middle limit holdem

[PokerHorse]

Ciaffone actually played for a living for many years and played successfully in big/ pot limit games as well.
You might not fold in an internet 5-10 game when the board is t98 when you have at, but in a ring game this would be correct unless you already have a read on these players as being very loose aggressive. Especially if you were the pre-flop raiser.
if you look at hfap there are times when you fold top pair good kicker when simply bet into with players behind you.
This also might not be applicable to some internet games as well.
Ive never seen a post regarding a hand by mr malmuth that
showed me a much different outlook. usually they are player dependent. and dont be fooled, he plays well and he plays very tight for the most part.
there have been huge debates over calling a raise with aq from an early raiser. Again, poker is subject to probabilities but it is such a dynamic game that there just isnt black and white right or wrong in many many cases.
One point that mason wrote which is open for debate is the idea that middle limit games are somehow subject to players that are overly aggressive.
The higher you go the more aggression you will face. Whether it is " overly " aggressive is open to debate, but when players are pros they somehow can justify there over aggressive play with all kinds of rationale. you just need to take all this written information and find whats right for you from your own playing experience. if you are at the point where you feel that you can critique a poker book, then i wouldnt read too many more. it might just f you up. good luck

[etizzle]

i exaggerated. It is not the worst I've ever read, but it is by far the worst i've read of books i expected to be good.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe that this piece of trash was ever published. They give consistent and unquestionably terrible advice. I think this is the worst book on hold 'em i have ever read.

What the hell were briar and ciaffone thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the best book out there for giving many live examples of detailed, accurate analysis of pot odds, flop texture, and what of the many key considerations are most important in a given situation.

It's advice on what you should do based on that analysis is highly dependent based on the games you play, but I'll agree it seems not particularly relevant for the games I play.

-g

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the games this book was written for, these were good plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

In middle limit games where many players are capable of overly aggressive play, in my opinion these specific plays are anything but good plays.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this. I was saying that this book is designed for games where your opponents aren't overaggressive and tricky. I have played in games like this, and for those games the advice in the book is good.

I've discovered good advice in this book that has helped my game. Some points I disagree on, but that in turn increases your own questioning and thinking about the dynamics of the game you play in.

Li.

MLH is a great book even though a lot of its advice is weak-tight. Where the book does an excellent job is in laying out the factors one should be considering when deciding how to play a hand (beyond mere pot size). Your relative position, whether you close the action, the size of the field, etc. SSH does a good job of stressing aggression, etc., but not nearly as good a job at walking through the "checklist" of items to consider when playing. MLH is a great book if you take its actual recommendations about how to play a particular hand, with some skepticism as to whether the advice applies in your (most likely, looser/more aggro, game).

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
i exaggerated. It is not the worst I've ever read, but it is by far the worst i've read of books i expected to be good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that makes more sense.

I actually like Mason's rating of 6 +/- 2 based on how well you can work around some of its weak-tightness. I think that if you understand it errs on the side of caution, shall we say, then it's very good. It points out a LOT of things you should think about during hands.

I also like its format a lot.

[bilyin]

I hope everyone listens to you and does not read the book.

[bernie]

They were thinking/referring to games with a different texture than you're used to. Consider that when reading it. You may want to read the player descriptions again. You may appreciate it more should you find yourself against those types of opponents sometime.

I found it interesting to analyze the hand examples from start to finish to see how it could've been played better other than just the street that the question was on. You can see how one can get confused to where they're at based on how they played previous streets.

The overcards, bluffing and semi bluffing section were fantastic, imo.

Again, remember that it's not tailored to your average game today. That doesn't mean you won't encounter some of these types of players in todays game. Adjust accordingly.

Hell, post some hands from it and see what people think. But remember to give the game texture proper air time when you do it and not just present it as a general play.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
it has you fold overpairs almost every time the flop is reraised.

it also has you fold AJ on a J high monotone board for one raise on the flop.

And it has you fold AT on a T98 board after it goes bet-raise into you.

This is making me sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes you should fold in those spots.

b