Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

A while ago, I promised I would buy Matt Maroon's book, Winning Texas Hold'em, which I have. I was partly motivated by some posts in this forum saying that the short-handed section of the book was quite good. So when I got the book I read that section first. On the positive side, I like his writing style, which is conversational and direct. However, I found the content of the SH section a little disappointing, so I'm putting off reading the rest of the book for a while.

The biggest problem I saw was his reasoning for playing more hands in SH games. He says you should play more hands because the of the increased cost of the blinds per hand. This (incorrect) perspective has him recommending what seems to me to be overly loose play before the flop. Though for an expert these extra hands may be slightly +EV, I worry they might be -EV for most of his readers.

I found most of the rest of the advice in this short section to be pretty standard: don't open limp, play big cards and pairs, raise weak limpers, reraise or fold, play aggressively on the flop, defend your blinds more, and so on.

Since I did find a couple of nuggets of advice that I think will help my game, I wouldn't withhold a recommendation at this point; I was just expecting a bit more. Sorry, Matt.

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

i liked the following aspects of matt maroon's book:

the price was right.

pretty straight-forward writing style.

one of the better books about talking about different table conditions and starting hand selection.

talks alot about shorthanded. and i think it was decent.

the book looks really neat (although i think there are different formats)

there are lots of things i could complain about.. and it's probably only a decent buy at its very low price point (at least here in canada)

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

Speaking of Matt, here is a bookreview from him posted on his blog recently.

[ QUOTE ]

A week or two ago Matt Matros sent me an IM asking me if I had ever read the short handed section of Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players. I haven't touched that book in probably 5 years, but I remembered it as having been pretty good, with a few major exceptions. I knew it had some terrible advice, such as occasionally limping with pocket aces preflop, but I was willing to chalk it up to the book having been printed in 1999 (it's called the 21st Century Edition). Until I read the short handed section.

I've now removed it from my recommended books list entirely. In his book Matt recommends HPFAP but says "Be sure to ignore the advice on shorthanded and loose games in the 21st century edition." He said he was attacked for that disclaimer by all of the forum cronies. Just from the few stories he has told me, it sounds like his experience with the 2+2 community has been similar to mine, though if anything less deserved. I actually make a lot of jokes at their expense and only rarely bother to tell them why (though when I have, I've gotten the same response). Matros just points out glaring inaccuracies in books and everyone gets angry at him.

Matt's perhaps a little more friendly than I am though. I'm just not recommending the book at all anymore. I could probably write an entire book just on what the shorthanded section gets wrong and why it is wrong. But there is so much bad advice in it that I wouldn't even know where to begin, and I don't see it as being a very profitable endeavor. Perhaps Mason would pay me five figures to review it and tell him why it is so bad, as he offered to do for me, but it probably wouldn't be worth it for him as I hear he rarely plays poker.

Now that I've reread the short handed section I finally understand many of the bad plays I see on a daily basis, such as people who flop top pair with T9 and slowplay it. It's rare at $30/$60 and up online that I find opponents who only play 40% of their hands heads up, since most people know they should be playing double that. It's unusual to find people who reraise out of the big blind and then check 40% of the time (with their best and worst 20% of hands), as almost everyone who has worked their way up to those stakes knows they should be betting 100%, but they do exist and now I know why.

Some of the other sections in the book were pretty humorous too. Matt mentioned the loose games section. It contains such advice as not raising AQ when you know a lot of players are going to come in behind you. Brilliant. That is followed by one priceless gem after another.

I used to think that book was good. Actually, we used to call it the Bible of Poker. Now I realize it's so bad that I can't even have a link to it on my site. I guess that's the poker equivalent of the student taking the coin out of the master's hand.

[/qoute]

Sklansky\'s and Mason\'s theory really flawed?
 

Very interesting quote. No one wants to comment? Sklansky, Mason, others? I liked both of those books' SH sections. My only complain is that they should have been longer and more thorough. Of course, HEPFAP was much more detailed of those.

Mason commented a little while ago Maroon's book - said it had a lot of flaws. I suppose Maroon didn't like it, but is HEPFAP really that flawed? Hard to believe, but at least he gives some examples of those claimed flaws. Discuss. I bet Maroon will show up if Mason or Sklansky comments, maybe otherwise too. Then we could ask him to specify more flaws. And Matros too.

Those two quite known poker authors just questioned the theory behind 2+2 limit books and teachings of the two main authors, so I don't think it should be passed with silence.

Re: Sklansky\'s and Mason\'s theory really flawed?
 

I'm confused now. In that quote, is he talking about HEPFAP or Winning Texas Hold Em?

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

Hi Gelford:

The material in HPFAP has been debated in extreme detail on these forums.

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the other sections in the book were pretty humorous too. Matt mentioned the loose games section. It contains such advice as not raising AQ when you know a lot of players are going to come in behind you. Brilliant. That is followed by one priceless gem after another.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this reference is to pages 175 and 176. The explanation for why we advise just calling with AQ in early position when "you are in a game where your raise will fail to cut down the field" is pretty straight forward.

Authors like these are always trying to show everyone that they are the ones who understand that we have it wrong. This gives them instant recognition and will fuel their effort to achieve success.

But they generally never get specific as to why our advice is inaccurate and they generally never address the specifics of what we wrote. If you want to do that, I suggest you read the pages I just mentioned along with the whole section and then ask your questions.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Sklansky\'s and Mason\'s theory really flawed?
 

HEPFAP.

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to do that, I suggest you read the pages I just mentioned along with the whole section and then ask your questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I'm not in a position to question anything, but I'm quoting Maroon:

[ QUOTE ]
It's rare at $30/$60 and up online that I find opponents who only play 40% of their hands heads up, since most people know they should be playing double that. It's unusual to find people who reraise out of the big blind and then check 40% of the time (with their best and worst 20% of hands), as almost everyone who has worked their way up to those stakes knows they should be betting 100%, but they do exist and now I know why.

Some of the other sections in the book were pretty humorous too.

[/ QUOTE ]

He obviously refers to pages 187-191. He didn't mention it, but that 40% best hands refers to when being in bb (sb is the button here), that is recommended to call or re-raise with (so supposedly sb/button has raised, because it's said re-raise but not raise). I understand Maroon recommends to play about 80% of the hands in this situation. Comments?

That another point, after pf re-raise from bb to check with 40% hands on the flop, he doesn't mention but it was for setting up a check-raise.

And if you always check-raise then and never check-fold, where's the disguise? Anyway, Maroon says that almost all players playing that high always raise on the flop in that situation - so no check-raising. Comments?

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]

I believe this reference is to pages 175 and 176. The explanation for why we advise just calling with AQ in early position when "you are in a game where your raise will fail to cut down the field" is pretty straight forward.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but it's not internally consistent. You're talking about a loose game, and say that if many people will enter the pot after you raise, then you want someone with 87o to call your raise. You conclude with, "if you knew a raise with the AQ would force 87o out, but a call will not, that's not a reason to raise." But we're talking about a loose game, so how would you ever know that a raise will force 87o out? In fact, most opponents will call two cold with 87o if it's a loose game, almost by definition. Indeed, that was the whole premise of the section, that a raise won't cut down the field. Hence, by your own logic, you should raise the AQ.

[ QUOTE ]

Authors like these are always trying to show everyone that they are the ones who understand that we have it wrong. This gives them instant recognition and will fuel their effort to achieve success.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for Matt Maroon, but to say I am "always" trying to show everyone why 2+2 has it wrong is ridiculous. First of all, I haven't written or posted anything negative about 2+2 strategy in a year and a half. Second, in my book I recommend without reservation not one, not two, but three 2+2 books that I believe would be beneficial to anyone who reads them. In addition, I call David Sklansky "one of the game's greatest minds" and I say that this forum contains "a lot of focused, thought-out responses from dedicated twoplustwoers." Now, I also mentioned some things I didn't like about this forum, and I failed to recommend to my readership every section of every 2+2 book. I guess people tend to ignore all positives and cling to the few negatives.

[ QUOTE ]

But they generally never get specific as to why our advice is inaccurate and they generally never address the specifics of what we wrote.


[/ QUOTE ]

I remember something that happened not to long ago. You said that Matt Maroon's book contained many errors. Then, when he asked you to address the specifics of what he wrote, you said it would cost him at least $10,000. Explain then, why anyone would want to go over the issues in your books for free. Information/idea-sharing is a two-way street.

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

I also highly recommend a number of 2+2 books, just not that one because it's riddled with bad advice. It contains monkey logic like "you should sometimes open limp with aces to disguise your hand when you open limp with other stuff" which is the equivalent of "you should make one bad play to make another bad play less bad".

If I really wanted to show off I could have specifically pointed out scores of errors (and contradictions, as Matt Matros did above) and explained why they were wrong. But I don't. As I've said before, I was asked to write one book and did. I'll most likely never write another. I don't write strategy columns in magazines. I don't attempt to make any money at all off of teaching people how to play and I have no desire to in the future. I have no use for recognition, I make my money at the tables. I merely pointed out that the book doesn't meet my quality standards for recommended reading because it is a bad book.

You are basically doing the exact same thing you accuse me of but in reverse. You take any criticism and turn it into "we're the top dogs and anyone who criticizes us is merely trying to gain recognition" in order to further imprint your cheesy logo onto the brains of your readers. Sometimes when people say that something in a 2+2 book is incorrect it's just because they think that something in a 2+2 book is incorrect. And sometimes when people say that a 2+2 book is bad it's just because they think that a 2+2 book is bad. Sometimes they are right.

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also highly recommend a number of 2+2 books, just not that one because it's riddled with bad advice. It contains monkey logic like "you should sometimes open limp with aces to disguise your hand when you open limp with other stuff" which is the equivalent of "you should make one bad play to make another bad play less bad".



[/ QUOTE ]

Not taking sides here at all, but are you suggesting that you should never open limp? If so, are you just referring to shorthanded games (fwiw, I would agree generally with that). Also are you suggesting you should NEVER open limp in a shorthanded game with AA? What about a situation where you are UTG and the player to your left raises 75% of all hands unless raised before him, in which case he calls a lot of the time but also folds more frequently than when hes facing one bet, and generally otherwise plays bad postflop. In this situation, would you not agree that open limping AA would be a good idea sometimes? (I understand this isn't Sklansky's rationale, but just wondered what your thoughts were?

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
But we're talking about a loose game, so how would you ever know that a raise will force 87o out? In fact, most opponents will call two cold with 87o if it's a loose game, almost by definition. Indeed, that was the whole premise of the section, that a raise won't cut down the field. Hence, by your own logic, you should raise the AQ.


[/ QUOTE ]

On pages 159 and 160 of HPFAP it says:

[ QUOTE ]
There is a bit of a two-edged sword here. If you're playing against extremely terrible opponents, it's hard not to raise with pretty good hands because even though you're costing yourself money on the later streets, you're gaining so much before the flop because you hand is usually so much better than theirs. In other words, if people are coming in with absolutely everything, you have got to raise with an AQ simply because your hand is so much better on average than so many of the other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you also read the paragraph that follows.

[ QUOTE ]
I remember something that happened not to long ago. You said that Matt Maroon's book contained many errors. Then, when he asked you to address the specifics of what he wrote, you said it would cost him at least $10,000. Explain then, why anyone would want to go over the issues in your books for free. Information/idea-sharing is a two-way street.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your memory is not quite right.

Maroon wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
And Mason, I would be eternally grateful if you would email me or PM me and tell me why you thought my book "not very good".


[/ QUOTE ]

I replied:

[ QUOTE ]
The fee for me to go through your book and explain all the errors in it to you would be very high, well into the five figures. But for someone who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year it should be something that you would want to do.

Of course, these figures are just pocket change to me and I would probably assign this task, assuming you came up with the money, to someone like Ed Miller, but you would still learn a lot.

Otherwise, you'll have to wait for my review of your book which will probably appear in our July magazine. It's already written and you got a 4 on my 1-to-10 scale. Also, keep in mind that my reviews are known to be very accurate, and I have my reputation for producing accurate reviews to uphold.


[/ QUOTE ]

I will have some specifics when my review is released (and it is now scheduled for our August Magazine).

You need to understand that we frequently get requests from all sorts of people who have a product that they would like for us to review and give comments. What these people never consider is how much of our time it would take to do something like this right. Thus when I now get one of these invitations, my response is to attach a price to it, and as you can see, that price is expensive. You can read the whole thread here:


And finally you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Information/idea-sharing is a two-way street.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's what these forums are about. For instance, the AQ issue that you have brought up has already been discussed in detail on these forums with both David and I participating.

MM

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also highly recommend a number of 2+2 books, just not that one because it's riddled with bad advice. It contains monkey logic like "you should sometimes open limp with aces to disguise your hand when you open limp with other stuff" which is the equivalent of "you should make one bad play to make another bad play less bad".



[/ QUOTE ]

Not taking sides here at all, but are you suggesting that you should never open limp? If so, are you just referring to shorthanded games (fwiw, I would agree generally with that). Also are you suggesting you should NEVER open limp in a shorthanded game with AA? What about a situation where you are UTG and the player to your left raises 75% of all hands unless raised before him, in which case he calls a lot of the time but also folds more frequently than when hes facing one bet, and generally otherwise plays bad postflop. In this situation, would you not agree that open limping AA would be a good idea sometimes? (I understand this isn't Sklansky's rationale, but just wondered what your thoughts were?

[/ QUOTE ]

Open-limping/3-betting pf is good times.

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
I understand Maroon recommends to play about 80% of the hands in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, our book says

[ QUOTE ]
at least 40 percent.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the section that is getting referenced is arguing for looseness not tightness. We use the term "at least 40 percent" and implied the right percentage could be quite a bit higher. How high depends on how well you play compared to your opponent. If you are the better player, it could indeed be as high as 80 percent.

The one key point is that surprisingly your overall results won't change that much between playing 45 percent of the hands and 80 percent of the hands because these extra hands are about break even.

The reason why the book leans towards the tighter recommendation is because frankly we are protecting the less than expert reader from getting involved with hands that are only profitable for the best players.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

Actually Mason your memory is not quite right. In a thread about me you came out of nowhere and mentioned that my book was "not very good". You gave no specifics, so I asked for some. I didn't just start a thread asking you for a product review.

Then, as Matros pointed out, you criticized me for doing the same thing, even though I at least said what about your book was incorrect, just not why.

And toast, I'm ok with open limping only in very loose games, just not with what the 2+2 books would refer to as group 1 hands. In games loose enough for that you don't need to limp with any great hands for deception, people aren't paying attention anyway and even if they were they'd still call with crap. Loose games are usually comprised of a mix of players, some of whom are so oblivious they wouldn't see your hand if you flipped it face up, and the rest of whom just want to gamble and wouldn't care.

If you're in a game that loose and are open limping, you're doing it with enough suited connectors and small pairs that any flop could have hit you, that's all the deception you need. Deception is useless in those games, the EV you lose by not getting extra bets in preflop when you have aces isn't worth it.

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually Mason your memory is not quite right. In a thread about me you came out of nowhere and mentioned that my book was "not very good". You gave no specifics, so I asked for some. I didn't just start a thread asking you for a product review.

[/ QUOTE ]

My memory is exactly right. I put a link to that thread in one of my posts above. Furthermore, as I said in that thread and in a post in this thread, you'll have to wait for the review to be published which is now scheduled for August.

MM

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

You're right, it isn't your memory that's fuzzy, it's your logic. You linked to the thread but apparently didn't read it. If you did you would see that Matros was exactly correct, you criticized my book without giving any specifics and then, in this thread, derided me for doing the same.

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
It contains monkey logic like "you should sometimes open limp with aces to disguise your hand when you open limp with other stuff" which is the equivalent of "you should make one bad play to make another bad play less bad".


[/ QUOTE ]

Going from memory, I can't remember there being anything like this in the book. On the bottom of page 22 it does say:

[ QUOTE ]
You may also occasionally limp with AA or KK. The time to do this would be when your early position raises are not getting any callers. If raised, you would frequently, but not always reraise. (However, if you are heads-up and are raised we suggest that you usually just call with aces or kings to add deception against your one opponent. Then plan to raise on fourth street.) In addition, be less inclined to limp with two kings as opposed to two aces. This is because with a pair of kings, an overcard — the ace — can come on the flop, while no overcards can come to a pair of aces.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is a lot different from what you state. Perhaps you can point me to what it is you are actually referencing.

MM

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Of course, these figures are just pocket change to me and I would probably assign this task, assuming you came up with the money, to someone like Ed Miller, but you would still learn a lot."


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this supposed to be a joke? If not, I've got to say, it's pretty vulger and classless.

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

No it's not a joke. You may feel it's vulgar and classless, but we don't. I suggest you carefully reread this this thread to get a better understanding for my comments.

MM

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]

The one key point is that surprisingly your overall results won't change that much between playing 45 percent of the hands and 80 percent of the hands because these extra hands are about break even.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are willing to play 45% of your hands against me in the BB heads-up, I would be willing to play against you and offer you a 10% rebate in the event I win. If you are right about the 46th to 80th percentile of hands being worth very little, then my 10% rebate should constitute a large edge for you.

I also remember David Sklansky posting on RGP a few years back that you don't play poker as high or as much as you could because the publishing business is worth more to you. Let me know at what limit it's worth it for you; I can go as high as 500/1000 online or 1000/2000 live. I *might* be able to go higher but I would need a backer. Please let me know.

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

TChan:

First off, I want you to know that I'm very impressed with your bluster.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are right about the 46th to 80th percentile of hands being worth very little, then my 10% rebate should constitute a large edge for you.


[/ QUOTE ]

First, you twisted our words, and second, you said something stupid. In our book we recommended calling over 40 percent of the time against an aggressive player. We weren't talking about a player who raises 100 percent of the time when he is on the button. Against such a player we would call even more. (Because hands like jack-six are now likely to contain one or even two overcards to his.) Against an aggressive player who doesn't always raise, that is he sometimes folds and sometimes calls, a 45 percent calling rate is only slightly too tight, and adding another 30 percent would involve adding hands with only very small positive equity if you play well.

However, this slight mistake of playing too tightly is more than enough to justify much greater then a 10 percent rebate over the course of a heads-up match if the rebater is a good player. So your implication that missing out on playing very slightly profitable hands would allow you to have the best of it taking a ten percent rebate shows that you are either trying to fool our readers who may not understand this concept, or you don't understand the math yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
I also remember David Sklansky posting on RGP a few years back that you don't play poker as high or as much as you could because the publishing business is worth more to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely true. The incredible success of Two Plus Two Publishing LLC takes up a great deal of my time and for the past three years (and more) I have mainly been a social player. (As an example of our success, Amazon.com has just informed us that we have made their Top 100 Publishers list at #98. Unfortunately, this is a confidential list that they maintain so they won't tell us much more about it.)

By the way, and I want you to know this. When I say that Two Plus Two has been incredibly success, that success does not just stop with me. We believe in being very generous to our authors and pay royalty rates far higher than industry standard. (We also require that our authors work harder in getting their books as good as possible than virtually any other publisher. So while the rewards are great, it's not easy to become a member of our family.) Plus, since we have a reputation for putting out extremely good books, that alone increases sales and assures us ample shelf space at the major bookstores. What this means is that our authors probably make about triple than what they would with almost all other publishing companies. So the next time you bluster and make your challenges, keep in mind that something like this did not happen over night. It took a lot of effort and dedication (not just from me but from all of us involved with Two Plus Two.)

MM

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
Amazon.com has just informed us that we have made their Top 100 Publishers list at #98.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrats on the success that has followed all the hard work.

I find these forum high-noon showdown, gauntlet drops to be somewhat amusing. I can't exactly tell if people are actually serious when they post messages (or who they are).

"We meet at the clock tower by the rolling tumbleweeds. You play the top 45 to a pfr; I play the top 80. I will win the battle, give you 10% back, and 'prove' my strategy works over a small, relatively meaningless sample. QED in advance."

Re: Winning Texas Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]

By the way, and I want you to know this. When I say that Two Plus Two has been incredibly success, that success does not just stop with me. We believe in being very generous to our authors and pay royalty rates far higher than industry standard. (We also require that our authors work harder in getting their books as good as possible than virtually any other publisher. So while the rewards are great, it's not easy to become a member of our family.) Plus, since we have a reputation for putting out extremely good books, that alone increases sales and assures us ample shelf space at the major bookstores. What this means is that our authors probably make about triple than what they would with almost all other publishing companies. So the next time you bluster and make your challenges, keep in mind that something like this did not happen over night. It took a lot of effort and dedication (not just from me but from all of us involved with Two Plus Two.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant and non sensical.

I'm not sure how 2+2 paying their authors has anything to do with this book's recommendation to fold to many hands. In fact, I might call your irrelevant boast the only "bluster" in the thread.