Grade the October Magazine

[Dynasty]

After a couple months as editor of the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine, the Magazine is coming close to taking the shape I want it to. So, whether you like what's been published or not, now is an optimal time to have your voice heard about the direction of the Magazine.

I have two notes about the October issue.

1. The Developing and Using Reads in Heads-up No-limit Hold 'em article is remarkably long and is being counted as a double article. That's why there are only eleven titles in the index rather than the twelve you can expect each month.

2. The fantasy football article is delayed to possibly as late as Tuesday. With October 1st falling on a Sunday, the NFL schedule wasn't very accomodating.

I break down the October issue like this

Strategy Articles- 7
Heads-up Limit Hold 'em: A Basic Strategy
Developing and Using Reads in Heads-up No-limit Hold 'em
Counting Outs in Deuce-to-Seven Lowball
How to Win With Big Pairs in Stud Eight or Better
Chips Changing Value in Tournaments
Using a Read to Delay a Raise

General Poker- 2
Bankroll Requirements for Poker
Classic Article: On Tilt

Poker and Other Fields- 1
Poker and Finance Part 3

Non-poker Gamlbing- 2
Maximizing Value in Free Plays at Sportsbooks
Fantasy Football Part 2


I consider the strengths of this issue to be the articles by Richard Elks, Mark Gritter, and Brandon Reiser.

Developing and Using Reads in Heads-up No-limit Hold 'em
Counting Outs in Deuce-to-Seven Lowball
How to Win With Big Pairs in Stud Eight or Better

Not only were they very strong articles but they also provided the type of diversity which I'm hoping to be the norm in the future.

Unfortunately, I have received hardly any full ring game hold 'em articles since I became editor. As a result, we are without a full-ring game NLHE article for the second month in a row. My general rule of thumb is that should hold any issue back from getting into the A's.

I'm also a little dissapointed we don't have a Poker Journalism article. I'd like to see at least one of those in every issue.

My Grade: B+

[BluffTHIS!]

Dynasty,

I've only read a couple articles so far but the issue looks very good. But regarding style, the gray background of the articles blows hard and is more difficult to read. You can still change it.

[MarkGritter]

Editing: I didn't like the formatting. The minimum width of the window required to read the articles was too large. The black-on-gray is readable for me but not great.

Strategy Articles: I thought these articles were pretty solid, although I didn't feel that I learned a whole lot. The "Developing and Using Reads" article was particularly interesting; I would love to see more articles that explain a series of hands instead of just one or two. The Stud/8 article is very solid, but I think it should address multiway situations as well, since high hands become even trickier to play when there are more than one players going low in the pot.

Sklanksy's article made me think a bit more about how I approach short-stack situations but I really haven't come to any solid conclusions.

General poker/Poker and other fields: Mason's article was thought-provoking. Poker and Finance 3 had some interesting ideas but not as much depth as I would like. The Bankroll Requirements article I found somewhat light, and felt that its content could have been included in the previous article (where I found the mathematical derivation interesting) or in the promised 3rd article.

Other gambling: Not of much interest to me, though King Yao's article looks solid and presents a nonintuitive and probably valuable result.

I'm giving it a B- due to the HTML issues; contentwise I think it's a B or B+.

[jfk]

Heads-up Limit Hold 'em: A Basic Strategy
-quite a good read. Glad to have the author back in the fold.

Developing and Using Reads in Heads-up No-limit Hold 'em
-I enjoyed this sort of analysis in HOH but it doesn't wear quite as well when an author is reviewing his own play. A reader might see a degree of self congratulations in an article such as this. This may detract from the lesson.

Counting Outs in Deuce-to-Seven Lowball
-outstanding breakdown and as good an article as I can recall on 27 LB, but I haven't seen this game spread or played in the last decade. Is the HORSE type revival bringing it back? These articles have a place in the magazine and are a good read but at a personal level not particularly relevent.

How to Win With Big Pairs in Stud Eight or Better
-didn't give it a fair read. Visceral reaction to the first read is that it is well done and I'm glad to see that this game is experiencing a comeback.

Chips Changing Value in Tournaments
-very useful considerations.

Using a Read to Delay a Raise
-disagreed with the author's conclusion and approach to the hand.

Bankroll Requirements for Poker
-always enjoy contributions from this author. His writings at 2+2 are a tremendous asset to the site.

Classic Article: On Tilt
-normally I'm a sucker for Mason's contributions but this one was a little flat. It contributed nothing new. This is the sort of area where Feeney really excelled and it would be fantastic to see new material from him. Describing caricatures of players on tilt and extracting lessons is fairly straightforward. This subject needs to be handled with subtlety and depth.

Poker and Finance Part 3
-much like the McCauley series, the ideas are thought provoking, educational and have application away from the table.

Maximizing Value in Free Plays at Sportsbooks
-interesting, well written and very easily understood. Always enjoy contributions from King Yao. At a personal level it had virtually no use other than general interest.

Fantasy Football Part 2
-not yet posted and am uninterested in fanatsy football. This is where 2+2 might consider drawing the line if there are other (poker) articles available to fill the void.

B-

[jzpiano]

Not your best magazine, some of the articles were good, but a couple seemed like that were slapped together last minute. The NL article had a lot of thought and theory behind it. Sklansky's article althought I don't agree with 100% was good because it was a new idea.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
Editing: I didn't like the formatting. The minimum width of the window required to read the articles was too large. The black-on-gray is readable for me but not great.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more with this. I have a big monitor at home to play poker on but I often read these articles at work on a much smaller one. The side scrolling necessary on a 1024x768 resolution is totally unacceptable.

[sputum]

Copy the text and paste it into whatever floats your boat.
I liked this month's magazine a lot.

[cts]

Good god the HU NLHE article was awful. Ever think of getting someone with some real high stakes HU NLHE experience rather than some 4-year old that is buying in for 25BBs and open limping the SB with 72o?

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]

Counting Outs in Deuce-to-Seven Lowball
-outstanding breakdown and as good an article as I can recall on 27 LB, but I haven't seen this game spread or played in the last decade. Is the HORSE type revival bringing it back? These articles have a place in the magazine and are a good read but at a personal level not particularly relevent.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi, jfk.

There is a fairly active community of triple draw players in the games offered at UltimateBet. The micros and biggest games are nearly always running.

Live triple draw is making its way into some of the midlimit mixed games in Southern California and Vegas (at least that is my understanding), but otherwise live games appears only at the $100/200+ level in a mix such as Badugi/Omaha/Triple Draw (BOT).

Single draw no-limit 2-7 was offered for a while by GamesGrid, but the cash games didn't really take off. There is still a regularly scheduled NL2-7 tournament.

Both variants are fun; come over to the Other Poker forum if you want pointers on getting started in them.

Mark

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
Good god the HU NLHE article was awful. Ever think of getting someone with some real high stakes HU NLHE experience rather than some 4-year old that is buying in for 25BBs and open limping the SB with 72o?

[/ QUOTE ]

My first thought on this article was along those lines, too. There are a couple things in there that I felt were just flat out wrong. For example,

[ QUOTE ]
2. There are certain types of opponent where it is not necessarily advantageous to be deep-stacked. The most obvious is the hyper-aggressive maniac: it is very difficult to tell when this type of player is betting with a real hand and when he is bluffing, and so you will often have to make raises and calls with marginal hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

[FishySayBANG!]

[ QUOTE ]
Live triple draw is making its way into some of the midlimit mixed games in Southern California and Vegas (at least that is my understanding), but otherwise live games appears only at the $100/200+ level in a mix such as Badugi/Omaha/Triple Draw (BOT).

[/ QUOTE ]

In general I would say this is probably true but if you really want to play some live TD roll down to the Venitian and you can play as low as 3-6 if you want.

I was there(the Venitian) a little while ago and I was looking for a place to play poker at night and drink some beers and they had a rotation game going that had 2-7 and Badugi in the mix....and it wasnt even started by 2+2ers or anything. I just walked over from the Mirage to check out the action and it was going.

BTW, They also had 2-7 as a part of the 40-80 mix at the Bellagio also

[jfk]

Mark,

Thanks for the reply and overview.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
Good god the HU NLHE article was awful. Ever think of getting someone with some real high stakes HU NLHE experience rather than some 4-year old that is buying in for 25BBs and open limping the SB with 72o?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Dynasty -- I was trying to figure out a diplomatic way to ask this, but then I decided that diplomacy is unnecessary.

As an editor, why would you accept a *strategy* article that's written by someone playing $200 NL?

I would trust 2+2ers logging playing time at $200 games to have useful advice on megamultitabling and bonus whoring (the keys to profitability at that level), but I would not trust them at all for sound strategic advice.

Even if you're not willing to enforce some sort of basic competency requirement for your authors, you should, as cts suggested, have someone who plays high-stakes NL vet your NL articles to avoid embarrassments like this.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good god the HU NLHE article was awful. Ever think of getting someone with some real high stakes HU NLHE experience rather than some 4-year old that is buying in for 25BBs and open limping the SB with 72o?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Dynasty -- I was trying to figure out a diplomatic way to ask this, but then I decided that diplomacy is unnecessary.

As an editor, why would you accept a *strategy* article that's written by someone playing $200 NL?

I would trust 2+2ers logging playing time at $200 games to have useful advice on megamultitabling and bonus whoring (the keys to profitability at that level), but I would not trust them at all for sound strategic advice.

Even if you're not willing to enforce some sort of basic competency requirement for your authors, you should, as cts suggested, have someone who plays high-stakes NL vet your NL articles to avoid embarrassments like this.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's interesting to read these comments. Mason actually requested that I specifically tell Richard Elks that Mason thought his articles was exceptional.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good god the HU NLHE article was awful. Ever think of getting someone with some real high stakes HU NLHE experience rather than some 4-year old that is buying in for 25BBs and open limping the SB with 72o?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Dynasty -- I was trying to figure out a diplomatic way to ask this, but then I decided that diplomacy is unnecessary.

As an editor, why would you accept a *strategy* article that's written by someone playing $200 NL?

I would trust 2+2ers logging playing time at $200 games to have useful advice on megamultitabling and bonus whoring (the keys to profitability at that level), but I would not trust them at all for sound strategic advice.

Even if you're not willing to enforce some sort of basic competency requirement for your authors, you should, as cts suggested, have someone who plays high-stakes NL vet your NL articles to avoid embarrassments like this.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's interesting to read these comments. Mason actually requested that I specifically tell Richard Elks that Mason thought his articles was exceptional.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put a poll up in the HS and MSNL boards. I think you'll find general disagreement with Mason's opinion.

Some of his analysis is fine. But it's hard to filter out the good observations from some of the very bad plays he makes (buying in short vs a very weak opponent, playing far too passively preflop and postflop, not realizing when his hands have showdown value.)

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Creed:

You need to understand that a good article is one that brings up points worthy of discussion. That's what these forums are for.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

Some of his analysis is fine. But it's hard to filter out the good observations from some of the very bad plays he makes (buying in short vs a very weak opponent, playing far too passively preflop and postflop, not realizing when his hands have showdown value.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The article was never intended to show ideal play in each individual hand. When I first read the draft, I also disagreed with plays on specific hands.

The point was to show how one winning (presumably) 1-2 no-limit player broadly approaches an unknown opponent. The author intended to show his macro-strategy over an entire session rather than a micro-strategy of specific hands.



For those criticizing the article, I'm more than happy to publish more "35 heads-up hands" written by the critics.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Creed:

You need to understand that a good article is one that brings up points worthy of discussion. That's what these forums are for.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]


Is that really the idea of the magazine, to provoke discussion? I thought the point was to provide useful advice.

You're paying the magazine authors money, and putting the official 2+2 imprimatur on what they're saying. That's different from what goes on in the other forums, and it suggests to me that you should hold them to a higher standard.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
That's different from what goes on in the other forums, and it suggests to me that you should hold them to a higher standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do. I don't know of any other poker magazine where the authors and articles can be criticized and debated as they can be here. So if you disagree with an article, ot think it contains some weaknesses, be specific and post your criticisms here.

best wishes,
mason

[RichE]

Creed (and others)

I would like to make a few points in relation to my HU NLHE article:

1. Buy-in level - It does not surprise me that some people have chosen to focus on the level at which I played that particular session. Indeed, I would wager that some high-stakes denizens of these forums saw the buy-in level, immediately decided there was nothing of value in the article, and decided to dissect individual actions rather than reading the article in the correct context. I would ask you to consider the subject matter of the article - a guide on how to develop and use reads heads-up - and therefore its target audience. I would have thought that most high stakes NL HU players would already be very well versed in the sorts of concepts I discussed. Similarly, I do not think that many high-stakes limit players would glean much from Byron Jacobs excellent article - but that anyone criticising the article on those grounds would be missing the point entirely.

Heads-up is an aspect of the game which is growing very quickly. It is also one of the most prone to being completely misunderstood by people who are strong at ring game poker, and to being misplayed by people who like to focus on starting hand requirements and what to do in very specific situations. HU is all about playing the man and not the ball, and that is what this article aims to illustrate.

I would also point out that $1/$2 HU, unlike ring games at the same level, and not about "megamultitabling and bonus whoring". It is tough to multi-table heads-up matches and still play somewhere near optimally due to the number and complexity of the decisions that need to be taken. A lot of thought goes into heads-up play at whatever level. HU is also a horribly inefficient way to clear bonuses, because you are paying the blinds on every single hand and rake on (hopefully) over 50% of the hands.

2. The play of particular hands - I have to say that, when I picked this particular set of hands out as the one I wanted to analyse for this article, I did not agree with some of my own play. However, I chose this sequence because there was an especially high number of chances to gain powerful information about opponents, and therefore many read-based plays. That was the aspect on which I was asked to focus, and I chose hands accordingly. I feel that this provided a more interesting basis for discussion than a series of perfectly played but entirely standard hands.

I am (if anyone would like) perfectly prepared to have a debate about things like open-limping with 72o in position against a passive opponent who can be moved off hands postflop. However, I would be more interested to hear any criticism (constructive or otherwise) of the accuracy or reasoning behind my reads based on the action that took place.

One of the reasons that it can be difficult to have a meaningful discussion on macro strategy is that people will always demand examples, and then focus on debateable deficiencies in the details of the example, rather than discuss the wider issues involved.

3. Buying-in short - As an opening remark, I would like to point out that I do not usually buy-in this short. This session following immediately after a session against another opponent, who had succeeded in winning a big pot from me, and had "hit-and-run" with his winnings. My standard opening buy-in is ~50BB. This information was not felt to be relevant to the article, and therefore was not included. I would also point out that I would undoubtedly have bought in for the full amount during this session, but by the relevant time I was in a position where I covered my opponent in any case. Had he rebought after falling behind, I would surely have topped up alongside him.

This is a topic which will always cause controversy, because of the belief (espoused in NLTAP) that if you are the stronger player at the table, you should always cover your opponent. However, to continue the NLTAP reference, it is also pointed out that it can be advantageous to buy-in short whilst you assess a game, and then top up when you decide that it is worthwhile. Sklansky and Miller also note that in some games it is not necessarily best to have bought in full.

As for the second point, highlighted by Ghazban, this is a matter of personal preference to do with decreased variance. Variance can be very significant in HU cash games (as opposed to HU SNGs), and is particularly high against the type of player I describe, when it can be very difficult to know whether you are ahead when you put your chips in. I respect the fact that others may choose to approach these situations differently, but the fact that not everyone shares my preference does not make my preference wrong or invalid.

As a final point, may I say that I would be fascinated to read similar articles by high stakes HU players, and I hope the disdain expressed by some high stakes players in this thread leads them to submit such articles for publication. That, I feel, would be the best possible outcome from this debate for the 2+2 community in general.

[PhatMango]

I am not competent to determine if the HU article was strategically correct, but I very much enjoyed the format. I like articles discussing specific hand series and how people think about them, both individually and holistically.

[Ghazban]

I appreciate your reply and agree that buying in short against a very aggressive opponent will lower one's variance. It will also lower one's winrate presuming the hyper-aggressive opponent is the inferior player. When you said "it is advantageous" to buy in short in this scenario, that reads to me that it is more profitable and, quite frankly, that is not true. If by "advantageous", you are referring to other things than pure EV (lower variance, easier decisions, etc.), I believe you need to explain that up front.

I should also state that, in a sense, the article provided exactly what it was advertised to-- namely, hand reading in HU NLHE. My main problems with their article were that I did not agree with a majority of the actions the author chose to take based on those reads. The reads themselves seemed very reasonable to me.

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
Ever think of getting someone with some real high stakes HU NLHE experience rather than some 4-year old that is buying in for 25BBs ...

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
...As an editor, why would you accept a *strategy* article that's written by someone playing $200 NL?

[/ QUOTE ]


This sort of criticism is extremely unfair. Playing level makes little or no difference. Either the author is making sound decisions or he's not.

This article was not among the bright lights of the October magazine but the focus should be on the decisions and assumptions rather than the dollar amount at play.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty,
the gray background of the articles blows hard and is more difficult to read. You can still change it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty,
the gray background of the articles blows hard and is more difficult to read. You can still change it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I've contacted Chuck Weinstock about this and have requested he change it.

[BluffTHIS!]

Dynasty,

As I suggested before, you really need to try to get Chuck to give you FTP access to the site, and then use MS Frontpage or Dreamweaver along with a file transfer program so you can make quick changes yourself.

[RoundTower]

• Heads-up Limit Hold 'em: A Basic Strategy - well written, but I hope this is the start of a series because it felt too basic.

• Developing and Using Reads in Heads-up No-limit Hold 'em - I like the idea of explaining a player's thinking hand by hand but I felt the author's play and thinking was fundamentally unsound and this was a poor example of HU play to analyse.

• Counting Outs in Deuce-to-Seven Lowball - very good, one of the two best articles IMO although I rarely play this game.

• How to Win With Big Pairs in Stud Eight or Better - also very good

• Bankroll Requirements for Poker - well written and clear but I don't think it added much to what was written in the 1st article.

• Poker and Finance Part 3 - one of the highlights for me, well researched, discussed an important and often overlooked idea and provided useful resources for further reading (I assume useful, I haven't looked at them yet).

• Chips Changing Value in Tournaments - a certain amount of good theory but nothing I would find useful in practice.

• Using a Read to Delay a Raise - a good simple example of a slightly unusual play, well written.

• Classic Article: On Tilt - I disagree with the main point of this article but it is thoughtprovoking.

• Maximizing Value in Free Plays at Sportsbooks - well written and interesting general gambling reading, though of little practical use to me.

• Fantasy Football Part 2 - haven't read and doubt I will, I have no real interest in the subject.

• Editing/presentation - Mostly well edited. I'm reading this now on 4/10 and it looks fine to me, perhaps something has been changed since other posters complained? Problems with displaying punctuation etc seem to have disappeared.

• Mix of articles - good. I don't mind not having a full ring NL article or a "journalism" article and I think you can have a first class magazine which rarely features either topic.

Overall grade: B.