REVIEW: Ed Miller's new book "Small Stakes Hold'Em" (page 13)

[Peter Harris]

sheesh, the book has made me more than the cover cost, i'll take it written in cursive mirror image.

Needless nitpicking.

Regards,
Pete Harris

[pokerstudAA]

If you only looked at page 13 I dont think your sample size is sufficient. You may want to examine the titling and margins of at least 4 other chapters and pages to make you comments accurate.

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well the troll got you good too then [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

He even got diablo in the main thread
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you really think he's a troll? You must not have been reading his posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think he called nate a troll? You must not have been reading his post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think he called edrugtrader a troll, which he clearly isn't (despite his arrogance).

[DeeJ]

Well I have; it doesn't really matter to me whether the intent is to flame-inspire or merely post provocative stuff, the effect is the same. The usual treatment is to ignore them [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

This guy meets several troll criteria :

Subject: 3.1 The old definition

The old definition of a Troll is one who posts to generate
the maximum number of follow ups. These are a very minor
irritation, and can be considered to be advantageous to
newsgroups.

------------------------------

Subject: 3.2 The Irritating Troll

Some merely post drivel, or tirades [ ... ]

<<

Whatever. life is too short to worry further [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Stork]

What's bothering me is that, even though he may be a bit annoying, hes bringing up points about the book and asking questions about poker, which is what the forum is for. But he's questioning Ed's advice, and for it everyone is being a comple a$$hole to him, as exemplified by this thread. The only person who isn't jumping on the bandwagon is Ed, who gave the best response to his main question about the rareness of high variance, low EV plays.

[DonkeyKong]

I also thought that the fonts used were very arrogant. Clearly, Ed is too full of himself to use standard fonts.

Moreover, the glossary does not do a good job describing the differences between a belly-buster and a gutshot.

[dana33]

I think that this definitively proves that the book was typeset with an IBM Selectric Composer in the early 1970s, and thus is out of date by three decades. I have confirmed this assessment by having my copy of the book inspected by an expert. (My next door neighbor, who once knew a guy who had a Selectric.)

[PaultheS]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not even mention page 12 since I have not yet finished reading it, but it looks to be COMPLETELY BLANK.

[/ QUOTE ]

My favourite part.

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
What's bothering me is that, even though he may be a bit annoying, hes bringing up points about the book and asking questions about poker, which is what the forum is for. But he's questioning Ed's advice, and for it everyone is being a comple a$$hole to him, as exemplified by this thread. The only person who isn't jumping on the bandwagon is Ed, who gave the best response to his main question about the rareness of high variance, low EV plays.

[/ QUOTE ]
this obviously bothered me as well... especially coming here from RGP, which i thought was much worst about these things. i've found out that this forum isn't full of the poker minds i assumed it was. i'm not even convinced it's full of minds of any nature. Therefore i post this reply with the feelings of raising your KK after an ace flops and you're bet into. expect the worst, hope for the best.

this was a humerous response, but it just furthered the theme of attacking my delivery, arrogance, and persona rather than attacking any errors in my critique (if any).

as for the rareness +ev high variance plays... i thought about it some more and figured out what was bothering me...

all of the plays i disagreed with were RAZOR THIN +EV plays (we all agreed on this). the problem is they could potentially be moderate -EV plays depending on the action behind us. Sure the chart says we expect 6-8 callers, but we've all played in games where it's capped with 9 in on one hand, and AA picks up the pot with a raise uncontested the next. these high variance plays from early position are dangerous and i feel they are incorrect.

A2s UTG may be correct if you knew 6 people would limp in, and there wouldn't be a raise, but just because you are in a game where that is the average doesn't make it correct to assume it will happen, if only the assumption will change the play from +EV to -EV. the risk is too high to justify chasing the thin +EV if you are right. if someone raises, and only 1 other person limps, you're play becomes -EV, and much more -EV than it would have been +EV had the situation played out like you hoped.

so my real problem with the theme of some of Ed's suggestions isn't pushing slim +EV plays (which i also disagree with, but concede i may be wrong), rather pushing plays that only MAY be razor thin +EV plays from early position preflop.

again i would look to rarity of these plays as the deciding factor, as they are esentially coin flips.

the times you play them, AND the action after you is as expected, then they are barely +EV. the times you play them and the action isn't as expected (raised pot, too few limpers, too many limpers), then they may not only go -EV, but in some case become significantly -EV.

I'm not dictating these as facts or claiming them to be so. they are instincts from years of play. I am asking to be shown why these instincts are incorrect... not new ways my delivery can be mocked.

as a betting man, i put my cash on more joke replies than serious ones.

[DonkeyKong]

edrugtrader,

just laugh it off. it was a funny friggin post...

I understand these issues you are talking about. I don't play A2s from early position for the reasons you mention. As with most of the marginal hands. it is a +EV play if the pot isn't raised and it goes multiway and its probably a -EV play if the pot gets raised and/or doesn't go multiway. This is unknowable UTG... You are basing your decisions on estimates and it is these estimates that will drive your results. If you have no faith in a given round, then either don't play or call 1 bet and see how many are in if it comes back to you with a raise.

I think you need to learn to post in a way that invites poker critique and not run your mouth so much. Just calmly ask to discuss the point and I am sure you will get some well thought out responses.

When you talk about wiping your ass with the pages of the book, what do you expect?