players.


It is certainly true, however, that an amateur player could benefit from the book as long as they understand that the book will not turn them into a pro or enable them to overcome the rake in low limit games.


Finally, the authors discussion focused almost exclusively on structured limit games. There are only a handful of truly successful limit poker pros in the world. Anybody that can play, even a little bit, should focus on playing no-limit or pot limit. Even the authors admit that many of the really difficult situations are break even decisions in limit poker. In open limit games, however, these situations are extremely critical.


Psychology, tells, and betting strategies are so much more important in no limit that most working, practicing holdem/omaha pros refuse to play structured limit. Limit poker is great for the house, because they end up with all the money. If you have some talent (and some passion) for the game and you're trying to become a serious player, pass on this book and pass on limit poker in general.

The reviewer simply doesn't know what he's talking about. Just to point to a couple of instances, he clearly is unaware of the large increase in

semi-bluff value provided by a suited hand. Also, the *vast* majority of

successful pros specialize in the limit game.


Bottome line: with all due respect to this forum and other good sites, the internet is a huge magnet for people with not clue to spout views as though they're experts. It happens constantly. You found one example.

your typical LL 'expert'. haha the type that sits and loses chips while telling everyone how wrong their plays are.


i wish he was on my table berating my play. actually he may have been on my table before... /images/wink.gif


b

The problem with this review is that the reviewer seems to only want to discuss the preflop section of the book. While I agree with most of what he says, he neglects to mention that the rest of the book is very useful, even though the preflop section certainly has problems.


By focussing only on a small portion of the book, the reviewer is presenting a very slanted view of the material it contains.

Bernie,


Ever notice that these comments are usually made as you're taking down a big pot that the self- styled expert helped create? Most amusing indeed!!!

Bobby,


This makes me think that the material is presented this way so as to cover up the strong possibility that the reviewer really hasn't any understanding of play after the flop- if he spreads enough vitriol about, he's covered his tracks and doesn't have to display the basic poverty of his approach, rather than coming up with something worthwhile.

theyll berate ya all the way to the last chip you collect for the pot. then a little more as theyre rebuying another rack for the 3rd time.


"WHATTA YA CALLIN WITH 52OS FOR YA IDIOT!!!" after winning with flopped trip 2s on the flop...


"sorry sir, did ya see i was in a blind? yknow if ya raised your pkt Ks preflop you woulda got me out...and since i c/r'd ya on the turn, and an A was on the board, did ya really think your Ks were good. hope you and that hand have a long marriage..."


thats usually the response going in my head anyway. haha i liken it to an entertainment benefit at the table...


b

For instance, 10 J suited is rated equivalent to A Q offsuit.


An overall theme of this review is that they have taken the preflop chart too rigidly. These hands are in the same group, but they are most certainly not equivalent, and play differently. This would be clearer to the reviewer if the rest of the book were read more closely, or the reviewer spent some time here reading various hand postings.


Playing small suited connectors is suicide in the average high limit game (seeing the flop against one or two opponents for two to three bets).


The reviewer might want to reread HPFAP, there seems to be some confusion here over what is a small suited connector and what is a medium suited connector and under what conditions HFAP advised they can be played.


There is only a minimal difference between say A Q offsuit and A Q suited in this type of game because (1) you hit flushes very rarely (about 4% of the time when you're suited) and (2) you'll actually make more flushes with the off suited hand.


Does the reveiwer think half of a small bet is minimal?


(2) you'll actually make more flushes with the off suited hand.


By this logic, 23o makes more flushes than Aks does.


The difference between suited and non suited has do with overall profit. Suited hands are braver and can stick around more to win with pairs while drawing for a flush, or vis versa. This adds alot.

The reviewer should spend a little time with a simulator.


Playing garbage hands in hopes of hitting a 1 in 25 flush is the biggest single error made by bad players and this book sytemically reinforces this error. This 1 in 25 shot is particularly ill advised when you play in game with lots of two or three handed flops.


From AQ, to this suddenly. This is a good indication of the clearness of thinking the reviewer has.


I suspect that Malmuth knows that the strategies suggested won't work in high limit games


One thing that I always find amusing on the internet is how many people attribute Mason "knowing" things. So far he "knows" there is lots of collusion, he "knows" that nobody actually beats poker, he "knows" that there are aliens living in Area 51.


It is certainly true, however, that an amateur player could benefit from the book as long as they understand that the book will not turn them into a pro or enable them to overcome the rake in low limit games.


As long as the reveiwer understands that no book will "turn you into a pro", and beating low limit games is not the aim of HPFAP.


There are only a handful of truly successful limit poker pros in the world.


I personally know more than a handful that make their entire income from poker. But I guess there's always the out "truly successful".


Anybody that can play, even a little bit, should focus on playing no-limit or pot limit.


This might even be true if these games were readily available in the "colonies".


In closing, the reviewer has jumped to false conclusions based on the Sklansky hand chart, not fully understood the strength of being suited (that can be proven easily with sims), and apparently allowed his/her dislike of limit to cloud his judgement.


Lastly, gosh darn it, if you are going to attack Mason, don't do it with softballs like this.


Regards.

This reviewer should read some of what Mason has to say on the topic of PL/NL games; the weak players get separated from their money much more quickly there. Think he'd be one of 'em!

For some reason he seems to have it out for S/M. Would be interesting to know who he really is and why he is so full of spite. If he believes the things he says, he's in trouble.