|
|
#51
06-06-2005, 07:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Slotboom on SSHE
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hi binions and everyone else: Our book Small Stakes Hold 'em creates a major problem for him. Best wishes, Mason [/ QUOTE ] Interesting observation. I will say that Rolf gave SSHE an extensive and mostly glowing review. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but I don't believe you understand what Mason is saying when he is saying that. ---Leavenfish 
|
|
#52
06-06-2005, 09:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Slotboom on SSHE
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Maybe he likes the book more than you do. Mason, has it occurred to you that Rolf's ratings are a hedonic scale based on how much he likes the books.Perhaps Rolf's hedonic function is not comparable to yours. That hardly merits any criticism. [/ QUOTE ] This would certainly be the case if it was books on poetry they were comparing. However, books on limit hold'em can be evaluated on a rather objective scale. For any given situation there is an identifiable best play, or small set of best plays. [/ QUOTE ] How do you define "objective" if I may ask? I doubt that books on hold'em could be evaluated on an "Objective" scale, and even if they could be Rolf isn't claiming that his reviews are anything more than his subjective feelings about a particular book. So it makes you look silly to them complain that his reviews arent "objective". [/ QUOTE ] We can measure it empirically. A dedicated researcher can dig up thousands upon thousands of hands that are similar up to the deciding point we want to study. Or do you claim that it's impossible to even estimate the EV of raising vs calling on the turn for example? If so, are all non-self weighing strategies equal? (And equal to a perfectly self weighing strategy?) We are more than well equipped to analyze non-deterministic events. After all many such events are studied on a daily basis. How does a particular TV speech change the job approval rating of the US president? How many uranium atoms will decay in the next second in our sample? Very simple math allows us to evaluate the EV of a move in poker. We can never predict the exact outcome of this hand, but we can make a very accurate prediction of the outcome if the hand from this point on was dealt out hundreds upon hundreds of times. Which it in effect is.
|
|
#53
06-06-2005, 11:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doesn\'t Hilger Talk about partial outs?
[ QUOTE ]
I believe Matthew Hilger discusses partial outs in his book, right? So, Slotboom is wrong about saying that you were the first to introduce it to literature.. [/ QUOTE ] Before Hilger, Ciaffone/Brier discussed this concept in Middle Limit Holdem Poker, which dates to 2001. [It may be worth noting that Mason says (or at least strongly implies) that Hilger *ahem* borrowed material from that book and others without proper attribution.] And in 1983, well before MLH, Sklansky discussed discounting outs in what was then titled Winning Poker and is now The Theory of Poker. I don't know if it appeared in print before that.
|
|
#54
06-07-2005, 12:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Slotboom on SSHE
Hi bygmesterf:
You wrote: [ QUOTE ] In those games, you really can't afford to see alot of flops unless you are going to win them, [/ QUOTE ] Not seeing a lot of flops and playing weak tight are two different things. best wishes, mason
|
|
#55
06-07-2005, 12:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Slotboom on SSHE
[ QUOTE ]
I have to disagree, McEvoy/Cloutier advocate a "selective agressive" tournament style, and that is what they are known for. [/ QUOTE ] This is an issue that has been discussed at length on these forums. The Cloutier/McEvoy books give much advice on how to play in cash games. In fact, their limit hold 'em book, Championship Hold 'em is subtitled Limit Hold'em Cash Game Strategies. Best wishes, Mason
|
|
#56
06-07-2005, 02:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doesn\'t Hilger Talk about partial outs?
[ QUOTE ]
And in 1983, well before MLH, Sklansky discussed discounting outs in what was then titled Winning Poker and is now The Theory of Poker. I don't know if it appeared in print before that. [/ QUOTE ] Probably not, because the idea of a "tainted" out only applies to community card games. This is one of those idea's that people who played stud/draw never had to think about when playing those games, and used to be so juicy when playing Hold'em for the first time..
|
|
#57
06-07-2005, 03:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doesn\'t Hilger Talk about partial outs?
He didn't call it discounting, but he did say you had to adjust your odds based on the possiblity of a card improving your had, but improving your opponents hand even more. That's in "Hold'em Poker" by Sklansky IIRC that was a mid 1970's origianl publishing date.
|
|
#58
06-07-2005, 03:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doesn\'t Hilger Talk about partial outs?
[ QUOTE ]
He didn't call it discounting, but he did say you had to adjust your odds based on the possiblity of a card improving your had, but improving your opponents hand even more. That's in "Hold'em Poker" by Sklansky IIRC that was a mid 1970's origianl publishing date. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, 1976. Cool. He didn't use the word "discounting" in TOP either, but the concept is there. He does not, however, give precise counting instructions, and I think that is what Slotboom is crediting to Miller. SSH does have the most complete discussion of this topic I have seen.
|
|
#60
06-07-2005, 06:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Slotboom on SSHE
As for the Suzuki book, I gave it a 6. Why don't you try to pick it apart. I'll bet you can't find one error in it. The main complaint some people have is that it repeats itself in places.
Hello Mason. Having no mistake in a book is a necessary but not sufficient condition to make it good. The book by Suzuki carries very little useful information IMO, which makes it a poor effort.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
