Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[The Nutz85]

I saw it at barnes and noble it looked OK? What did you think of it?

[JPNet]

I am in the process of writing a detailed review and posting it on my web site, but in general I think it is a terrible book.

I like the illustrated approach, and I especially like the hands where we follow a hand from pre-flop through to the river.

However, the book has many major problems especially for a book targeted at beginners. Go to the casino and start with $4-$8, don't play online because you can lose too much too fast, no clear information on starting hands srtategy by position, a list of 169 hands with winning % information, but no information on how this should be used, never raise with AKo, or AQs from early position because they are drawing hands, don't bet or raise with flush or straight draws, never raise with AA, because you want to build the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
never raise with AKo, or AQs from early position because they are drawing hands, don't bet or raise with flush or straight draws, never raise with AA, because you want to build the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope a lot of people read it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
am in the process of writing a detailed review and posting it on my web site, but in general I think it is a terrible book.

I like the illustrated approach, and I especially like the hands where we follow a hand from pre-flop through to the river.

However, the book has many major problems especially for a book targeted at beginners. Go to the casino and start with $4-$8, don't play online because you can lose too much too fast, no clear information on starting hands srtategy by position, a list of 169 hands with winning % information, but no information on how this should be used, never raise with AKo, or AQs from early position because they are drawing hands, don't bet or raise with flush or straight draws, never raise with AA, because you want to build the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, I picked up some free poker books at a trade show in Phoenix this past week and I have to pick a few nits at what you have said.

First, I agree, it's very poor in several respects.

However, I would note that on the discussion of AA on page 31, the author NEVER say that you should "never raise with AA" Indeed, there and elsewhere, he never says that. If I have missed an instance, please point it out.

In fairness as well, the author presents arguments for and against raising with AA on the same page. Granted, he "prefers" to call play for bigger pots and to trap opponents. This is outright silly...but then he does say that is simply his preference. So, I don't think your comment is fair...however in error the writer may be.

I'm even looking at where he outright recommends raising with KK on page 151...so the reader of this pre-review should not automatically jump to the wrong conclusions.

[ QUOTE ]
Go to the casino and start with $4-$8, don't play online because you can lose too much too fast

[/ QUOTE ]

On page 11 where the advice is given to begin by playing in a casino, I see no mention of his recommending $4/8 games. Further, he does make a very good point that as a new player you should "Learn the game in a live casion setting first, where the play is much slower paced and you have a chance to absorb what is happening". Perfectly sound advice, yes? Particularly given the trepidation some might have about gambling for the first time against unseen opponents when you might have fears about online cheating which he details is less likely to happen in a casino.

So, while I agree it's a bad book, I like the "situation scenario" as well and would say it's not entirely bad...certainly not something I would have paid for mind you!

---Leavenfish

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
In fairness as well, the author presents arguments for and against raising with AA on the same page. Granted, he "prefers" to call play for bigger pots and to trap opponents. This is outright silly...but then he does say that is simply his preference. So, I don't think your comment is fair...however in error the writer may be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know anything about the book in question. But I think this is an out poker authors often try to leave themselves. "I didn't say do this, I just said that I prefer to do it."

I call bull****. If you are writing a poker strategy book, presumably you are trying to teach people how to play well. They will presume that you know more than they do, and that they should listen to you. If you say "I do it this way," then you might as well be saying "You should do it this way." If you aren't, why is it in the book in the first place? This isn't a personal journal, this is a teaching manual.

In other words, I don't give authors any leeway for framing their advice in an "I would do this, but others might not" context. To me, it's the same as if they gave the advice directly.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, I don't give authors any leeway for framing their advice in an "I would do this, but others might not" context. To me, it's the same as if they gave the advice directly.

[/ QUOTE ]

And as a top flight author with a love for the correct,we would expect no less of you.

I was just pointing out that the author, a Dennis Purdy, does not in actually say what the poster stated...and in fact there are many instances where he flat out says 'you should raise' with this or that when you clearly should (and other perfectly sound advice)... so, having seen that in the book, I will give him the benefit of the doubt of just mixing good advice with the occassional dubious personal preferences. Too me this makes for a generally poor book for the novice...good for me in that it was free and I have become good enough to actually spot bad advice.

I might add, as a pretty decent low limit player who has 'good material' (2+2 books, this site)to guide him, I have to flat out admit that the more books I see advocating weak-tight and other outright bad play makes me happy...and I hope to continue seeing more of them! In a way, I and my pocketbook kind of wish at this point that people such as yourself would 'bite their tongue' (not too hard) just a bit more if you know what I mean. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I guess, however, that I will have to be content knowing that there are still so many players out there who have yet to discover these forums and that there are still plenty of 'bad' books flooding the shelves of my local Borders!

---Leavenfish

[Bjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Go to the casino and start with $4-$8, don't play online because you can lose too much too fast

[/ QUOTE ]

On page 11 where the advice is given to begin by playing in a casino, I see no mention of his recommending $4/8 games. Further, he does make a very good point that as a new player you should "Learn the game in a live casion setting first, where the play is much slower paced and you have a chance to absorb what is happening". Perfectly sound advice, yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Assuming you're a below break-even player when you first sit down which i guess is standard for many beginers you'll lose a lot more on a $4/8 or even $2/4 casino game than you would playing nanolimits online even if it deals three times as fast.

Getting more time to absorb things at the table is a sligth plus from the learning perspective but is more than offset by the fact that you can get a detailed HH to go over your plays after the session.

/Bjorn

[theRealMacoy]

[ QUOTE ]


I call bull****. If you are writing a poker strategy book, presumably you are trying to teach people how to play well. They will presume that you know more than they do, and that they should listen to you. If you say "I do it this way," then you might as well be saying "You should do it this way." If you aren't, why is it in the book in the first place? This isn't a personal journal, this is a teaching manual.

In other words, I don't give authors any leeway for framing their advice in an "I would do this, but others might not" context. To me, it's the same as if they gave the advice directly.

[/ QUOTE ]



Sweet!
You tell them Ed.


cheers
the real macoy

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Assuming you're a below break-even player when you first sit down which i guess is standard for many beginers you'll lose a lot more on a $4/8 or even $2/4 casino game than you would playing nanolimits online even if it deals three times as fast.

Getting more time to absorb things at the table is a sligth plus from the learning perspective but is more than offset by the fact that you can get a detailed HH to go over your plays after the session.

/Bjorn

[/ QUOTE ]

I could not disagree more.--it is a perfectly valid approach. I never argued for optimality and am not sure where that lies given the many factors involved. I personally would recommend a low limit home game...but I am not writing a book so that is neither here nor there.

In any case, have you seen the .01/.02 type games(?)...they are crazy and you are not likely to learn very much about your average low limit game in that or similar fast paced games. It's almost like people are playing with play money in the one's I have seen!

Getting to actually think thru your hand, position, see your opponents and their mannerisms and actually have the time to calculate odds...is offset by looking at hand histories (you only what your opponent played to the end in any case)??

Sorry, I don't believe that Monday morning quarterbacking is any substitute for taking the time to work things out in real time and reflecting upon that experience. THAT would be the quivilivant of me telling a kid starting out in chess to play lots of speed chess online and disect his games afterwords. That is a very bad alternative to trying to apply the knowledge of others via playing a fairly slow game in real time where you have more time to actually 'live' the experience.

---Leavenfish