Another Slotboom Misconception

[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

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Luv:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
The most accurate tell in any form of poker is betting patterns

[/ QUOTE ]

When most people speak of tells, they are not talking about betting patterns. They are talking about a physical mannerism. However, I agree with you that betting patterns are far more important and make up a major compoent of reading hands. This is partly why in some of my books I give credit to tells having a little bit of value and only a little bit of value in most situations.

best wishes,
Mason

[sillyarms]

[ QUOTE ]
When most people speak of tells, they are not talking about betting patterns. They are talking about a physical mannerism. However, I agree with you that betting patterns are far more important and make up a major compoent of reading hands. This is partly why in some of my books I give credit to tells having a little bit of value and only a little bit of value in most situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not know what games you play in Mason but in a 3/6 limit game tells often make it very clear how strong your opponet is. They have a ton of value in games with inexperienced players. These are the same kind of games SSHE is targeted for. Now in an 80/160 game i would agree that they usually have much less value.

silly

[Rolf Slotboom]

Mason, you can start turning this into something huge like "attacks on personal integrity", as I have seen you do so many times before with other writers - if you say things like "books you claim to have read", in addition to some of the other things you have already said, then I don't feel at all like I am the bad guy here. I know it's your tactic to always try to give anyone who is remotely critical the feeling they have done something incredibly bad, but without any real arguments to back things up this doesn't look too strong to me. With all due respect, but I have seen these same patterns a couple of times before: Someone criticizing something by 2+2, you replying "you are so wrong", the person replying why he thinks he is correct and therefore the 2+2 information in his view is wrong or incomplete, and you coming over the top with "This is a personal attack!"

As in previous posts, you avoid the answers to specific questions. You avoided giving me a specific answer, when I asked you clearly: Do you think that tells have no value whatsoever in small-stakes games, or do they have any value? You replied by referring to previous works, without giving a simple answer to this question. And in another post, there was someone who said that 2+2 works shouldn't always be treated as gospel, because sometimes the advice in two different works clearly contradicts each other - and again, this poster specifically referred to the books / essays in question. Again you didn't answer though, but instead chose to reply with "Harrington on Hold'em 2 will be out soon" - not really an answer to his question, I would say.

Rolf Slotboom
www.rolfslotboom.com

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I havn't read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been pointed out. It has no value for that particular hand but surely it has future value?

[tipperdog]

To two gentlemen deserving of respect,

Mason:

You have shown a consistent pattern of blowing criticism way out of proportion, and ironically, accusing others of personal attacks when your own comments just as nasty, if not more so.

Example 1:
[ QUOTE ]

I sure hope that no one here takes any of the Slotboom ratings and his advice too seriously. In my opinion he is just very confused on poker and how to play it well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch. Don't you think a different tone is warranted here? Note that Ed admitted that Rolf had made a fair point in his column and thanked him for his positive review. You say he's a confused person who shouldn't be taken seriously!

Example 2:

[/ QUOTE ]
As I suggested to the other poster, you need to reread the subchapter "Use Tells Cautiously in Large Pots" starting on page 246. (I am assuming you read it but just didn't understand it. You did read this before writing your book review?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you read it, but didn't understand it?! That's simultaneously an attack on integrity and intellect (you're implying he didn't read it, and if he did, he lacks the brainpower to understand). Again, unduly nasty.

Examples #3 & #4: Not going to quote from the boards here, but when Daniel Negraneau called David Sklansky "Daveyboy" in a post, you reacted as though he had called him a [censored] [censored] [censored]. And what Rolf wrote "how could David know about 3/6..." you accused him of a personal attack. I agree that both Daniel and Rolf should have chosen their words more carefully. However, in each instance, your answer was overblown.

Rolf:

1. Mason is correct that your book reviews are far too generous. Your "overgrading" inhibits your ability to distinguish between titles. My favorite example is Phil's Play like the Pros book. Virtually everyone I know agrees that his limit HE approach is a fundamentally losing strategy. I believe that you agree also. Such a book cannot be recommended under any circumstances! (Mason's "split" review addresses this issue somewhat). Let's face it, some books are zeros.

2. Mason is fundamentally correct to challenge your comments about David's 3/6 ability. You aren't in any kind of position to know whether or not David plays 3/6 online in his research time. I believe Mason's response was way out of proportion, but the criticism itself is valid. Big word alert: Yours was an ad hominum attack, and that's bad.

Why can't we all get along?

[Mason Malmuth]

I think that tells have a small amount of value in limit hold 'em in general, and that amount of value is even less in the games that SSH target. To be specific, here is a quote from Poker Essays, Volume II:

[ QUOTE ]
Tells, in my opinion, have a value of approximately $2 per hour to a highly skilled $20-$40 hold ’em player who is able to make slightly more than $40 per hour. Some of you might disagree with this. And I do concede that there are probably a few players who are able to win this much who might actually make a little more from tells — perhaps as much as $5 per hour.

Part of the reason for this slightly higher figure is that tells can make up for some deficiencies in your game. For example, a top card reader who has a good knowledge of how his opponent plays will often come to the same conclusion that the tell gives you. When this is the case, the tell does not have much value. But if you don’t “read” that well, tells can have more value. Thus, some top players may do a little better from their interpretation of tells than other top players.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was referring to a standard live ring game with about 35 hands per hour being dealt.

That's equivalent to about 0.05 big bets per hour. In the games that SSH is targeted for my best estimate is that tells are worth no more than half this, or 0.025 big bets per hour. This is why I state "books you claim to have read."

There are literally thousands of posts on these forums that are critical of our advice. We have no problem with that and in fact encourage vigorous debate. If that wasn't the case, this site would not have the success and huge volume of traffic that it does. But we do have problems and will not tolerate when another writer questions our integrity in the matter that you did.

It's also our policy to hold other writers to higher standards. We do this because we want to steer our readers to that material which is good and helpful to their game and away from that material which will cause them to lose money. We have stated this policy on many occasions.

As for the other post where the poster said that the essay in Poker Essays contradicts Harrington on Hold 'em I did reply to that and stated that when Harrington on Hold 'em: Volume II: The Endgame is released (hopefully later today -- we are waiting to hear from our printer) he will see that there is no contradiction. This has to do with what Dan calls "Inflection Point Theory." It takes many pages to explain this well and Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie did a much better job of explaining it than I would anyway.

MM

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Silly:

See my most recent reply to Slotboom.

If what you are saying is true for you, it is my opinion that your card reading ability needs to get better. When that happens, you should discover that it is more accurate than tells, and thus the tells will technically lose much of their value.

However, this doesn't mean that you as an expert (soon to be) should disregard tells. They do add money to your winnings and over the long run it can become substantial.

Also, unique situations can certainly develop where the tells do have much more value than in general. An obvious example would be in a short handed game that features a very loose aggressive player who clearly through some mannerism indicates the strength of his hand.

Best wishes,
Mason

[skp]

Well Tipper, I may have to read your other 238 posts because (having now read all of the posts in this thread), I find that what you say is spot on.