Matt Lessinger's book of bluffs (review)

[SNOWBALL138]

I'm still not finished with this book. Its so disappointing that its hard to read. There are a lot of problems with the book. One is that he routinely makes comments like "it doesn't matter what your cards are", blah blah blah. Listen Matt, if it doesn't matter what your cards are, should you value bluff AK high on the river everytime you follow through on fourth unimproved?
Or: it doesn't matter what cards you raise with on the button?

Sure, against very tight players who are passive and stupid you can do this. My problem is that throughout the book, Matt overlooks the typically subordinate role that folding equity has in your decisions.

One part of the book that I liked was his discussion of betting patterns and calling patterns. He gives 4 types for betting and 5 types for calling. Its a pretty good system in my opinion. He describes each type in a way thats easy to remember and useful to think about. However, in one part, he says that if you are bluffing against calling pattern 4, you need to bet every street and then follow through on the river. What I'm curious about is why he decided to bluff at all versus this player and how he built such a big pot before the river in this situation?
Maybe its because "the cards don't matter"? riiiiiiiight...


or: everytime it is folded to you in seven card stud and you are to the right of the bring-in you should try to steal.
This is so wrong that it makes me sad to read it. Let me assure you that I am not exaggerating about this stuff. He says EVERY time. He doesn't discuss upcards, your hole cards, the cards that are out, the ante, or how your opponent plays. Three letters:
W
T
F
?????

In another section, he says that one reason to show bluffs, is to keep opponents from calling against you later on. I'm not going to comment on that last statement. And no, I don't recommend you read it for yourself.
On the next page, he makes this "groundbreaking" insight: If your opponents never call, you always win.
W
T
F
?

He might as well say "If you are ever hallucinating and find yourself in a game of poker made up of imaginary players, then make sure to...show your bluffs because that makes opponents not want to call...in which case you always win etc., etc."

In one part of the book, he gives brief homage to the long known reality of loose games being the best games. However, in the next paragraph, he contracts amnesia, and says that he likes to play in games where he can bluff. Frankly, I don't care what Matt does and does not like. I care about making money. If Matt has other priorities than that in playing poker, he needs to keep them to himself. Of course, that would probably have prevented him from publishing this book.
I want my money back.

When I feel like it, I'll give a fuller review with quotations from the book

Peace,
Snowball

[pipes]

[ QUOTE ]

In another section, he says that one reason to show bluffs, is to keep opponents from calling against you later on. I'm not going to comment on that last statement. And no, I don't recommend you read it for yourself.


[/ QUOTE ]

I read the passage you are talking about and I don't think you are fairly representing his thought here. He admits its counterintuition, but explains why this could be the case if its an excellent bluff.

I'm not sure if you are reading this too quickly and miscomprehending or are just looking for things to rip apart.

I'm about halfway done myself. I'll post my review once I'm done. But right now I'd give it a 7 or an 8.

[forgetit]

i was interested in getting this book and look forward you both of your reviews.

I only read about 40-50 pages of this book at the B&N helping my girlfriend with her homework. I agree with the CP/BP section; interesting generic opponent modeling idea. It's something that I already do but never really articulated it to myself.

The book was somewhat hard to read for me. The one thing I disagreed with was the idea that tight games are "just as good" as loose games. Yeah, sure, your standard dev at tight-passive game might be lower than a loose-passive one (e.g. not limping w/ drawing hands, etc.), but as profitable? Maybe he was just talking up the whole idea tight games aren't all too bad.

He was talking about being such a "gambler" on the previous page or two. So he must not be scared of more flux in BR. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]