learning pot limit?

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science of Poker by Mahmood N Mahmood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your credibility might be tainted here - I have never heard of even a single person who has read this book who didn't absolutely loathe it aside from you just now.

[/ QUOTE ]

DocAz from the stud forum liked it. Some lemmings here in the books forum didn't like it. I suspect Mason won't like it either, but it's still one of the few books I've seen that has paid for itself.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard that Reuben's "How Good is Your PLO?" is much better than "How Good is Your PLHE?". I haven't read it yet, but I am under the impression that is definitely worth reading if you are going to play PLO, even though the exact plays he make would not all be correct in a typical game online or a smallish game live.

[/ QUOTE ]

How good is your PLHE is an ok book, how ever it's has several hand hand examples taken from NL tournament play, which not at all relavent to either PL Cash or PL Tournament play.

Certain skills like escalating the pot are not emphasized in NL. For example it's not uncommon for a PL player to make a bet of 1/4 of the pot in position. This will often scare the bejesus out of people becuase it means that a flop reraise will let the opener go all in, and yet it sets up decent bet/raise on the turn. You can really put alot of pressure on people by carefully escalating the pot and this gives the flop betting alot of implied power that it doesn't have in NL.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
Not having read the book

[/ QUOTE ]

The defense rests.

[balazs]

"If what the reviewer said was true (e.g. that the book advises to overcall 2-3 callers of an early position opening raise with Q7), then the book is crap"

The PLO stuff is good for a beginner, which might interest the OP.

To OP: the NL/PL book by Ciaffone/Reuben is a must buy.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not having read the book

[/ QUOTE ]

The defense rests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, well the defense was shot down several times in my (and others') previous posts. You lose.

An applicable sentence for your crime would be to be forced to purchase and then read this craptacular book and in the process of so doing, trying to figure out what he means when he describes an Omaha hand as "A-T-K-Q(s)" and then applying his unique insight to overcalling a preflop raise with Q7s and also finding a game of pot-limit stud, which he apparently outlines strategies for.

The prosecution rests.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
and also finding a game of pot-limit stud, which he apparently outlines strategies for.

The prosecution rests.

[/ QUOTE ]

By your use of the word *apparently* is the prosecution admitting that it is prosecuting based upon evidence that it hasn't actually read for itself, basing its assertions soley upon hearsay evidence?

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and also finding a game of pot-limit stud, which he apparently outlines strategies for.

The prosecution rests.

[/ QUOTE ]

By your use of the word *apparently* is the prosecution admitting that it is prosecuting based upon evidence that it hasn't actually read for itself, basing its assertions soley upon hearsay evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, and in that spirit I hereby challenge you to prove that jumping from an extremely high cliff will result in death. Now off you go.

*edit* on a more civil note, that's why I prefaced any judgments I had with "if that is true, then the book is crap." Now I don't need to read every Harlequin romance novel or poker book that comes down the pike to know that there are some (or in the case of romance novels, all, probably) that have such a high probability of being complete crap that I'm not going to waste my time on them.

So, which do you think is more likely: that everybody save for a few select Chosen Ones are wrong, and this book is a diamond in the rough, or that most people are pretty much correct when they say that the book is crap and then give pretty compelling reasons why they think so?

If you honestly believe it's good, then buy it and crush the tables with your Q7. Otherwise, you're just being a troll.

[BluffTHIS!]

Not being a troll at all. In fact if anyone is being one it is you by regurgitating the thoughts of others, whether right or not, about a book you have no personal knowledge of. I do have the book since I buy and read lots of poker books and have already given my views in previous threads over the last few months. As I stated then, it is not perfect by any means, and does rely overly much on computer simulations. Nonetheless there are some valuable insights in it primarily regarding plo and which hands need how much odds on their money to be worth playing in what position. He also has a firm grasp of probability and expectation and that is the viewpoint from which he gives strategy advice. And as I said regarding the criticism of the space Dr. Mahmood devoted to pl stud, it is a game regulary played at the Vic in London where he regularly plays. He is a winning player in a game that features some of the highest stakes to be found anywhere, and that alone should give you some reason to read his book even if the valuable content is not as great as it could have been. And if you don't agree with this, then you might want to email Ciaffone or Reuben and ask their opinions of him and his book, which I am sure will be in line with mine.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
He is a winning player in a game that features some of the highest stakes to be found anywhere

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if he makes a habit of coldcalling raises with Q7. Besides, Amarillo Slim was a winning player in high-stakes poker games, and the strategy book he came out with was crap - what's your point?

edit:
[ QUOTE ]
In fact if anyone is being one it is you by regurgitating the thoughts of others, whether right or not, about a book you have no personal knowledge of.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the god-knows-how-manyth time, it doesn't matter what the thoughts of others regarding the book are, whether they liked it or not or what-have-you - if it's true that the book says to call raises cold with Q7o in late position in hold'em, then it's crap and not worth your time.

Again, you may feel free to prove me wrong and make tons of money at the same time by putting his strategies into practice and crushing high-stakes games with the computer hand.

[BluffTHIS!]

If you would actually read the book, you would find that Dr. Mahmood is an extremely tight player, much tighter that Reuben for example, who places much more emphasis on playing players he knows well than on just making pot driven decisions. The point he made regarding Q7s in the limit holdem chapter was that *if* you played it, it could only show a theoretical profit long term if you had at least 4 opponents and were in late position, and that you *played the flop well*. This is similar to advice in HPFAP regarding playing a K with a suited small card in certain situations, and assumes that you just don't blow money on top pair no kicker. This again just shows how much criticism of various parts of various books is based upon comments taken out of context, regardless of whether or not such a book does contain some errors or gives incomplete discussions of various points, and that such comments sometimes incorrectly quote the work as in this case regarding Q7 which was suited in the relevant comment, and in which he also said that any Q with an offsuit small kicker had a "pathetic" performance if played.