Super System 2 review

[nate1729]

Yeah, it's annoying that the PLO examples are more anecdotal than illustrative. I agree that these are legitimate faults of the chapter; however, part of the problem stems from the fact that PLO is just really freaking hard. The worst fault, I'd say, is the utter lack of comprehensiveness. No matter how tough a game is you'd think there'd be a fuller explanation of, say, the kinds of hands you can call raises with in LMP. (Though, hands run so close together preflop, and PLO isn't really about preflop play, except not being a moron and getting stuck for lots of money with dry aces out of position when there's still plenty of money to be bet, but I digress...) I'd also like to have seen more on how to play various hands on the turn; so many tricky situations arise, especially out of position.

I still say it's worth reading, but it's definitely lacking.

--Nate

[nate1729]

I might recommend Ciaffone/Reuben's NL/PL Poker. I occasionally disagree, sometimes strongly, with their advice, but it's a good almanacky trip through big-bet poker, though only 1/4 or so of Super System's length. Well worth the twenty bucks, especially because it's some of the only passable material you'll find on PLO.

[nate1729]

Thanks; great thoughts. It's hard to fault SS2 for not being as revolutionary as SS (what could be?) but I agree that it's disapointing to see, for example, Caro's chapter be so rehashed, even to someone who has read the Book of Tells and a dozen or two articles of his but isn't really a "longtime fan."

Oh, and thanks for the triple-draw tip. Tough to conceptualize these situations when you've never played the game, but it seems to be at least something to think about.

--Nate

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I noticed about the limit hold 'em section is that while there is discussion of how to play your first two cards from early, middle, and late position, there is no discussion of how to play your first two cards out of the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Mason,

Something I've only recently observed is that about half of the hands I see the flop with are out of the blinds, so it seems like correct play here is extremely important. Would you say that blind play is generally underappreciated? Or am I overestimating it's importance?

It is disappointing that SSII doesn't cover this topic (I just ordered a copy but haven't received it yet).

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think any reasonable person would say that there is any reason to have any other source for starting-hand selection in LHE beyond HE4AP, except insofar as someone might have a specific objection to HE4AP advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I am not reasonable then. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] And I doubt anyone regularly posting in small stakes or mid/high plays even nearly as loose as HEFAP recommends. That said I wasn't impressed by Harman's preflop advice.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Nate:

The differences between the hands you play between the 2/3 blind structure versus the 1/2 blind structure are very small in most situations. One exception exception is playing the small blind when there is no raise. I don't disagree with what Harmon writes here but it seems to me that this topic could have been two sentences later in the chapter.

Best wishes,
Mason

[nate1729]

Hmm. I suppose what I mean is: I don't think anyone finds HE4AP's preflop advice lacking in completeness. Now, I've heard a few specific objections here and there, but the framework is complete, which is why Harman's "well, play these hands, and then a few more, and remember to raise, etc." advice seems rather irrelevant.

Even if HE4AP's advice is too loose, and I'm far from convinced that it is, it's still by far the most complete and best-explained framework of preflop hand selection in the canon. Even departing from it is often using it.

--Nate

[nate1729]

...and furthermore, HE4AP says essentially the same thing, and more completely ("...the exception is when the BB is a frequent raiser; why waste even 1/3 of a bet when you are going to have to fold?...")

Glad to see that my instinct that the other changes induced are very small is correct.

This actually brings me to a problem I had with Harman's chapter that I didn't mention before (though I stand by the good things I had to say about it); she often uses imprecise poker language. She's a great player and no doubt knows the correct way to think about things, but it's grating to see her say things like "you are going to call, so why not bet?" without even mentioning the possibility of the opponent checking behind or raising. To a sharp reader these questions are implicit and the answers accessible after minimal thought, but it's still a flaw in her poker writing.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Nate:

I think you're hitting upon a problem in SS2 in general. It's hard to write in 60 or 70 pages the amount of information that appears in other books that are 300 plus pages. SS2 has a lot of material that in my opinion should have been left out and in its place the strategy chapters should have been expanded. At least that's the way I would have done it.

Best wishes,
Mason

[binions]

Yep - lots of fluff.