Another Slotboom Misconception

[Mason Malmuth]

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

[King Yao]

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.

[skp]

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.

[Mason Malmuth]

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

[skp]

Mason,

Your criticism of his criticism has now been made more clear. I see your point. I didn't in your initial post.

[Rolf Slotboom]

[ 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

[Mason Malmuth]

[ 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

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
"You need to reread", "You did read that before doing the review, did you"

[/ QUOTE ]

These quotes would be more appropriate for McManus' review of SS2 and HOH.

[Rolf Slotboom]

[ 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

[Spladle Master]

[ 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.