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.

[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.

[SNOWBALL138]

The other day, I saw this guy forcefully put his chips in the pot. I was getting ready to raise it up with rags on the turn, but didn't get a chance b/c the guy ahead of me woke up with a hand. Predictably, the turn bettor folded for one bet on the river.
In this case, I picked up a humongous tell on this guy, but the tell didn't have an affect on the way I played the hand at all. There are a lot of other examples that I and a lot of others could give.

Now, that said, I don't see anything at all wrong with Rolf's comment. Anyway, I give SSHE an 11 out of 10, and that wouldn't change even if it reprinted Caro's book of tells right then and there.

[Derek in NYC]

I disagree Mason. Your point seems to be that in many cases, regardless of a tell you discover, a small stakes hand tends to play itself. For instance, in a large multiway pot on the river, even if you determine that the initial bettor has a strong hand, your correct action is dictated less by his tell, and more by the size of the pot plus the principle of whether you should seek or discourage overcallers behind you.

While a particular tell may not matter in that instance, low limit games ARE rife with tells that change your play. For instance, preflop behind limpers in mid/late position, you may be considering to limp behind with a semi marginal hand such as a very small pair or a small suited connector. Before you decide to limp, pausing and looking left is an effective way to determine whether you are at risk of a raise behind you (or conversely, whether you can bake in some preflop overcalls to your odds calculations). Many low stakes players telegraph whether they intend to fling their hands into the muck. I use this example, because I was surprised to see 50%-75% of the players at the Trop's 10/20 game this weekend exhibiting this tell.

[KeyToTheMint]

[ 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 ]

Well your in good company, seems like anyone who disagrees with what 2+2 prints has it completely wrong. But do they?

I find it amusing that books printed by 2+2 are sometimes
incongruent and one of the books must be wrong. Yet if one
points it out they get attacked.

Look at Poker Essays volume 1, the essay entitled Two Tournament Mistakes.

The above essay is a complete contradiction of what HOH
espouses. One of them has it wrong. Therefore, not all strategies printed by 2+2 are correct.

[Rudbaeck]

While your point is clear Mason the simple fact is that SSHE doesn't make this point at all. It only says that the games are rife with tells, and that info is available all over the place and there is no need to reprint it.

It never even touches on how little value all these tells will be to you in the multiway pots.

[chaz64]

Another item from that review of SSH:

"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", there is this: it is simply not true."

I had the very same thought when I read SSH. Can someone here tell me they are making this kind of money at this limit?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Rudbaeck:

You need to reread the subchapter "Use Tells Cautiously in Large Pots" that starts on page 246.

Best wishes,
Mason