Problems with King Yao's book

[Luv2DriveTT]

I'm really only reading the short handed section now, so I cannot comment on the book as a whole yet.

Page #254 - He incorrectly lists the odds the small blind is receiving (should be 2.5:1) - I would like to assume this is just a typo.

But further down the page, in the short handed chapter discussing 3-handed play -

"Since you are part of the blinds/button dynamic in every hand in a three-handed game, the advantage of having the bad player on your right is immense.

Most good players believe that they want other good players to sit on their right. While this is true in all other cases, a good player may not understand that this is not true when the game is exactly three handed, and will often comply with your wishes by deliberately choosing to sit to your left if he considers you a good player. Typically, players also care about post-Flop, and want to act after the good players have already acted rather than before."

Does anyone besides me something that is fundamentally incorrect here? Oh my... I've entered Mason's domain [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[The WET BEAVER]

When a good/tight player is on your left, you can buy the button more easily. And you will be in the CO/hijack position much more often in 6-max. Since good players are more aggressive, you have more opportunities to trap them with turn checkraises.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
When a good/tight player is on your left, you can buy the button more easily. And you will be in the CO/hijack position much more often in 6-max. Since good players are more aggressive, you have more opportunities to trap them with turn checkraises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although you are correct, and so is King Yao about 3 player games... thats not where the fundamental error occurs. Re-read that paragraph, and you will find it.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Luv:

If the player on the button in a three handed game will constantly limp in with weak hands, that's a big advantage.

best wishes,
Mason

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
Although you are correct, and so is King Yao about 3 player games... thats not where the fundamental error occurs. Re-read that paragraph, and you will find it.

[/ QUOTE ]
My guess would be that a bad player is typically less willing to surrender his blinds, especially his big, to steal attempts.

When you've got the solid player directly to your left and you're in SB, you only have to worry about him calling a raise, which isn't going to happen most of the time. When you've got the button, the bad player is going to call a lot more often than a solid player would, but you have the added risk of the solid player waking up with a hand.

But if you've got the weak player to your left, he'll fold a lot more often when you raise from the button, because he has less invested, and there's less chance the solid BB will call your raises.

That's just my guess at it. Could be something a lot more obvious, or maybe a bit deeper, I don't know.

[King Yao]

Hi Luv (I feel like I'm British typing that :-) ),

Thanks for reading my book! I wouldn't be surprised there are mistakes, I've already corrected a few for the second printing. But I am having trouble finding the errors that you mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
Page #254 - He incorrectly lists the odds the small blind is receiving (should be 2.5:1) - I would like to assume this is just a typo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to the section on page 255? I don't see any reference to the odds that the small blind gets on page 254...but I do mention it on page 255. Maybe that is what you were referring to. On page 255, I wrote:

"The bad player in a three-handed game may also make the mistake of limping while on the button, which gives the small blind 5:1 odds to see the Flop. (There are 2.5 small bets in the pot, and the small blind needs to put in 0.5 small bets)"

If that is the section where you see an error, can you please explain the error you see? If there is an error, I fail to see it right now.

As for your next statement:

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone besides me something that is fundamentally incorrect here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be happy to comment if you could be clearer about what you are referring to.

Thanks,
King

[King Yao]

Luv2DriveTT is referring to the section where I write specifically about three-handed games.

[Derek in NYC]

I think he's talking about your statement that conventional wisdom says to have strong players to your right. He thinks there are advantages to having TAGs to your left. I agree with you, King, that the experts should sit to your right, notwithstanding the trouble that can sometimes cause when you are playing from the blinds. Mason discusses this problem at length in his Essay #1, pp. 124-125. Overall, however, I think the advantage of being able to avoid an expert, limp more, and have position on the expert on later streets suggests that you should put TAGs to your right. If the game involves a lot of blind stealing/defense, I'd change my answer.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Luv:

If the player on the button in a three handed game will constantly limp in with weak hands, that's a big advantage.

best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree Mason, my observation is related to his full player statement. I included the paragraph to make sure it was in perspective. I actually thought his 3 player statements were fine.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[King Yao]

[ QUOTE ]
... my observation is related to his full player statement

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi, maybe it would be interesting to read the section on Seat Selection on p.40. I don't know if that will do anything for you, but that is the section where I discuss seat selection in full player games in more detail. Specifically, I break down players in terms of how predictable they are. If you have an issue with the statements in the shorthanded section that you quoted, maybe you have a problem with the section in p. 40 as well.