King Yao "Weighing the Odds"

[Gabe DV]

"Well, it is a 100% copycat job. The author took SSHE, TOP and HEFAP and paraphrased it all together into a new book which has zero new content to offer."

This is simply an unfair allegation. I read Yao's book and while I agree that DIPO seems kind of needless, I think the rest of the book is excellent. The chapter on hand reading alone pays for the price of the book, and the shorthanded material is some of the best information on short-handed play I have read anywhere. Of course a lot of Yao's ideas are rooted in the fundamentals of TOP and HPFAP, but I think that saying he merely paraphrased these works is a gross exaggeration, to say the least.

S&M are better writers? You must be joking. More comprehensive and better at explaining? That's another joke. "Part One: The First Two Cards" in HPFAP is quite bad. It doesnt explain their rationale for the hand groupings. It just gives you some groups and then says you might want to play this group or that group, it depends. No explaination as to why, the entire section is confusing. In Yao's book the starting card chapter is 10X better. Every concept explained in HPFAP is explained better in Weighing the Odds in Holdem. Its a much better book.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, it is a 100% copycat job. The author took SSHE, TOP and HEFAP and paraphrased it all together into a new book which has zero new content to offer."

This is simply an unfair allegation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I agree that it was a bit harsh. Let's put it this way: It covers the same subjects, but doesn't add much to the discussion.

[mike4bmp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I received my copy today and I am very disappointed. This is one of the books that will go right into the shelf, never to be opened again. Now why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

It saddens me to see that someone did not enjoy the book or think it was worth the price. I understand that not all books are going to work out for everyone, and I'm sure there are others that feel the same way you do who has not made it known. I put a lot of time and work into the book, so it is disappointing to me to see anyone that was disappointed by my work.

I'm not sure how to respond. An apology doesn't seem right. A "I'll try to do better next time" doesn't feel right either, especially since you are unlikely to purchase any potential future work from me [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]. Although I commend Barry Greenstein for essentially making a money-back guarantee on his book, I don't think that's something that is appropriate for me.

So I guess all I can respond to your post is just to acklnowledge it.


[ QUOTE ]
Well, it is a 100% copycat job. The author took SSHE, TOP and HEFAP and paraphrased it all together into a new book which has zero new content to offer.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are of course within your rights to criticize my book in any way, but please keep in mind that SSHE was yet to be published during the writing of my book. I'm not going to try to defend my work with regards to your comment, but just trying to get that one little fact straight.

King

[/ QUOTE ]

In the words of David Plastik to Scott Fischman in the 2004 WSOP, "when is your book coming out?"

I use Weighing the odds sided by side with TOP and SSHE. I believe it is a solid work that elaborates on certain issues that SSHE either scantily mentions or ignores completely. I think the section on heads up play is indispensible....and King's discussion on outs helps ingrain what Miller conveyed about the subject in SSHE.
H/W...I also do not use DIPO...its a little cumbersome....
All in all, King, I think you wrote an excellent book. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

i know we already discussed this, but i really don't know how many "new" subjects there are. i mean, both books evaluate the flop, if that's what you mean.

... seems like it's a somewhat different tact than HEFAP. almost a book between level of SSME and HEFAP....

HEFAP's stuff is extraordinarily situational whereas SSME is not very situational at all (other than position, but i meant "read your opponent")

anyhow, haven't seen the starting hand part of king yao but looking forward to purchasing the book in next week (amazon.ca here in canada, if the author is interested).

as an aside, i know alot of people say you have to get away from starting hand charts. but i disagree, i think you have to use the starting hand charts and really understand the theory behind them, and then maybe you can get away from them a little bit over time.

but i really need to understand why we play AJo the way we do. i think most people (myself included) think it's an absolutely fantastic pre-flop holding but i see alot of experts don't like it.

[TaoTe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I received my copy today and I am very disappointed. This is one of the books that will go right into the shelf, never to be opened again. Now why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

It saddens me to see that someone did not enjoy the book or think it was worth the price. I understand that not all books are going to work out for everyone, and I'm sure there are others that feel the same way you do who has not made it known. I put a lot of time and work into the book, so it is disappointing to me to see anyone that was disappointed by my work.

I'm not sure how to respond. An apology doesn't seem right. A "I'll try to do better next time" doesn't feel right either, especially since you are unlikely to purchase any potential future work from me [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]. Although I commend Barry Greenstein for essentially making a money-back guarantee on his book, I don't think that's something that is appropriate for me.

So I guess all I can respond to your post is just to acklnowledge it.


[ QUOTE ]
Well, it is a 100% copycat job. The author took SSHE, TOP and HEFAP and paraphrased it all together into a new book which has zero new content to offer.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are of course within your rights to criticize my book in any way, but please keep in mind that SSHE was yet to be published during the writing of my book. I'm not going to try to defend my work with regards to your comment, but just trying to get that one little fact straight.

King

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the fact that you care enough about you're work to reply to a critic on this forum speaks highly of your dedication to what you're doing. Most writers wouldn't even bother with a reply. I've read your work and, even though I haven't played LHE in months, found it very well put together and helpful. Actually, I'm using it in my Theory of Math course as my book analysis project.

Regards,

Tao

[MicroBob]

I believe even ed Miller himself said he liked it.


I, for one, think it is quite good.


I don't think the dipo method is worth incorporating at the table...but it's still a worthwhile read just for the persepctive.

Same general thoughts I have regarding a lengthy analysis of a given hand (limit-ring or NL tourney or whatever).

Sklansky makes a post about a given tourney hand and we get 200 replies evaluating the different ways to approach the problem.
Obviously we aren't going to go into such detail when we are actually playing the hand....but going through the whole puzzle and trying to determine the the highest EV play is still valuable for one's understanding of the game.

[amulet]

i think you are reading a different book or just mistaken. weighing the odds is a good book, but not clear in so many ways. however, rather then continue this, we are all entitled to our own opinion. i guess we must just disagree.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I just reread this post of mine and feel that it may be coming across as more negative than I intended. My preliminary opinion, based on the first 100 pages, is that this book is fairly good. If DIPO was not included, my opinion would be even better.

However, I reserve the right to evaluate the whole book after I finish reading it. Also, I invite the author to state his case for DIPO.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason, could you address Shandrax's assertion that the book is a "copycat job?" I've read TOP, HPFAP, and Yao's book and didn't see the copycatting myself. However, I've never read SSH and now wonder if I should. Will I get much more out of SSH if Yao's book is so similar?