Did anybody like Championship Satellite Strategy?

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to ask you the same question, but in reverse.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, someone apparently didnt' teach you that it's very rude to answer a question with a question. But, I'm not going to play your games. I already stated what value I found in CSS.

The problem with Cloutier's book is the advice is spotty, wrong in some cases and in general, it is way too weak-tight. Now, I'm not saying that I didn't pick up a thing or maybe two from the book. But it was not a book worth buying in any way, shape or form.

If you read what has always been my recommended NL course, you have no need for this book.

New Player Series NL Hold 'Em (McEvoy/Daugherty) - Winning players with experience can skip this one.

TPFAP
No-limit/Pot-Limit Poker by Ciaffone/Reuben
No-limit section of Super/System

I think CSS does an excellent job of giving situation examples to the info in TPFAP.

[sdplayerb]

I completely agree the Ciaffione book (which I think is the best) and supersystem are better.

You never do say what you found of value in CSS. I read your first two posts, and you state nothing.
That is why I replied as such. I would defend my statements, but you never defended your reasoning that it was better.

I do think the Cloutier portion is good because he explains the value of not burning chips, which is very important, and many people don't realize. He also discusses why draws are so bad in NL tourneys and how he dislikes flush draws (people over play these in tourneys on medium stacks, when it is obvious when hit).
CSS rehashes much of the other book, which I found worthless.

I do wish some book would get into short stack play and how aggressive you should be. Actually CSS is completely wrong as they talk about being at 3x the BB and how you should play. It should have told you to get your chips in before you get so short.

Mason even states how much the book is complained about..cause it sucks.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I completely agree the Ciaffione book (which I think is the best) and supersystem are better.

You never do say what you found of value in CSS. I read your first two posts, and you state nothing.
That is why I replied as such. I would defend my statements, but you never defended your reasoning that it was better.

I do think the Cloutier portion is good because he explains the value of not burning chips, which is very important, and many people don't realize. He also discusses why draws are so bad in NL tourneys and how he dislikes flush draws (people over play these in tourneys on medium stacks, when it is obvious when hit).
CSS rehashes much of the other book, which I found worthless.

I do wish some book would get into short stack play and how aggressive you should be. Actually CSS is completely wrong as they talk about being at 3x the BB and how you should play. It should have told you to get your chips in before you get so short.

Mason even states how much the book is complained about..cause it sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think CSS does an excellent job of giving situation examples to the info in TPFAP.

I've said it for the third time now. What do you not understand about that statement?

I agree that the burning chips discussion is important, but it's also very important to take advantage of your stack if it is big and the table is playing tightly. The chip issue is covered better in TPFAP by the way. I agree that draws can be dangerous in tourney's, but he acts like they are always bad and that just simply isn't the case as there times when playing a drawing hand aggressively is the proper play (i.e. Raymers AJ diamonds vs Matusow's 9,7 when he had two overs and the nut flush draw and Raymer had a medium stack at the time).


As far as the short stack play of CSS, that's one of the things I learned most from the book and I play a short stack much better now thanks to reading it and I clearly think you are wrong in that assessment. Given that, I do agree 3X the big blind is probably too low of an amount and this is better covered the New Player Series book which I recommend someone read first anyway.

Mason gave the book a 7 btw and that's far from a bad review if you are familiar with his reviews. To further that point, I think his review was very accumate in both the positives and negatives of this book.