|
Another Slotboom Misconception
Hi Everyone:
Even though I believe that Rolf Slotboom is sincere in what he writes, in my opinion he is confused. Here's another example from his SSH review: [ QUOTE ] I found the section on tells rather disappointing. If what the author says is indeed true ("Small stakes games are usually rife with tells", p. 244), then he should have discussed this more into depth, rather than just saying that there's plenty of information on this subject available elsewhere. [/ QUOTE ] He has this completely wrong, and I thought it would be interesting to let others comment on it. That is you can either agree or disagree with me. 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. Best wishes, Mason |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
What does he have wrong? (note - I did not read Slotboom's review nor have I read Small Stakes Hold'em - I am only going by your quote).
You quoted him as writing: [ QUOTE ] If what the author says is indeed true ("Small stakes games are usually rife with tells", p. 244), then he should have discussed this more into depth, rather than just saying that there's plenty of information on this subject available elsewhere. [/ QUOTE ] I don't see anything incorrect or wrong about this statement nor do I see it as being correct. It is his opinion that the book should have had more info on tells specifically because Ed Miller wrote that there are alot of tells. Although somewhat picky by Slotboom (and it looks like he was searching to find something negative to say), I don't see right or wrong here. |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
He has this completely wrong [/ QUOTE ] I agree. This is a horrendous, unforgivable, not to forget incredibly weak-tight comment on the part of Slotboom. Rolf Slotboom www.rolfslotboom.com |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] He has this completely wrong [/ QUOTE ] I agree. This is a horrendous, unforgivable, not to forget incredibly weak-tight comment on the part of Slotboom. Rolf Slotboom www.rolfslotboom.com [/ QUOTE ] You are one funny dude. |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
The other day, I saw this guy forcefully put his chips in the pot. I was getting ready to raise it up with rags on the turn, but didn't get a chance b/c the guy ahead of me woke up with a hand. Predictably, the turn bettor folded for one bet on the river.
In this case, I picked up a humongous tell on this guy, but the tell didn't have an affect on the way I played the hand at all. There are a lot of other examples that I and a lot of others could give. Now, that said, I don't see anything at all wrong with Rolf's comment. Anyway, I give SSHE an 11 out of 10, and that wouldn't change even if it reprinted Caro's book of tells right then and there. |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
I disagree Mason. Your point seems to be that in many cases, regardless of a tell you discover, a small stakes hand tends to play itself. For instance, in a large multiway pot on the river, even if you determine that the initial bettor has a strong hand, your correct action is dictated less by his tell, and more by the size of the pot plus the principle of whether you should seek or discourage overcallers behind you.
While a particular tell may not matter in that instance, low limit games ARE rife with tells that change your play. For instance, preflop behind limpers in mid/late position, you may be considering to limp behind with a semi marginal hand such as a very small pair or a small suited connector. Before you decide to limp, pausing and looking left is an effective way to determine whether you are at risk of a raise behind you (or conversely, whether you can bake in some preflop overcalls to your odds calculations). Many low stakes players telegraph whether they intend to fling their hands into the muck. I use this example, because I was surprised to see 50%-75% of the players at the Trop's 10/20 game this weekend exhibiting this tell. |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] He has this completely wrong [/ QUOTE ] I agree. This is a horrendous, unforgivable, not to forget incredibly weak-tight comment on the part of Slotboom. Rolf Slotboom www.rolfslotboom.com [/ QUOTE ] Well your in good company, seems like anyone who disagrees with what 2+2 prints has it completely wrong. But do they? I find it amusing that books printed by 2+2 are sometimes incongruent and one of the books must be wrong. Yet if one points it out they get attacked. Look at Poker Essays volume 1, the essay entitled Two Tournament Mistakes. The above essay is a complete contradiction of what HOH espouses. One of them has it wrong. Therefore, not all strategies printed by 2+2 are correct. |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
While your point is clear Mason the simple fact is that SSHE doesn't make this point at all. It only says that the games are rife with tells, and that info is available all over the place and there is no need to reprint it.
It never even touches on how little value all these tells will be to you in the multiway pots. |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
Another item from that review of SSH:
"Mr. Sklansky's comment in the introduction that "making well over $50,000 per year playing $3-6 hold'em is now no big deal" (p. 2). In addition to the obvious question "How would he know - he probably has never played $3-6 in his entire life in a normal casino, let alone by multitabling on the Internet", there is this: it is simply not true." I had the very same thought when I read SSH. Can someone here tell me they are making this kind of money at this limit? |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
Hi Rudbaeck:
You need to reread the subchapter "Use Tells Cautiously in Large Pots" that starts on page 246. Best wishes, Mason |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
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 |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
Hi Derek:
Tells have their most importance in games where many of the pots only have a small number of players and the pot size is not to big (relative to the bet). The $80-$160 game that I often play in at The Bellagio is like this, as are short handed games. (See the chapter "A Note on Tells" on page 208 in Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players.) {i]Small Stakes Hold 'em[/i] is targeted for games that feature many players who play too many hands and go too far with them. This is the precise game where the tells lose their value because it is very rare that you would change your strategy based on a tell. (Again, as I mentioned in my other posts, see the sub-chapter "Use Tells Cautiously in Large Pots" starting on page 246.) Best wishes, Mason |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
Another item from that review of SSH: "Mr. Sklansky's comment in the introduction that "making well over $50,000 per year playing $3-6 hold'em is now no big deal" (p. 2). In addition to the obvious question "How would he know - he probably has never played $3-6 in his entire life in a normal casino, let alone by multitabling on the Internet", there is this: it is simply not true." I had the very same thought when I read SSH. Can someone here tell me they are making this kind of money at this limit? [/ QUOTE ] There is no doubt there are many people here making this kind of money at this limit. With rakeback or a bonus, it is very reasonable to make $10 an hour at a full 3/6 game; 4 -tabling, that would be $40 an hour. With this win rate, you could work 30 hours a week and be well above 50,000 a year. The problem arises with the "no big deal" because I believe it is a fairly big deal, and takes some serious study, to be able to beat 3/6 whilst 4-tabling for 1.5+ bb and hour. Again, though, there are many on this site that do just that. |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
Mason, you and I are in violent agreement here. Tells work less well in multiway large pots for the same reason bluffs work less well in such pots.
But my point was that tells are not irrelevant in small stakes games (e.g., the example I gave), and Slotboom's legitimate criticism of SSH is that Ed could have discussed specific, common tells in small stakes games in conjunction with his cautionary note. Another similar tell to the one I gave might be if you are in the small blind in a 2/3 structured game, and are trying to decide whether to complete with two suited cards such as 10[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] after 3 limpers. Any tell you can pick up as to the big blind's likely action (check or raise), is the determining factor about whether you should complete. If he has cut out chips to raise and is holding them in his right hand, I would not complete. |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone: Even though I believe that Rolf Slotboom is sincere in what he writes, in my opinion he is confused. Here's another example from his SSH review: [ QUOTE ] I found the section on tells rather disappointing. If what the author says is indeed true ("Small stakes games are usually rife with tells", p. 244), then he should have discussed this more into depth, rather than just saying that there's plenty of information on this subject available elsewhere. [/ QUOTE ] He has this completely wrong, and I thought it would be interesting to let others comment on it. That is you can either agree or disagree with me. 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. Best wishes, Mason [/ QUOTE ] Hi Mason. Three observations. 1. If Ed doesn't have any original thoughts as to what constitutes a tell, it's fine by me if he refers to other works for spotting tells. If he has some original thoughts on what constitutes a tell (in a game that's "rife" with them), it would have been nice to read about them. In this way, Rolf's mild criticism in an otherwise glowing review is somewhat picky. 2. You and Rolf are talking about different things. Rolf is talking about spotting tells, i.e. what constitutes a tell. You are talking about when and how to use tells, once spotted. Both are valuable skills. 3. Your statement about when a tell is important, while sound so far as it goes, is incomplete. Particularly in NL/PL games, but in also in limit. See why? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Alright, I'll give it up: spotting a tell in the current hand may not impact the way you play that hand, but could change the way you play a future hand against that opponent. |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
Mason, you and I are in violent agreement here. Tells work less well in multiway large pots for the same reason bluffs work less well in such pots. But my point was that tells are not irrelevant in small stakes games (e.g., the example I gave), and Slotboom's legitimate criticism of SSH is that Ed could have discussed specific, common tells in small stakes games in conjunction with his cautionary note. Another similar tell to the one I gave might be if you are in the small blind in a 2/3 structured game, and are trying to decide whether to complete with two suited cards such as 10[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] after 3 limpers. Any tell you can pick up as to the big blind's likely action (check or raise), is the determining factor about whether you should complete. If he has cut out chips to raise and is holding them in his right hand, I would not complete. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not going to comment on the importance or not of tells, but might ask whether it is simply that Miller felt this was outside the proposed scope of his book, and preferred to refer to others rather than provide superficial comments on the subject. |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
Mason is refering to the part about calling may be a mistake, but not calling can be a disaster, becoming locked into a big pot, and once a pot reaches a certain size you have to be >90% certain you are beat before you can fold.
IMO, you might find one tell that is that reliable in every 500 table hours. |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
You need to reread the subchapter "Use Tells Cautiously in Large Pots" that starts on page 246. [/ QUOTE ] The pot isn't necessarily large because it's multiway. I might still be blind, but I only see Ed cautioning against using tells in large pots, not in any multiway pot. (But they are indeed mostly voided even in small multiway pots.) That's the point you are making, and it's a point that isn't actually in SSH. It's obvious, but it's not printed. I know other reviewers who rant about people failing to state the obvious... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Another item from that review of SSH: "Mr. Sklansky's comment in the introduction that "making well over $50,000 per year playing $3-6 hold'em is now no big deal" (p. 2). In addition to the obvious question "How would he know - he probably has never played $3-6 in his entire life in a normal casino, let alone by multitabling on the Internet", there is this: it is simply not true." I had the very same thought when I read SSH. Can someone here tell me they are making this kind of money at this limit? [/ QUOTE ] There is no doubt there are many people here making this kind of money at this limit. With rakeback or a bonus, it is very reasonable to make $10 an hour at a full 3/6 game; 4 -tabling, that would be $40 an hour. With this win rate, you could work 30 hours a week and be well above 50,000 a year. The problem arises with the "no big deal" because I believe it is a fairly big deal, and takes some serious study, to be able to beat 3/6 whilst 4-tabling for 1.5+ bb and hour. Again, though, there are many on this site that do just that. [/ QUOTE ] The original and most "fun" thread on this topic. |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
Hi Albert:
No. Ed felt, and David and I agreed, that this just wasn't an important topic. However, I wanted to include something on tells in the manuscript. Ed and I talked about it one night and the result is the short section that is there. Best wishes, Mason |
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. |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
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 [/ QUOTE ] For whatever reason I do not think this is the case. First of all, this passage you refer to that seems to warrant all these big words of yours ("You need to reread", "You did read that before doing the review, did you", "He is completely wrong", "You finally got something right"), does not by any means suddenly turn these few little comments of mine into "wrong". (Words that are actually no big deal, nor does the actual writer think they are - so why are you suddenly making such a big fuzz about it). Second, if it's your view that tells are just not important, you should have said so in the book, instead of the correct-but-obvious "it is very dangerous to rely on tells in big multiway pots". If that were the case (i.e. tells in small-stakes hold'em have no value whatsoever) then there would also have been no need to refer to *other* book on tells. You could simply have written: don't bother to read on tells - they are useless in small-stakes hold'em. But as you didn't write that, you probably don't think that - so why are you coming up with that now? Anyway, as other posters have already pointed out, there are many instances when tells *are* important, especially at the early stages of the hand - maybe not always crucial, but helpful and +EV nonetheless. In my book, pots don't get big all by themselves, and if you say that a good player should *not* take tells into account for instance with his hand selection or on the flop, then I guess you are saying: no need to use every possible edge that is available. And if you are saying that indeed at some stages in the hand they *could* be important in the decision-making process, then we are back at my little claim, that if small-stakes games are indeed rife with tells, you should probably have analyzed it more than you did now. That's it for now; I leave it up to others to continue this discussion - if that's what they want. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] Rolf Slotboom www.rolfslotboom.com |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
it's your view that tells are just not important, you should have said so in the book [/ QUOTE ] I have done much writing on this subject in many different books, some of which you claim to have read. So there is no need for me to repeat in detail what I have already stated many times before. [ QUOTE ] First of all, this passage you refer to that seems to warrant all these big words of yours ... [/ QUOTE ] And speaking of big words, what about when you write [ QUOTE ] Mr. Sklansky's comment in the introduction that "making well over $50,000 per year playing $3-6 hold'em is now no big deal" (p. 2). In addition to the obvious question "How would he know - he probably has never played $3-6 in his entire life in a normal casino, let alone by multitabling on the Internet", ... [/ QUOTE ] Isn't this just a personal attack on our integrity? For your information, when either David, myself, Ed Miller, or any other Two Plus Two author makes a statement like this and it is included in a Two Plus Two book, we have very good reason to believe it's true. If we can't justify a claim, it will not appear in a Two Plus Two book. Let me be quite specific on this. There are three authors on Small Stakes Hold 'em. All the material in it was reviewed in detail by all three of us. I guarantee that if we didn't all agree on something, it doesn't appear. All manuscripts that we publish go through a very tough and rigorous review process and nothing gets published unless we are sure that it is very accurate. If you don't believe this, besides Ed Miller, I suggest you talk to either Alan Schoonmaker, Bill Robertie, Dan Harrington, John Feeney, Ray Zee, or Donna Harris. Again, I would have no problem if you disagree with David and feel that his estimate is too high. But when you throw in the How would he know stuff, I have some real problems. And by the way, both David, myself, and Ed Miller have played $3-$6 games. In fact, I started over 25 years ago playing $1-$2 limit in Gardena, California. MM |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
Hi Luv:
You wrote: [ QUOTE ] The most accurate tell in any form of poker is betting patterns [/ QUOTE ] When most people speak of tells, they are not talking about betting patterns. They are talking about a physical mannerism. However, I agree with you that betting patterns are far more important and make up a major compoent of reading hands. This is partly why in some of my books I give credit to tells having a little bit of value and only a little bit of value in most situations. best wishes, Mason |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
When most people speak of tells, they are not talking about betting patterns. They are talking about a physical mannerism. However, I agree with you that betting patterns are far more important and make up a major compoent of reading hands. This is partly why in some of my books I give credit to tells having a little bit of value and only a little bit of value in most situations. [/ QUOTE ] I do not know what games you play in Mason but in a 3/6 limit game tells often make it very clear how strong your opponet is. They have a ton of value in games with inexperienced players. These are the same kind of games SSHE is targeted for. Now in an 80/160 game i would agree that they usually have much less value. silly |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
Mason, you can start turning this into something huge like "attacks on personal integrity", as I have seen you do so many times before with other writers - if you say things like "books you claim to have read", in addition to some of the other things you have already said, then I don't feel at all like I am the bad guy here. I know it's your tactic to always try to give anyone who is remotely critical the feeling they have done something incredibly bad, but without any real arguments to back things up this doesn't look too strong to me. With all due respect, but I have seen these same patterns a couple of times before: Someone criticizing something by 2+2, you replying "you are so wrong", the person replying why he thinks he is correct and therefore the 2+2 information in his view is wrong or incomplete, and you coming over the top with "This is a personal attack!"
As in previous posts, you avoid the answers to specific questions. You avoided giving me a specific answer, when I asked you clearly: Do you think that tells have no value whatsoever in small-stakes games, or do they have any value? You replied by referring to previous works, without giving a simple answer to this question. And in another post, there was someone who said that 2+2 works shouldn't always be treated as gospel, because sometimes the advice in two different works clearly contradicts each other - and again, this poster specifically referred to the books / essays in question. Again you didn't answer though, but instead chose to reply with "Harrington on Hold'em 2 will be out soon" - not really an answer to his question, I would say. Rolf Slotboom www.rolfslotboom.com |
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 havn't read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been pointed out. It has no value for that particular hand but surely it has future value? |
Advice for Rolf and Mason
To two gentlemen deserving of respect,
Mason: You have shown a consistent pattern of blowing criticism way out of proportion, and ironically, accusing others of personal attacks when your own comments just as nasty, if not more so. Example 1: [ QUOTE ] I sure hope that no one here takes any of the Slotboom ratings and his advice too seriously. In my opinion he is just very confused on poker and how to play it well. [/ QUOTE ] Ouch. Don't you think a different tone is warranted here? Note that Ed admitted that Rolf had made a fair point in his column and thanked him for his positive review. You say he's a confused person who shouldn't be taken seriously! Example 2: [/ QUOTE ] 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?) [/ QUOTE ] I'm assuming you read it, but didn't understand it?! That's simultaneously an attack on integrity and intellect (you're implying he didn't read it, and if he did, he lacks the brainpower to understand). Again, unduly nasty. Examples #3 & #4: Not going to quote from the boards here, but when Daniel Negraneau called David Sklansky "Daveyboy" in a post, you reacted as though he had called him a [censored] [censored] [censored]. And what Rolf wrote "how could David know about 3/6..." you accused him of a personal attack. I agree that both Daniel and Rolf should have chosen their words more carefully. However, in each instance, your answer was overblown. Rolf: 1. Mason is correct that your book reviews are far too generous. Your "overgrading" inhibits your ability to distinguish between titles. My favorite example is Phil's Play like the Pros book. Virtually everyone I know agrees that his limit HE approach is a fundamentally losing strategy. I believe that you agree also. Such a book cannot be recommended under any circumstances! (Mason's "split" review addresses this issue somewhat). Let's face it, some books are zeros. 2. Mason is fundamentally correct to challenge your comments about David's 3/6 ability. You aren't in any kind of position to know whether or not David plays 3/6 online in his research time. I believe Mason's response was way out of proportion, but the criticism itself is valid. Big word alert: Yours was an ad hominum attack, and that's bad. Why can't we all get along? |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
I think that tells have a small amount of value in limit hold 'em in general, and that amount of value is even less in the games that SSH target. To be specific, here is a quote from Poker Essays, Volume II:
[ QUOTE ] Tells, in my opinion, have a value of approximately $2 per hour to a highly skilled $20-$40 hold ’em player who is able to make slightly more than $40 per hour. Some of you might disagree with this. And I do concede that there are probably a few players who are able to win this much who might actually make a little more from tells — perhaps as much as $5 per hour. Part of the reason for this slightly higher figure is that tells can make up for some deficiencies in your game. For example, a top card reader who has a good knowledge of how his opponent plays will often come to the same conclusion that the tell gives you. When this is the case, the tell does not have much value. But if you don’t “read” that well, tells can have more value. Thus, some top players may do a little better from their interpretation of tells than other top players. [/ QUOTE ] This was referring to a standard live ring game with about 35 hands per hour being dealt. That's equivalent to about 0.05 big bets per hour. In the games that SSH is targeted for my best estimate is that tells are worth no more than half this, or 0.025 big bets per hour. This is why I state "books you claim to have read." There are literally thousands of posts on these forums that are critical of our advice. We have no problem with that and in fact encourage vigorous debate. If that wasn't the case, this site would not have the success and huge volume of traffic that it does. But we do have problems and will not tolerate when another writer questions our integrity in the matter that you did. It's also our policy to hold other writers to higher standards. We do this because we want to steer our readers to that material which is good and helpful to their game and away from that material which will cause them to lose money. We have stated this policy on many occasions. As for the other post where the poster said that the essay in Poker Essays contradicts Harrington on Hold 'em I did reply to that and stated that when Harrington on Hold 'em: Volume II: The Endgame is released (hopefully later today -- we are waiting to hear from our printer) he will see that there is no contradiction. This has to do with what Dan calls "Inflection Point Theory." It takes many pages to explain this well and Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie did a much better job of explaining it than I would anyway. MM |
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
Hi Silly:
See my most recent reply to Slotboom. If what you are saying is true for you, it is my opinion that your card reading ability needs to get better. When that happens, you should discover that it is more accurate than tells, and thus the tells will technically lose much of their value. However, this doesn't mean that you as an expert (soon to be) should disregard tells. They do add money to your winnings and over the long run it can become substantial. Also, unique situations can certainly develop where the tells do have much more value than in general. An obvious example would be in a short handed game that features a very loose aggressive player who clearly through some mannerism indicates the strength of his hand. Best wishes, Mason |
Re: Advice for Rolf and Mason
Well Tipper, I may have to read your other 238 posts because (having now read all of the posts in this thread), I find that what you say is spot on.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.