King Yao "Weighing the Odds"

[Shandrax]

This book has received a certain type of hype on this board, but the reasons for that are beyond me.

I received my copy today and I am very disappointed. This is one of the books that will go right into the shelf, never to be opened again. Now why is that?

Well, it is a 100% copycat job. The author took SSHE, TOP and HEFAP and paraphrased it all together into a new book which has zero new content to offer.

$24.95 right down the drain. Thank you!

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Shandrax:

I just happen to be reading this book right now. I'm done with the first 100 pages, and while my opinion so far is better than yours because his analysis of some situations is pretty good, I do tend to agree with you.

Also, I feel his DIPO method is essentially worthless. While it's accurate, all it does is add needless calculations that would be very difficult to do at the table for most people. I just like to say something like "I'm getting 7-to-1 on a 5-to-1 shot, therefore I'm playing." DIPO appears to essentially do this, but then it does additional calculation involving good cards and bad cards, which to me is a complete waste.

best wishes,
Mason

[uuDevil]

I agree about DIPO. However, some people do prefer it. I think the material after the pot odds discussion is much better.

It's hard to see how any good poker book could be written that wouldn't be in some way derivative of TOP. I thought Yao's effort was very good. I hope you'll let us know what you think when you've finished it.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I just reread this post of mine and feel that it may be coming across as more negative than I intended. My preliminary opinion, based on the first 100 pages, is that this book is fairly good. If DIPO was not included, my opinion would be even better.

However, I reserve the right to evaluate the whole book after I finish reading it. Also, I invite the author to state his case for DIPO.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason, could you address Shandrax's assertion that the book is a "copycat job?" I've read TOP, HPFAP, and Yao's book and didn't see the copycatting myself. However, I've never read SSH and now wonder if I should. Will I get much more out of SSH if Yao's book is so similar?

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason, could you address Shandrax's assertion that the book is a "copycat job?" I've read TOP, HPFAP, and Yao's book and didn't see the copycatting myself. However, I've never read SSH and now wonder if I should. Will I get much more out of SSH if Yao's book is so similar?

[/ QUOTE ]


Part of the reason why it may not be obvious when people are copying TOP and HEPFAP is that almost every book is based on the fundamentals David originally set forth - some utilize said lessons correctly, others butcher them unrecognizably.

That all said, I think this book is one of the better non-2+2 books put out in the last few years.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[Jeffage]

Well, after reading this thread I just picked it up on Amazon for 16 bucks. I would say ANY poker book that generates this type of discussion and has some interesting items that reinforce some ideas and possibly introduce new ones will be worth the price of a spicy roll combo at my local sushi joint. I'll post a review when I get into it. Has anyone seen anything in the book (besides DIPO) that they thought was incorrect advice or was the only criticism that is was derivative of other works?

I also bought, "God Wants You To Roll" which was discussed in a recent B&M thread...finally highly recommend the Stu Unger biography by Dalla...scary, page turning read.

Jeff

[Shandrax]

Ok, here is my "review"!

Disclaimer: I have to remind the reader that english is not my first language, so I cannot any subtle nuances to make my point.

So, here we go...

Chapter 1 - Who this book is for (p. 17)
"This book is for you if you want to think analytically and learn to become a better Limit Hold'em player"

Chapter 1 - The Evolution of the Hold'em Player
Hold'em Habilis
Hold'em Erectus
Hold'em Sapiens
Hold'em Brain

I don't know if this is a joke or not. For me this seems just ridiculous and dragging this book on the Poker for Dummies level. A scientific book should work without such flat cathegories. David Sklansky has written a much better essay on the subject in Sklansky on Poker (p. 33)

Chapter 2 - The Players
It is about different player types, profiling them and drawing conclusions, conclusions like "Against players who are observant and adjust their play based on your play, you can vary your play to keep them off guard." Really? So we should use deception, but how do we do this? Any guidelines any tricks? Game Theory maybe? Of course not!
Overall this chapter is describing the obvious with a little bit of wisdom added from the various Poker Essays by Mason Malmuth and Theory of Poker.

Chapter 3 - EV
Nothing new here. If you have Tournament Poker for Advanced Players or SSHE, you can skip this chapter entirely.

Chapter 4 - Outs
Nothing new here either. If you have Hold'em Poker or SSHE, you can skip this as well.

Chapter 5 - Pot Odds
Nothing new here....am I repeating myself? Theory of Poker and SSHE have this covered, so no need to repeat what is well known already. DIPO is an attempt to provide something unique, but unfortunately others have pointed out already, that it is rather worthless.

Chapter 6 - Position
7 pages about why having position is good in Hold'em. Don't expect anything that makes you say "Wow! I was not aware of that".

Up to that point, we have already covered 100 pages of the book, 100 down - 250 to go.

Chapter 7 - 11 (50 pages)
Another repetition of the concepts that should be familiar to everyone from Theory of Poker, HEFAP and Hold'em Poker.

Something that stuck on me was "How often should you bluff" (p. 128). The author comes to the conclusion that something like 10% may be wrong, especially if you get called all the time. Basically there is zero information except that the author doesn't know it himself. I suggest to read page 166 in Theory of Poker.

Chapter 12 - Starting Hand Selection
It starts off with card combinations and a few all-in odds. I don't know what the purpose of this is because this is about Limit Hold'em and all-in is rather rare in this scenario. Also it is well known that computer simulations can lead to questionable results. At least it ends with the conclusion that starting hands can change in value.

Next follows some sort of playbook. The recommendations differ from the classical Sklansky Hand Groupings, so it is up to reader if he wants to give it a shot or not.

Whenever I read about detailed hand recommendations I get reminded of the quote in Ace on the River: "No need to be precise when you don't even know what you are talking about".

Chapter 13-15
42 pages to cover the play from the flop to the river!

Chapter 16
20 pages on hand reading with a small excerpt from Super System on double gut shot draws.

Chapter 17-18
30 pages on shorthanded play. Lots of general advice and almost nothing on heads-up play. I guess I prefer HEFAP on this subject.

Chapter 19
20 pages on Online Poker which also fall into the cathegory of general advice.

Chapter 20
20 pages on other topics like the "Monty Hall Problem". I switch to Door 3!

Honestly, I don't know what you expect from a book, but I expect more. Maybe I am too much of a 2+2 fanboi and my standards for quality may be too high for the average mortal to meet, I can't tell. All I can say is that if you have read the major 2+2 publications, then you simply don't need this book. If your background consists of stuff like WLLHE, it could be a welcome addition to your library /shrug

[King Yao]

Here is a link to a response I made back in June 24th. Looking back, that date was my 10th wedding anniversary. I hope I wasn't online all day long.

Link to response about DIPO in June

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, I feel his DIPO method is essentially worthless. While it's accurate, all it does is add needless calculations that would be very difficult to do at the table for most people. I just like to say something like "I'm getting 7-to-1 on a 5-to-1 shot, therefore I'm playing." DIPO appears to essentially do this, but then it does additional calculation involving good cards and bad cards, which to me is a complete waste.


[/ QUOTE ]

I like the book, and I like DIPO and use it all the time. And frankly I think Mason is being a bit unfair here -- how can you say you have a "5-1 shot" without: (a) memorizing the mapping between outs/draw quality -> odds, or (b) doing some "additional calculation involving good cards and bad cards"? I think you're leaving out an important step for the non-savants among us. The method you quote above is solving a problem of smaller scope than DIPO solves, so the comparison is unfair.

To be honest I think his biggest mistake was calling it DIPO and making it a big deal. If he just would have written the chapter on pot odds, said "here's how some people do it, here's how I do it", and used his DIPO method himself in the discussion, there wouldn't be this much fuss about it. It's really a marketing difference that has no impact on the quality of the book.