Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   Books and Publications (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   Review: Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games by Stox/Zobags (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=374325)

jfk 04-09-2007 03:37 PM

Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
This is a repost that originally went up Sunday and apparently got lost in the re-migration back to the original forum format...

Cliff Notes: Winning in Tough Hold ‘em Games is very well done and will prove indispensable reading to limit hold ‘em players who play shorthanded and/or high stakes games. WTHEG describes the most modern incarnation of hold ‘em, primarily shorthanded internet hold ‘em better than any book currently on the market. While WTHEG is written in a recognizable 2+2 form, the content and style of play recommended is very much original. This is a book that needed to be written.




For some time there has been a significant gap in the vintage of limit hold ‘em literature. Titles that may have served a player well in 1985 became less optimal in 2003 as new, inexperienced players were drawn to the game. Four year later those new inexperienced players generally either got very good, went broke or switched games. What’s left is not a game where players are “literally giving their money away” as Miller and Sklansky once described but games in which a player can assume the competition is quite tough and skilled.

This book fills the gap and addresses the evolution of the game from that of primarily full ring to games that are shorthanded or play in a style not dissimilar to shorthanded games. While there are hands and lessons drawn from full ring games, most of the focus is on shorthanded play, and specifically, BSB and/or blind steal type situations

A major focus of the book is hand ranges and equity. The conclusions drawn are heavily indebted to the playing environment created by tools such as Poker Tracker and PokerStove (both of which are credited in the book). As such the authors present less a mathematical approach but a purely statistical one. Hand reading is assigned to ranges and correct play is a response to those ranges. There are none of the equations that one would find in “NLHET&P” or “Mathematics of Poker”.

A large portion of the book’s early pages is devoted to Poker Tracker type data from winning players and the advice derived is then fit into an equity model. The authors offer both hand ranges to steal and to defend and make suggestions as to the adjustments to be made against certain player profiles.

For players (like myself) who are primarily rooted in full ring play and considers themselves to play a tight and aggressive style, the opening and defending ranges may be much wider than that derived from cobbling advice from the currently available (full ring) oriented literature.

A major strength of the book is the “Hands with Stox” section where the author covers the play of 55 different hands. The author(s)(?) choose hand that have been played well and those that have been played poorly. There’s no attempt to hide the times their teeth got kicked in. There is a good amount of blunt honesty and the exploration of alterative lines. There are hands where the authors make some very questionable plays and some very sublime moves. The authors’ willingness to keep the hands in very gray areas is highly instructive and should provide for some outstanding discussion.

The authors leave very few loose strands. They take stands on their lines while allowing for the possibility of other ways to play a hand. They do a good job of anticipating a reader’s thoughts. The book is written in a style where the authors give the reader a lot of credit for understanding concepts. Stox and Zobags treat the reader like a peer.

The authors bring several concepts into the body of limit hold’ em literature. Weighted implied odds and implied fold equity might be concepts that are known to 2+2 strategy forum readers. The authors put the concepts into context for the rest of the poker playing world. The book covers limp the arcane art of limp rereaising in full ring, giving examples when and when not to do it with hands like 88, QJs or AA.

It is both refreshing and sobering to see the actual win rates of the authors. Stox winrate is described as .82BB/100 over his last 300,000 hands. The other databases from which numbers are derived feature even more modest success. This book is devoted to recognizing and exploiting very thin edges while passing on very thin deficits. In order to understand that importance it is helpful to recognize that even expert, even world class players may not be beating tough games for 1BB/100. The implication for the degree of profit to be made in limit hold ‘em is fairly grim. The playing styles and action described is of the sort to put a traditional ABC type TAG to the test constantly. The content would suggest that a non-statistically oriented player will have a very difficult time in today’s tougher games. The authors indirectly suggest that a player not well steeped in PT, HUDs or PokerStove will be at a significant quantitative disadvantage to opponents with these tools.

In terms of criticisms, the authors don’t do a good job of addressing in a quantifiable way what they consider to be loose, passive, tight or aggressive play until profiles are mentioned almost in an offhanded way starting on page 309. A reader may want to go right to page 309-310 to get a sense of terminology before starting the book. As the book is heavily dependent on PT type profiles and descriptions and the advice is built on very fine shadings of range, a more comprehensive discussion of player profiles at an early stage of the book may have made for richer content. The use of PT profile/stereotypes could have been incorporated for clarity of description.

Also, there’s a certain lack of definition regarding playing environments during the course of the book. There’s not much of an attempt to clearly delineate between, live, online, full ring or six max specific conditions. This isn’t necessarily a criticism as much as a question as to how much a player can reliably overlay range assumptions in these very different conditions. The reader is left to do a certain degree of playing condition extrapolation.

Certain topics/chapters like “Making thin Value Bets” and “Knowing when Ace High is No Good” each get less than a page and a half of attention. To be fair, these lessons are reinforced and reexamined with the hand examples and quizzes, but a greater fleshing out of the subject may have been merited.

There’s also the occasional erratum that wrecks a lesson. The lesson in Hand 25 becomes useless because the authors (or editors) lost track of the suitedness of the board.

The writing in the book is generally quite good. It is miles ahead of the era of poker lit. which produced TOP or HEFAP but it still isn’t up to the standards of the HOH series. There are spots where the reader may have to reread the occasional paragraph or section because the writing is not entirely clear.

For purposes of background and the way it may color this review, my shorthanded experience is somewhat limited. I’m probably in the neighborhood of 10,000 hands and am a faint loser in these games. I prefer full ring and wind up playing shorthanded for purposes of game preservation or game selection. 95+% of my shorthanded play has been at limits between 5/10 and 50/100. I regularly play full ring in limits from 5/10 to 30/60, both online and live. I have not been living under a rock and know who Stox and Zobags are but I’m not a member of their site and have spent almost no time even lurking there. Bear in mind also, that I’ve had this book for about 24 hours so there are things I’ve undoubtedly missed. For instance, I did not pore over the PT charts at the beginning of the book (but have done so with my own numbers).

It has been said that this is not a book for beginners and that is true to a degree. The authors assume that the reader has a great deal of experience and some playing exposure to these tough games. That being said, a beginning player can still get a lot out of this book. There are starting hand outlines and a step by step discussion of play. A beginner, or a player who plays at lower stakes will challenged by the material but not overwhelmed.

Lastly, a book like this makes a player very thankful for the strategy forums at this site. While Stox and Zobags present a very organized, well considered collection of comprehensive thoughts, and while their content can’t be found in other books, there are plenty of regulars in the strat forums who provide the same level of quality instruction for free on a daily basis.

If you play limit hold ‘em you should read this book. It may not be a revelation to the best of the higher stakes and shorthanded player base, but the majority of readers will find much in it that will help their games. Most importantly this book is the first to address the very different nature of current limit hold ‘em games and the authors have made a very worthy addition to the body of poker knowledge.

deacsoft 04-09-2007 03:48 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
I saw the original... thanks for re-posting it. I'm sure many will find it helpful. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

jfk 04-09-2007 09:30 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
A couple of additional thoughts:

I've had some PMs and such asking about the value of the book for NL games. While any good limit hold 'em book may provide information that can be applied to NL cash games, there's no particular reason for a NL player to get this book.

Some have asked about the winrate information. The authors draw their data from three separate databases.

The first group of data is that of a high stakes shorthanded player with 300K+ hands at levels between 50/100 and 500/1000. His winrate is .73BB/100

The second set of hands is drawn from a mid-stakes shorthanded player who draws from 430K hands from levels between 10/20 and 100/200 and shows a winrate of .04BB/100.

The third set of hands is drawn from a mid-stakes full ring player who has just short of 700K hands at limits between 10/20 and 100/200 and wins at a .55BB/100.

There's been some disappointment voiced about the perception that these are relatively modest winrates which doesn't seem to be a reasonable criticism. Even at .04BB/100 such a player may be be in the top 10% of players in those games (and these number may not include rakeback which could be significant portion of such a player's earn). These are tough games played against other tough players. Any winrate should garner a degree of admiration.

The review above may not have stressed enough the degree to which this is a post-flop oriented book. The authors provide a starting hand chart based on position and recommend that players follow it by rote. The authors feel that breadth of the starting hands is such that following the recommendations exactly will not be able to be exploited due to predictability. Being that nearly 30% of hands are being played from the cutoff and 40% from the button, this argument has merit.

There is a lot less of the full ring oriented concern about domination. There is a great emphasis placed on semi-bluffing, especially with good draws. There are a lot of very aggressive turn raise and 3 bet semi-bluffs described, raising for a free showdown and calling down with any pair. There's passive play and aggressive play. A great theme of the book is balance and the weighing of contradictory principles. There is a great deal of subtlety in the advice.

This is not a book about "Krushing" games. The authors' default assumption is that these opponents are talented and formidable. There's an emphasis on game selection, on bankroll conservatism and on always being at one's best when playing. The authors recommend a 1000BB bankroll for playing these tough games. That's a significant departure from Mason Malmuth's "Gambling Theory" and another indication how different, more difficult the games are today versus a few years ago.

This is not a book to replace King Yao or SSHE or HEFAP. Those books are still going to be more applicable to a typical live 20/40 game. WTHEG is a book which describes a different incarnation of limit hold 'em though one that is becoming increasingly common and familiar to those who have moved up the ladder in online play.

bbbushu 04-09-2007 11:19 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
very thorough review

thanks
bbbushu

TylerD 04-10-2007 05:08 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
Thanks.

stigmata 04-11-2007 03:30 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
Great review, tyvm.

MicroBob 04-11-2007 03:36 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
outstanding stuff. thanks.

my copy is on its way and I'm very much looking forward to it.

shymijo2love4 04-11-2007 03:41 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
so in other words are you say limit online play is alot tougher then live play.

Gelford 04-11-2007 04:01 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]
so in other words are you say limit online play is alot tougher then live play.

[/ QUOTE ]


Heh .... oh yeah ... tenfold [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

shymijo2love4 04-11-2007 04:15 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
is that because online players see alot more hands total then live players?

Gelford 04-11-2007 04:20 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
And because you can multitable, so there is there big'ish money to be made playing lots of tables at small'ish stakes.

Piers 04-11-2007 07:52 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
It is quite disjointed in places. With the same subject being covered in different places, with no cross-reference and sometimes with differing advice. Almost as if different parts of the book might have been written by different people, who have had the same rough ideas but have not matched their thoughts together exactly. Its not a problem to a sufficiently sophisticated reader, but will confuse many others (no objections to that [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

The authors seem to take three approaches to giving pre flop ranges. Empirical evidence, hot and cold equity simulations and making an intelligent guess based on everything else. Which can in principle give three different answers, not really a problem I guess.

Interesting point about ducks.

Open fold 22 in the small blind page 69. Open raise 22 in button and cut off page 12. Don’t know, maybe they are correct.

Overall, it has overtaken SSH and HOH as the book I most wish had not been published.

malorum 04-12-2007 10:05 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]

Open fold 22 in the small blind page 69. Open raise 22 in button and cut off page 12. Don’t know, maybe they are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's about how cheaply you can get to the river against the BB when your probably ahead. I can think of a few lines against some BB players that would make 22 hard to play out of position.

I'm not saying Stox is right here but there is food for thought in this advice.

I'm working on a HU lines to the river guide (there is no BCO for poker yet), don't think I'll publish it tho.

malorum 04-12-2007 10:30 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]


1: The first group of data is that of a high stakes shorthanded player with 300K+ hands at levels between 50/100 and 500/1000. His winrate is .73BB/100


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a very broad range of limits. I'm not sure how meaningful the winrate is with such a mix of limits.
I'd be asking how many hands at which limits, and how shorthanded.

[ QUOTE ]

2: The second set of hands is drawn from a mid-stakes shorthanded player who draws from 430K hands from levels between 10/20 and 100/200 and shows a winrate of .04BB/100.


[/ QUOTE ]
Again the range is over a factor of 10.

so its like a low limit player mixing his results for 1/2 2/4 3/6 5/10 and 10/20.
That said 0.04BB is not a good win-rate shorthanded (6 max)
6max rates in excess of 1BB/100 are acheivable in low and middle limit, and if you play much shorter you can do much much better than this, but only if you select your opponents carefully.
I would rather make 0.5BB/100 at 5/10 than 0.04 at 50/100


[ QUOTE ]


The third set of hands is drawn from a mid-stakes full ring player who has just short of 700K hands at limits between 10/20 and 100/200 and wins at a .55BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Player distributions and therefore game texture change dramatically at certain limits depending on the site and bonus/rakeback structures.

For example 3/6 and 5/10 games may play very differently to 1/2 and 2/4 and 10/20 through 20/40 tends to confront you with tougher tricky players, 30/60 again often plays very differently.

I remember using stat king many years ago and the picture of sklansky warning you not to mix your limit results......

malorum 04-12-2007 10:33 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]
Overall, it has overtaken SSH and HOH as the book I most wish had not been published.

[/ QUOTE ]

stoxtrader 04-12-2007 02:23 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
I'm not going to comment on the winrates too much because it's not worth a big discussion, but I will say this. It is my opinion that if the winrates were higher OR lower, the text/conclusions/analysis would not suffer in either case. Our biggest internal worry was sample size, NOT winrate total.

I guess it's human nature to talk about money/winrates, but for our purposes with the text, higher winrate did not mean better book. I'm curious if anyone disagrees, and if so, why.

Heisenb3rg 04-12-2007 02:56 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to comment on the winrates too much because it's not worth a big discussion, but I will say this. It is my opinion that if the winrates were higher OR lower, the text/conclusions/analysis would not suffer in either case. Our biggest internal worry was sample size, NOT winrate total.

I guess it's human nature to talk about money/winrates, but for our purposes with the text, higher winrate did not mean better book. I'm curious if anyone disagrees, and if so, why.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with the usefulness of the advice itself.

It has to do with the psychology of the reader understanding the advice. Shaping the lens at which they view your material.

People expect solid advice from a solid pro.

If you've proven that by implementing your ideas, you've achieved some sick win rate. People are going to open their mind as wide as possible to these "winning" ideas.

For example It's not common to disagree with something you read in the poker book using a limited/flawed perspective.

If the author who proposed the idea skills were under question, a reader disagreeing with this idea can then assume that the author is just incorrect. Learning little in the process. If they respected the authors word, they are more likely to think harder about the idea. Therefore, they learn more, therefore, the book is more useful.

However, It is a double edged sword . If people never stop to fully understand a concept, but rather mimick it because they respsect the person too much.. This is bad too.

I think the first situation comes up a lot more than the second in poker books, especially given the whole everyone thinks they're better than they really are mentality. There's also a high correlation between poker players and narcissim.

This is just human nature, it's especially true in the sciences. If you've had an idea for a while and einstein came along and told you , you were wrong as well as gave you a complex argument.. How likely would you rethink your idea? If a homeless dude came along and gave you the same argument, would you give it as much merrit?
Assuming of couse you didn't fully understand what they were saying at first.

fraac 04-12-2007 03:06 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
Or people will be suss to hype and more trustful of downplayed stats. Next level, innit. I really don't think the book will have a problem on this score.

[ QUOTE ]
If people never stop to fully understand a concept, but rather mimick it because they respsect the person too much.. This is bad too.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this bad? There is evidence that in many fields, this exact strategy is very successful.

stoxtrader 04-12-2007 09:24 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]
Or people will be suss to hype and more trustful of downplayed stats. Next level, innit. I really don't think the book will have a problem on this score.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

let's just say that if I thought it added value to the book there could have been additional stats I assume people would find impressive.

malorum 04-13-2007 07:39 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
Yup I wasn't knocking the usefulness of the book with regard to the win rates. Unfortunately I think the advice given in the book is sound.
I was questioning the usefulness of the set of win rates included, given the broad range of data included.

I'm always interested in win-rates as they reflect the ever changing nature of the game. For example my own win-rates seem to be inversely proportional to the number of players at the table, and I suspect this is the same for many short handed players.

PokerHorse 04-13-2007 12:57 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
I remember a post along time ago about win rates in higher games that Sklansky posted. It was for B&M games, but I dont see why it should be any different online.

When I first posted regarding this book I had only read about a third. i said i felt it would help lower limit players. I feel less inclined too make that statement as I
believe that at levels 1-2/ -3-6 too many players just call down or just keep raising without regard to the board or whats already happened in the hand being played.
That being said, i think its a very good book.
good luck

Piers 04-13-2007 01:59 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
The win rates appear to be used as a method to estimate hand values, as such all that is necessary is that they be representative of the books target readership (after reading the book). The place to brag about win rates would be the back cover.

stoxtrader 04-13-2007 08:15 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]
The win rates appear to be used as a method to estimate hand values, as such all that is necessary is that they be representative of the books target readership (after reading the book). The place to brag about win rates would be the back cover.

[/ QUOTE ]

we basically made a choice not to do this.

*TT* 04-14-2007 06:48 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
Stox - Hand #5. Please explain the flop peel, I don't get it. If you had the A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] then it would make sense to me.

Gildwulf 04-14-2007 07:20 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]
outstanding stuff. thanks.

my copy is on its way and I'm very much looking forward to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

ThunderEagle 04-14-2007 11:03 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
I'm about half way through. While I'm a low limit player, I've struggled with games that were not insanely loose.

If anything this seems to have ratched up the agression factor, and looks to be a bit more LAGish play vs. the TAG play that seems to most often be discussed. I'm glad to have some space dedicated to Blind Defense and Blind vs. Blind wars, especially for the 6 max games that dominate today.

While this may be targeted to higher games, I think it gives some good insight into adjusting for conditions.

6471849653 04-15-2007 11:45 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]
Open fold 22 in the small blind page 69. Open raise 22 in button and cut off page 12. Don’t know, maybe they are correct.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's about how cheaply you can get to the river against the BB when your probably ahead. I can think of a few lines against some BB players that would make 22 hard to play out of position.

I'm not saying Stox is right here but there is food for thought in this advice.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I have ever seen a(n average) reason to open-raise 22 from one of the button. The same goes for not playing 22 when opening on the small blind. The reasons I have looked into are at least real life stats (including bad players) from Pokerroom, simulations, reasoning (including pot and implied odds, position, opponent type, and that I don't too much believe in reasoning) and showdown poker (22 is at the level of K2 [that one could fold in a real life game without position], also scoring about 50%, as showdown poker, but according to stats and simulations, in a real life game or not, 22 is the better hand).

7n7 04-15-2007 01:45 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
Has anybody else out there put this back down for a little while? I started reading it and then realized that until I get a little more familiar with short-handed limit HE, it would be wiser to shelve this book for a little while.

I know there are some concepts that could certainly help at my level, however, I know that one of my "learning leaks" is that I initially seem to try and implement author's advice in the wrong situations. I'm working on it, but old habits die hard.

Victor 04-15-2007 06:42 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
im really surprised about folding 22 in the sb.

im looking forward to this book as stats fascinate me.

malorum, i dont see why mixing limits should matter unless you are concerned with how much actual money the player is making. otherwise, its still a great indicator of if the player is "beating the game"

Piers 04-15-2007 08:35 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
They also recommends open raising 22 in the small blind page 90, Consistent with my comment about inconsistent advice.

The page 69 folding 22 advice is really quoting their empirical evidence, the page 90 raising advice appears to be them guessing.

stoxtrader 04-16-2007 01:45 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]
They also recommends open raising 22 in the small blind page 90, Consistent with my comment about inconsistent advice.

The page 69 folding 22 advice is really quoting their empirical evidence, the page 90 raising advice appears to be them guessing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see three reasons for these types of "mistakes".

1. We used different methods in different parts of the book and thus there should be some contradictions, being able to superimpose or "cross-mesh" methods should act as a bit of a fact-checker or error finder but there would be situations that contradict on the margin.

2. Too my knowledge nobody else has attempted to find the marginal spots at which +EV becomes 0EV becomes -EV, at least to the degree in which we have. This is a very difficult task and I would EXPECT ome of the 0EV (or very very maringal +EV/-EV) spots to be hotly debated. This might then mean that we found the inflection point, which is the whole point anyways.

For instance, If you can say with relative certainty that open raising JTs 3 off the button in higher stakes games is a winner and that J8s is a loser, then I think you have accomplished alot. determing about J9s is going to be both more difficult AND less additive to your profit because if you get it wrong on either side it is a smaller mistake than the other two. You can also attempt to see what other factors influence this decision and use those to determine the correct action at that moment in time for the marginal spots.

3. We did in fact make an error, but aside from the flush draw hand (hand 25 i believe), I think most of our "errors" or explainable/marginal. I am making an excuse here, but I tabulated the data and worked on the charts and there were a lot of marginal decisions. By the end my eyes were a bit crosseyed and I was pretty sick of filtering 300-600k hand PT databases.

stoxtrader 04-16-2007 01:47 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]
Stox - Hand #5. Please explain the flop peel, I don't get it. If you had the A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] then it would make sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's certainly close, but I remember looking at this briefly yesterday and thinking I couldnt explain it any better than I attempted to do in the book. The paragraph starts something like "the flop peel is certainly close/marginal"

Micturition Man 04-16-2007 02:21 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
I have not read the book but I find it interesting (though not surprising) that your empirical study of preflop EV seems to fit very closey the results of Turbo Texas Hold 'Em sims.

Or so it sounds just from the hands that have been mentioned in this thread.

uDevil 04-16-2007 02:29 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
Hi stox,

Just got my copy and I think it will be very valuable, so thank you!

*awkward transition*

How will you be handling errata?

On page 89 you state that the "folds BB to a steal HU" stat in PokerTracker does not include steal raises from the CO or button. Maybe my copy of PT is defective, but those steals are included. Would this affect your advice in that section?

stoxtrader 04-16-2007 02:39 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]
Hi stox,

Just got my copy and I think it will be very valuable, so thank you!

*awkward transition*

How will you be handling errata?

On page 89 you state that the "folds BB to a steal HU" stat in PokerTracker does not include steal raises from the CO or button. Maybe my copy of PT is defective, but those steals are included. Would this affect your advice in that section?

[/ QUOTE ]

it has been my understanding that the pokertracker help files incorrectly state that non-SB raises are included but the actual number includes only SB opens.

fraac 04-16-2007 02:49 AM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
For how long do you think the book will be useful, based on how quickly the game has changed since you've known it?

ThunderEagle 04-16-2007 12:02 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]
For how long do you think the book will be useful, based on how quickly the game has changed since you've known it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to not look at it as being useful in this current time period, but look at it as a strategy to use at certain types of tables in certain types of situations.

This is all my opinion, so could be very wrong.

This is for use against tight agressive opponents that like to toss non premium hands faced with a raise, and who will give up to heavy agression. I believe a calling station will wreck you using this strategy. The point is to get a pot heads up (if you don't steal out right) and then make a read on your opponent to put him on a range.

Small Stakes hold'em will alway be useful for loose, passive games, and opponents. This book will always be useful for tight, agressive opponents.

uDevil 04-16-2007 01:11 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi stox,

Just got my copy and I think it will be very valuable, so thank you!

*awkward transition*

How will you be handling errata?

On page 89 you state that the "folds BB to a steal HU" stat in PokerTracker does not include steal raises from the CO or button. Maybe my copy of PT is defective, but those steals are included. Would this affect your advice in that section?

[/ QUOTE ]

it has been my understanding that the pokertracker help files incorrectly state that non-SB raises are included but the actual number includes only SB opens.

[/ QUOTE ]

As great as PT may be, it has some problems. Try this:

General Info tab, "Known Starting Hands" section -> Filters... -> "Steal Attempted Against Your Blind" section, select "Steal Attempted & Folded Heads Up"; click OK.

You can verify that the totals row at the bottom of the "Known Starting Hands" section now shows the same number given in the "More Detail..." window for number of times folded BB to a steal HU.

Now in the "Known Starting Hands" section, click on the row for a hand like 43o (say). Then click on the 'r' button in the section below "Known Starting Hands" to replay hands where you folded 43o to a steal. For me, this includes hands where a steal was attempted by the CO or button.

stoxtrader 04-16-2007 01:27 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
I agree that filtering process includes CO/button opens but I'm not sure that applies to the stat in the more detail section of the general tab. is it one and the same?

to answer your question, if our PT related statement is an error, it does NOT change any of the advice in the section, simply means that you cannot access that information via current PT filtering.

uDevil 04-16-2007 03:17 PM

Re: Review: Winning in Tough Hold \'em Games by Stox/Zobags
 
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that filtering process includes CO/button opens but I'm not sure that applies to the stat in the more detail section of the general tab. is it one and the same?


[/ QUOTE ]
The number is the same, so I'd say yes.

[ QUOTE ]
to answer your question, if our PT related statement is an error, it does NOT change any of the advice in the section, simply means that you cannot access that information via current PT filtering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.