Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, here's a hint: For a tell to be important it must not only be accurate, but it must change the way you would play your hand. For instance, if you have a tell that someone is bluffing, but you were going to call anyway, then the tell has no value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I generally agree with Mason's statement. In Large (commonly multi-way pots) the value of a common tell is greatly diminished as it will rarely change the way the Hero choses to play his hand, since he or she is receiving the right odds to continue regardless of the tell. A tell has some small value in a small pot, however once again the pot odds commonly dictate correctly how the hero should react as he or she attempts to complete a better hand.

At the same time Derek has a point that low limit games are filled with players who provide complimentary information about their actions prior to their turn, but it is not greatly relevant to the above statement. However he is correct that it may provide information on the Hero's implied odds.

The most accurate tell in any form of poker is betting patterns, from what I read in SSHE thats what 70% (or more) of what the book is about. Perhaps Mike Caro should use it as a guide when he decides to re-write his classic book. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Rolf:

I see you finally got something right, although "weak-tight" has little to do with it. As I suggested to the other poster, you need to reread the subchapter "Use Tells Cautiously in Large Pots" starting on page 246. (I am assuming you read it but just didn't understand it. You did read this before writing your book review?)

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Both you and Rolf have very twisted senses of humor. I like!

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
 

That's about the way I interpreted Rolf's comment. I am not sure how his criticism can be either right or wrong. It's just a wish for more on tells. Nothing more and nothing less.

BTW, where the heck are these reviews? I can't seem to find them on his website.

I am surprised however that Rolf gives that Cloutier/McEvoy book a 6.5 (as reported by Mason). That truly is a laughable piece of work. Probably written up while fishing or something over a weekend. Mason's 1 rating for that beauty is right on the mark.

Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
 

For instance, if you have a tell that someone is bluffing, but you were going to call anyway, then the tell has no value

Does that mean that I 100% wouldn't raise, now that I have a tell?

I\'m hoping that this wasn\'t
 

... a WHOOOSSHHH!!! moment.

THAT
 

... was a classic answer.

Bravo!

Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I see you finally got something right

[/ QUOTE ]
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />

I am assuming you read it but just didn't understand it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yikes. Do you two have some sort of history? I know it's what you two write about/play for a living... but it's still just a card game.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Best wishes

[/ QUOTE ]
Disingenuous much?

Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
 

Hi SKP:

I disagree. If Slotboom had stated that we have an explanation why tells are not very important in the games for which the book is targeted for and that he disagrees for the following reasons and so on, then I would have no problem. But the way he wrote it, he makes it appear that we neglected this issue, which we didn't.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
 

Hi Mint:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Look at Poker Essays volume 1, the essay entitled Two Tournament Mistakes.

The above essay is a complete contradiction of what HOH
espouses.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. HOH: Volume II will be out very shortly. It's a great book and explains this stuff very well.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
 

Mason,

Your criticism of his criticism has now been made more clear. I see your point. I didn't in your initial post.