Re: Self serving magazine articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
baron von whatever, this is the first article i read by him, but i thought it was very substandard and was suprised it made it in. i realize its hard to get new stuff thats not rehashed, but his logic in this last article was flawed imo and should not have been published.

[/ QUOTE ]


There's another thread going about my article - and I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, hopefully if you go back in previous months, you'll like those more, or you'll like the future ones this year - but if you have specifics where you think what I did is wrong, please elaborate in this thread as I definitely want to hear where you believe I didn't do the mathematically correct thing, given the situation.

Barron Vangor Toth <--- Two R's, no Von
BarronVangorToth.com <--- Two R's, no Von

Re: Self serving magazine articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious or kidding? You might feel that way but I doubt others do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky has the right to know which authors you think are egotistical and self serving. After all, he's got a stake in this. If you don't want others to know who you think writes this way, shoot Sklansky a PM instead of posting it.

I leave you with this:

"If there is a god, then he is like me."
-David Sklansky

Re: Self serving magazine articles
 

Ok nate, you asked.

I think your preflop and flop play arent too bad. Now, as for the turn, I think you tried to pull a fast one which would normally result in you spewing chips but as a result of your poor opponents you got away with it.

You said elderly guy had AK. Ok so he bets, now the other guy with 83 shoulda reraised, then the flush draw calls, and what is your plan now? Im assuming call? That woulda been fine.

Now, instead, elderly guy bets AK, 83 (two pair) just calls (this is garbage), flush draw calls, and YOU raise. Luckily, elderly guy is weaktight and folds AK instead of 3 betting you, or calling. 83 calls again (what a moron), and flush draw of course calls again.

River, you get to the showdown for free, good. your hand has showdown value, and you took it free, is a better hand really gonna call you often enough here for a bet to be profitable. I think in most instances the AQ-AK shoulda correctly check called u here, so your check behind was good.

Now this hand is kinda ok to analyze, but only because your opponents played so baffingly horrible.

I really liked Sklansky's article about Phil because he discussed a situation which isn't so intuitively obvious. In fact, I find alot of his articles helpful because rarely are they intuitively obvious. Your reraise with Top pair+flush draw as a semi bluff is straight out of TOP, except you have less outs than a flush draw+str8 draw. In fact, if the ace comes and completes a flush, you are looking at quite a few more bets to pay.

Luckily your opponents are dreadfully weak tight and it worked out, but what are you gonna do next time someone with a set/two pair 3 bets you, call of course and pray for a club. I hope you had a damn good read on these apparently horrible opponents in this situation. Just because you won doesn't make it a nice hand, I think analyzing it is just results oriented. If elderly guy had c/c you down, would you have posted this as a mistake?

Finally, as for Osborne's article, is this anything new? I would rather of had an article detaling bubble strategy or some other useful comment than the generic, dont' be results oriented, and here is why! Look at this good call I made!

Rant off. Respond at will.

Re: Self serving magazine articles
 

i did not say that you were a poor writer, in fact i made sure to say thast I've only read your most recent. I believe it was flawed, not that you are flawed. as a writer(especially a poker writer) your going to be criticized.
I wasnt aware that a thread had started regarding your article, but my only suggestion to you would be to think about quality over quantity. good luck

Re: Self serving magazine articles
 

In my main work as a game designer I receive more criticism from more rabid fans than you can imagine.

And I love every piece of it.

Likewise, here, especially if it is specific, as it helps me do whatever I do better.

You have said now that my article is flawed and the first time you wrote that it was substandard.

If you could take the moment in the aforementioned thread to specifically detail why you believe it is flawed and substandard, I would appreciate it.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: Self serving magazine articles
 

I wouldnt have played the hand the same way, not even close.Your Logic for playing onward was flawed, in my opinion. The article itself was not instructive enough(even if your right and I'm wrong), as to have a high enough standard for the magazine(therefore substandard).
What did we really learn from your article? The last statements were not correct reasoning in my opinion.
I dont think you are a winning player. Without even knowing you and having not read your other articles or posts
I think your trying to earn a name for yourself, and hopefully publish a book if you can get a following. Now i might be wrong about you being a winning player, but I'm feeling really good about the rest.
I certainly dont blame you for trying, there is nothing wrong at all with what you are attempting, but I'm giving you honest feedback, as to how it strikes me as a reader here. But I'm just one person. I believe your article would have been better as a post, not a magazine article. good luck

Re: Self serving magazine articles/More on flawed logic
 

I felt i should explain why i believe your logic is flawed.
In the beggining of your article you quote Ed Miller ,"In LOOSE GAMES,in late posisition you should usually re-raise KQs with 4 players in front have called" etc.
In your scenario ,you knew the player, he typically raised with big pairs, or ak etc.
He's not loose.!! There are some callers, yes but the original raiser as you said has a big pair or cards as big or larger than yours. Fold your f-king hand. this is not the spot Ed Miller is writing about. Also the reasoning on the flop???very thin, but why go further since i've foldedd already. The title fits though,"ON the Edge".

Re: Self serving magazine articles/More on flawed logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are some callers, yes but the original raiser as you said has a big pair or cards as big or larger than yours. Fold your f-king hand. this is not the spot Ed Miller is writing about.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not? You sure? Many games that Ed is talking about have raisers with tight standards for raising in them.

This isn't a fold preflop. It's, if anything, an easy call.

b

Re: Self serving magazine articles
 

Hi Barron:

I have addressed some of this in the other thread.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Self serving magazine articles/More on flawed logic
 

[ QUOTE ]

He's not loose.!! There are some callers, yes but the original raiser as you said has a big pair or cards as big or larger than yours. Fold your f-king hand. this is not the spot Ed Miller is writing about. Also the reasoning on the flop???very thin, but why go further since i've foldedd already. The title fits though,"ON the Edge".

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think you need all loose players in order to have a loose game. When you have a raiser and a total of four cold-callers in front of you, knowing what you know about the raiser and first cold-caller, there is an argument to be made (and StellarWind makes it in the other thread) for simply calling; I believe the raise is the correct play; I don't think anyone can justify folding here UNLESS they want to avoid variance in an otherwise +EV spot or they believe they cannot play correctly post-flop.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com