New Book Schedule

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Here's our tentative schedule for new books:

Small Stakes Hold 'em; Winning Big with Expert Play by Ed Miller, David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth -- July 2004

Advanced Tournament Strategy, Volume I by Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie -- Nov 2004

Advanced Tournament Strategy, Volume II by Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie -- April 2005

Business is a Poker Game By Dr. Alan Schoonmaker -- not sure but I suspect in the six to 10 month timeframe.

Best wishes,
Mason

[JTG51]

Hi Mason,

These all sound like interesting projects. I'm especially glad to see that Dan Harrington is part of the tournament books.

Can you tell us a little bit about Bill Robertie? I see that he seems to be a backgammon expert who has written many books on that game. Is he also an expert poker player? Is he coauthoring with Dan Harrington because of his writing ability, his poker ability, or both?

Thanks.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi JTG51:

Bill and Dan have been close friends for over 30 years. While he's not a poker player, he is an expert "games" player, and writes very well.

I have seen some preliminary material and it is quite dynamic.

best wishes,
Mason

[aesic]

Is there a way to pre-order these books? (particularly the Small Stakes Hold 'em book)

-aesic

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif you can be sure i am buying at least one of each...

i am assuming robertie is of backgammon fame...his problem sloving backgammon books (both vol i and ii ) are must buys for bg, and his style of writing and reasoning is outstanding and easy for the tyro to follow...

sounds like some big winners...

gl all

/images/graemlins/heart.gif
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif




0
0

[jdl22]

Mason,

How will the approach of Harrington and Robertie be different from that of Sklansky in TPFAP?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi aesic:

Not yet. But when we are ready to go to press, there will be. Sometimes in projects like these there are unexpected delays, and we don't want anyone to be holding your money if no product is available.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi scalf:

It is the same Bill Robertie.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi jdl22:

There will be many tournament specific hand problems.

Best wishes,
Mason

[William Wilson]

Mason,

Why two volumes of tournament books? Do they progress in level, or are they different subjects altogether?

Thanks,
Bill

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi William:

My understanding is that they have a lot of material and need two big books to cover everything, plus all the hand problems, that they wish to cover.

Best wishes,
Mason

[dogsballs]

[ QUOTE ]
Advanced Tournament Strategy, Volume I by Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie -- Nov 2004

Advanced Tournament Strategy, Volume II by Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie -- April 2005


[/ QUOTE ]


Goddamm, Mason! /images/graemlins/mad.gif Just when I started to finally win at a decent clip at these online tourneys; now you have to go and flog em all an aide..!

Send my copies a coupla weeks early. /images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif willie:

they can make twice as much money...lol

duhhhh

eh


lol

jmho...gl /images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif just kidding..

these are all must buy books for all poker players...and bargains..

gl

/images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Advanced Tournament Strategy, Volume I by Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie -- Nov 2004

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason,

Just wondering if you will be encouraging Dan and Bill to post on the forums. They would be most welcome, I'm sure.

--uuDevil

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Devil:

Yes.

Best wishes,
Mason

[WillMagic]

I think that you guys could do this like Amazon - you could take preorders, but refrain from billing until you ship the product. You'd probably have to limit purchases to credit cards, but still, I'd bet you'd have a bunch of orders ready to go, and mine would be among them.

Will

[James Boston]

According to the order form page, it can be pre-ordered for $19.95, and will be available in the late summer. Which is it?

[JAque]

Hi Mason:

In books where you or David are not the authors, do you (DS, MM) review it and check for accuracy? What happens in areas where you disagree with the authors?

thanks

JAque

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Jaque:

Davind and I work with all our authors to make sure that their books are as accurate as possible. In situations where there is disagreement, we all attempt to work to a common understanding.

Best wishes,
Mason

[1p0kerb0y]

Forgive me if I missed it, but are the tournament strategy books by Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie strictly no-limit tournaments?

[tolbiny]

Is there going to be a section on 1-table Sit and go style tournies? these are becoming very popular online.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Mason,

From what I've seen of Ed Miller's writing and character I'd expect the low limit book to be fantastic.

I used to play decent backgammon and am familiar with Robertie's books. He is an outstanding writer and thinker. Those books with Dan could be really something.

Regards,

Rick

[Schmed]

Has there every been a situation where you couldn't reach that understanding??? What about when you and David disagree, or when one of you sides with the author yet the other is firm in their stance against it???

Just curious, your books are great and the process is pretty interesting.

[Schmed]

Is it cheaper to preorder?? If it is cheaper to preorder is the reason because there are potentially reprints that will have more info or mistakes fixed??

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Schmed:

We at Two Plus Two Publishing LLC fo no retail selling. That includes this site where all books are sold through ConJelCo. So if you get to preorder at a discount, that's because the retailer has chosen to do so, not us.

Best wishes,
Mason

[BeerMoney]

Mason,

I was wondering, now that people are playing on-line and there are some people have large data bases of information stored in software packages like PokerTracker, how much of this data is used in your books?

If the answer is none, then why?

I think failing to use this data would be a major flaw.

BeerMoney

[Randy Burgess]

I don't know what Mason's reply will be - and I expect it will be more cogent than mine - but for my money, PokerTracker stats are vastly overrated.

It's possible that a very good programmer with a very good knowledge of poker could parse accumulated databases in a meaningful way ... but as far as I know the average user of the program isn't doing this. They're doing things like looking at a grossly calculated number such as preflop raise percentage and trying to decide if they're playing well by this single statistic alone. Or they're looking at a tiny sample for a starting hand and trying to interpret whether their EV to date means they're playing that hand correctly.

And I'm not sure what would happen if you started mashing databases together which were compiled by different players. I'm not sure if you'd wind up with an uber-database or an uber-mess.

It's possible I've missed some really creative use of this tool; if so I apologize and would certainly be interested in hearing about it.

[Vehn]

What in the world are you talking about? If you have a significant (10k) number of hands at 10 handed limit hold'em of any limit, and your preflop raise percent is below 5% or above 15% I can unequivocally say you are playing poorly. Are you denying that?

[BeerMoney]

Well, it just seems like this is a way to get real hard numbers. Poker players before were probably working off of feel and reasonable logic. Now there are numbers out there. They can be Mason's numbers. He could go on PP and play 15/30 and 30/60. Ed Miller could be accumulating #'s on 2/4, etc..... It seems like if you're not using them, you're missing a resource.

Your reply is almost like "Its too hard to do," or "we don't know how, so we won't."

I wouldn't be surprised if some commonly held beliefs may be disproved by the numbers.

How about your book Randy? What resources are you using?

BeerMoney

[Randy Burgess]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have a significant (10k) number of hands at 10 handed limit hold'em of any limit, and your preflop raise percent is below 5% or above 15% I can unequivocally say you are playing poorly. Are you denying that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying I don't think it means very much or is particularly helpful.

First, there's already a number that's a much better figure for comparing how well you play versus other players - your hourly rate or the equivalent online figure.

Second, let's say everyone agrees your preflop raise percentage is too low. What then? In my view you should be choosing hands to raise with based not on some arbitrary notion of "Hmm, PokerTracker says I don't raise enough, so I guess I better find some hands to raise with," but on learning in the first place how particular hands play properly before the flop in a given situation. How we obtain this ideal knowledge is a separate question, albeit a very interesting one. We know we can't rely on EV's built on small samples.

Plus didn't we already know this kind of thing, even if we didn't quantify it? You're sitting in a $5/$10 ring game watching some guy limp in all his raising hands, not because he's trapping with limp reraises but because he doesn't know any better. You already know he's not raising enough because you can see it.

I would be much more interested in seeing someone crack open the database and extract/create some more useful measures that can't be obtained normally. An example of an interesting number (one I don't yet claim to fully understand, which I admit is a hole in my game) is standard deviation. I'd like to see smart programmers/players hunt for numbers of that nature.

[Randy Burgess]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be surprised if some commonly held beliefs may be disproved by the numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was an article in the Science section of the New York Times maybe six months ago or more that talked how well the top-of-the-line poki bot played vs. human players, and about how it found value in JT in certain short-handed situations that human players tended to overlook.

But that isn't an example of humans looking into a database, but rather of a machine inventing new lines of play. Apparently the best chess-playing computers also come up with strange but winning lines of play that humans overlook because of the way we think. This is true even though machines also have characterstic weaknesses that very good human players can still exploit, whether in chess or poker.

[ QUOTE ]
How about your book Randy? What resources are you using?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing like what you're talking about. Keep in mind that my book is very basic. The only new ground I claim to break is in talking up the value of skills like hand-reading in the context of low-limit games, not just middle-limit or up games.

I wonder where Dan Kimberg stands on this question of PokerTracker etc.? He's a big fan of number-crunching.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be surprised if some commonly held beliefs may be disproved by the numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was an article in the Science section of the New York Times maybe six months ago or more that talked how well the top-of-the-line poki bot played vs. human players, and about how it found value in JT in certain short-handed situations that human players tended to overlook.

But that isn't an example of humans looking into a database, but rather of a machine inventing new lines of play. Apparently the best chess-playing computers also come up with strange but winning lines of play that humans overlook because of the way we think. This is true even though machines also have characterstic weaknesses that very good human players can still exploit, whether in chess or poker.

[ QUOTE ]
How about your book Randy? What resources are you using?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing like what you're talking about. Keep in mind that my book is very basic. The only new ground I claim to break is in talking up the value of skills like hand-reading in the context of low-limit games, not just middle-limit or up games.

I wonder where Dan Kimberg stands on this question of PokerTracker etc.? He's a big fan of number-crunching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I'd like to hear from Mason..

[Moyer]

[ QUOTE ]
for my money, PokerTracker stats are vastly overrated.

It's possible that a very good programmer with a very good knowledge of poker could parse accumulated databases in a meaningful way ... but as far as I know the average user of the program isn't doing this. They're doing things like looking at a grossly calculated number such as preflop raise percentage and trying to decide if they're playing well by this single statistic alone. Or they're looking at a tiny sample for a starting hand and trying to interpret whether their EV to date means they're playing that hand correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you don't include most 2+2 members in the "average user" list. There are constant reminder posts here about how many hands need to be logged to extract real conclusions. They also don't look at 1 number to find out if they're playing good or bad. I think most decent players can figure out their big problems. PokerTracker is more often used to refine your game. Plugging the little leaks one at a time (at least for players that understand the software).

Your post does make sense to me though in that it can also be said about all poker strategy books as well. Many players simply buy a book, lightly read or skim through it, and declare to themselves that they are now much better players. They do this without thoroughly understanding or even remembering many of the topics that are covered. In some instances this can actually make people play worse.

But, I don't think those of us that spend the time just to read through these forums every day should be included in this wreckless group of confused gamblers. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[kiddo]

You have totally misunderstood what Pokertracker is. Its database where you download all hands you play on Internet. And this is detalied handhistory, showing position, bets, cards...

When you have played for, say 200 hours shorthanded at 3 tables, you got about 60 000 hands in your database.

Then you can look at things like: How am I doing with 66 compared to 55 UTG? How am I playing AK unimproved against a preflop 3bettor? How do that guy that seems to play very well and win a lot play, lets look at his hands. Should I limp or raise A5s on button after 2 limpers?... And so on.

Got nothing to do with computers beating humans.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif i predict these tourny books will be a quantum leap in poker literature...not just must-buys; but classics...

gl /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Randy Burgess]

Please go back and read my first post in this thread.

[Dan Kimberg]

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder where Dan Kimberg stands on this question of PokerTracker etc.? He's a big fan of number-crunching.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since you asked...

I do like the idea of having a large database of poker hands, and I wish I had a database of mine. I think there are limitations to what you can learn from observational data about poker, but it's better than nothing, and may turn out to be very valuable.

Let me qualify that. It's potentially better than nothing. I'm pretty comfortable with data analysis, so I feel like I could get something of value from a database like that, if it were large enough. But drawing meaningful conclusions from large databases of poker hands is certainly a minefield of potential logical and statistical errors.

In another message in this thread, Moyer wrote: "There are constant reminder posts here about how many hands need to be logged to extract real conclusions." People who aren't aware of this are in a lot of trouble using numbers. People who know this but don't know how to figure out whether or not they have enough data are only slightly better off. A few more steps down the line, people who can generally draw valid statistical inferences from the data are still liable to commit all kinds of logical blunders or oversights in interpreting what they find. There are quite a few things that have to go right to get from a database to a useful adjustment to your play.

I don't personally use PokerTracker, for various trivial reasons. My impression from browsing the web site is that it provides a slew of interesting descriptive statistics, and leaves you with the burden of using the data responsibly. I personally like the "enough rope to hang yourself" approach to software design, even though I know some people need more hand-holding. I can't speak to whether or not PokerTracker specifically does what it does well.

dan

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi BeerMoney:

The answer is none. Our books were written before any of this data was available. Plus it has little value from our point of view since we base how to play on poker theory.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
"There are constant reminder posts here about how many hands need to be logged to extract real conclusions." People who aren't aware of this are in a lot of trouble using numbers. People who know this but don't know how to figure out whether or not they have enough data are only slightly better off.

[/ QUOTE ]


A more important point is that no matter how much data you have gathered or hours you have logged etc if the data is inherently bias or collected incorrectly then it is fairly worthless. You will not be able to draw anything really useful or at best some general conclusions that, as you point out, can just as easily lead people astray as lead them in the proper direction.

I am quite certain that many people fall into the trap of thinking that just because they have collected a large amount of data that it is intrinsically useful. This is bosh. A lot of thought and analysis must go in before data is collected to set up a proper system to collect, store, and then analyze the data in a meaningful way in addition to trying to relate the final product(s) into an overall framework for poker play and in reference to game style, limits, variable circumstances, and on and on. This would entail much detailed mathematical and statistical skill, in addition to logical analyses acumen.

I suspect this is one reason Mason and Company rely more on Poker Theory as a more reliable way to construct strategy and tactics.

-Zeno

[Dan Kimberg]

Zeno wrote:
[ QUOTE ]

This would entail much detailed mathematical and statistical skill, in addition to logical analyses acumen.

I suspect this is one reason Mason and Company rely more on Poker Theory as a more reliable way to construct strategy and tactics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I agree with you, since I said the same thing. But Mason said something a little different. He said that this kind of data "has little value from our point of view since we base how to play on poker theory." It's pretty clear that theory (or really just analysis) is the best way to answer the majority of questions about poker strategy. And clearly the data analysis issues are difficult. But for someone who's good with data analysis, it seems like large databases would be very helpful in informing and refining theory, in the same way that empirical data has always done in the service of science. When theory and data disagree, it's not always the data that will come into line.

dan

[Zele]

Excellent post, Dan.

You just convinced me to buy your book.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi BeerMoney:

The answer is none. Our books were written before any of this data was available. Plus it has little value from our point of view since we base how to play on poker theory.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Both of those reasons are disappointing. As far as the first goes......... Well, then wait to publish your book. As far as the second goes, it sounds like "We choose to IGNORE that, and go with what we've always been doing." Is that how biologists and chemists do things..... "Well, according to our calculations, these two chemicals should react this way, so, we don't care about the fact that it hasn't occured that way in empirical studies..."

Hmmm. Seems lazy.

[Large Pizza]

Harrington's pefrormance in the WSOP again is sure to help this book move to the top of the list. Maybe next year I'll be there /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Zeno]

Your point of the interplay of both theory and data (or empirical evidence) is excellent. And Yes, I guess we are both saying the same thing in only slightly different ways or emphasis.


Mason certainly has some explaining to do about his 'little value' statement.

-Zeno

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Zeno:

The problem with the data is that you're not sure what you're getting since you have little idea ahead of time what precisely the errors it contains might be. One of the advantages of "hot and cold" simulations is that you do know exactly what you are getting and can compare this model to the game in question. That's why this type of data has value for stud but is fairly worthless for hold 'em.

Best wishes,
Mason

[MaqEvil]

Someone already asked this question, but I didn't see an answer. Will the tourney books include single table strategy?