SS2: TDL Chapter is Awful

[Al Mirpuri]

Anyone who has dealt out a few hands of TDL would figure out how to play them as well if not better than the advice given in Negreanu's chapter on TDL.

This chapter was supposed to be one of the highlights of the book. The book is not very good, and that is classic English understatement.

[kirisim]

I gotta disagree with you there. The advice given in the chapter has given me a huge edge in the smaller TDL games on UltimateBet. (Where else would I play the game?)

[InfernoLL]

While the quality of the book overall may be lacking, I think almost everyone would disagree with your assessment of Negreanu's chapter. I'm sure any real player would love you sitting in their games after "dealing out a few hands" to learn how to play. Some actual criticism of the chapter would be nice, otherwise you just sound like a flamer (reputation of the poster notwithstanding).

[monroe]

In football, a commentator's analysis may seem reasonable (good) if we know little about the sport ourselves. But his analysis of baseball may seem very weak (or naive) if we are very knowledgeable about the game.

When we are ignorant of a subject, we are more likely to be impressed by someone's analysis (if it seems reasonable). If we're unfamiliar with the subject matter it is harder to pick out any faults in someone else's analysis.

[Mike J]

I also have to respectfully disagree with the poster. I too have been successful with the game after reading the chapter. Especially the breakdown on hands to play pre 1st draw. Could you maybe tell us some things you have learned about the game, "dealing out a few hands" that Daniel did not mention in the chapter.

[TheShootah]

Yeah I don't understand this either. He just came in here and trashed the book and didn't say what was wrong with it, or why he plays it better. I think Negreanu is the man for the job here. You can check his blog: he plays in a mixed game that has triple draw at the highest stakes! I doubt someone "dealing out cards" can figure a game out better than him. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[monroe]

Just because Daniel plays in the big game, it doesn't mean his anlaysis is great. Well-respected players are certainly capable of writing sub-par stuff. If there were more written about triple-draw (along with more players with experience) we'd have an easier time figuring out just how good Daniel's chapter really is. See my post above.

Having said that, it would be nice if the OP could elaborate on his criticism. Triple-draw isn't necessarily an intuitive game for a beginner, so just dealing out cards may not help someone "crack" it.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

give us an example please.

[lighterjobs]

I thought it was weird how DN said 2-7 TD was a new game. I thought it had been around for years.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
In football, a commentator's analysis may seem reasonable (good) if we know little about the sport ourselves. But his analysis of baseball may seem very weak (or naive) if we are very knowledgeable about the game.

When we are ignorant of a subject, we are more likely to be impressed by someone's analysis (if it seems reasonable). If we're unfamiliar with the subject matter it is harder to pick out any faults in someone else's analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do not need to be a mathematician to know 2+2=4.