*Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

Hi Guys,

I know there is also a review thread in B/P forum, but I thought detailed discussion of hands/analysis would be more appropriate for this forum rather than the more general comments suited to the books forum.

And hopefully our first entrant will be none other than STTF's own Slim Pickens, who has promised to discuss
"...jerkish know-it-all SNG players coming down from on high and providing answers defended with incomplete qualitative logical arguments..." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Let the fun begin.

Best Regards,
Collin

SnG Book Review, Part 1: Low-Blind Play
 

Part 1: Low Blind Play

Tournament equity is about the only thing this part needs to cover, and it does this well. The rest of it has a lot of good ideas and some debatable ones, and I feel people will want to argue a lot about them. There’s not much point in arguing whether KK should be limped or raised UTG at a 9-handed table given a few vague early-game reads. Even though we could argue indefinitely about it, it’s not terribly important to a new SNG player’s understanding of SNG play. As long as people understand how important tournament equity considerations are even in the early game, argue all you want.

I’m personally not so much into mid suited connectors as speculative hands in low buy-in SNGs, mostly because attempting to semi-bluff a strong draw into players who can’t fold TPnK is really just an easy was of getting all-in as a 40/60 underdog, but I also think a wide variety of early-game play is acceptable as long as it’s qualified with “know your opponents, know your reads, and don’t suck at 50-100 BB poker.”

SnG Book Review, Part 2: Mid-Blind Play
 

Part 2: Mid Blind Play

The section on re-stealing was full of really marginal examples presented as obvious black-and-white decisions. I went through one (Hand 2-32) with PokerStove and an ICM spreadsheet and watched the numbers jump all over the place as I changed people's ranges slightly. There were definitely sensible ranges that could justify either pushing or folding in the example I worked out and his advice was basically just "obvious push since there are a lot of chips in there." My feeling is that one could uncover some pretty glaring inconsistencies by assuming the same opponent description in one hand implies a certain range that then makes another hand not work when the same ranges are applied. In other words, I think he has similar players doing something like limp-calling with vastly different fractions of their ranges in order to make all the decisions he's advocating look clear. This is just my suspicion and I haven't tried to put hard numbers into more than one example yet. DevinLake went through two other hands and found pretty much the same thing.

link

His postflop advice ranges from OK to disastrous, and most of the time he explains his reasoning for a play, it's wrong. A number of times he came up with the right play, it was for some very wrong reasons. I feel like I could make a solid living off the chips he wants people to waste bet/folding flops. Hand 2-4 is pretty bad.

I was disappointed the ICM section didn't go much of anywhere. I was hoping for some really clear examples of how obvious +cEV plays can be -$EV and how the payout structure affects this. Maybe it will show up later in the book, but it does surprise me that an author with such a solid background in mathematical theory wouldn't do much explaining of ICM from a theoretical standpoint, since in my experience most theoreticians can't shut up about various theories and how they think they can expand and improve them. Anyway, the stuff that is there is plenty good for the scope of the book.

SnG Book Review, Part 3: High-Blind Play
 

Part 3: High-Blind Play

This is easily the most important section of the book, as this is the stage of a STT at which it is least like any other tournament or cash game format. Anyone with even a tenuous grasp on a winning STT game knows prize pool equity trumps chip equity so often that discussing decisions in terms of chip equity can't be effective at determining correct plays. Independent Chip Model (ICM) prize pool equity calculations have passed many rigorous theoretical and practical examinations and have proven sufficiently accurate in the overwhelming majority of high-blind STT situations. ICM modeling is introduced in Part 2 and is covered sufficiently for a beginning player to grasp. Therefore, I’m quite surprised that prize pool equity is largely ignored in Part 3, and when it is applied, it is often applied in a very hand-wavy, qualitative manner nothing like the simple, methodical calculations most good STT players perform on a regular basis.

The Fundamental Theorem of Sit ‘n Go High Blind Play is really more of a good general principle that follows from correct mathematical play. It is too general of a statement. There will be so many “exceptions” that if this “Fundamental Theorem” is taken as such it would cease to look very fundamental at all. There exists a very simple approach to solving high-blind STT problems. The author very obviously knows it well and applies it to a number of his example hands. What I don’t understand is

a) Why this problem-solving methodology isn’t the singular focus of Part 3 until it is fully explained and
b) Why chip equity even shows up at all outside of a comparison to highlight the differences that can arise between it and tournament prize pool equity.

I need to form an argument to debate some of the author’s conclusions in his hand examples, but this is extremely difficult. What I want to argue about is the hand ranges, but the way the material has been presented, it isn’t clear to the reader that opponents’ hand ranges are a critical parameter.


Understanding and executing correct play during the high-blind sections of STTs at the highest levels consists of four steps.

<ul type="square">[*]1) Understanding how to execute push/fold/call calculations given the input parameters of chip stacks, prize payouts and hand ranges, and a good prize pool equity model. This is basic STT mathematical mechanics and is very similar to what is considered basic and essential knowledge in every other poker format.[*]2) How to determine reasonable hand ranges given any information about opponents. This is the “poker” and “feel” element unique to STTs that non-STT players usually lack and it is crucial for an introductory STT text to cover it.[*]3) The sensitivity of the results to changes in a players hand, his opponents’ hand ranges, and the chip stacks at the table, as well as the limitations of ICM equity modeling and cases requiring special treatment. This is usually what separates the winning high-limit players from the break-even mid-limit players, at least it does today… maybe not two years ago, and might be beyond the intended scope of this book.[*]4) How to alter all parameters except the exact hands dealt to players in real time. This is what separates the good high-limit players from the absolute best (and usually highest-limit) players, and would be well beyond the scope of an introductory text.[/list]
All of Step 1 is in there somewhere. It’s not central to most of the section, but it’s in there. Step 2 is also included, although usually much more qualitative and mushy. Also, it is not demonstrated how critically-important this step is. I doubt Collin needed to get Step 3 to think he knew enough to write an SNG book. He probably gets it himself, but it’s not covered except for a few isolated examples that should be pretty obvious to decent players. Anyone who knows anything about Step 4 won’t share. I’ll leave it at that.

So OK, I think I can reconstruct good high-blind SNG play from the information presented, but so what? I already know how to it. It’s my opinion that a decent poker player new to SNGs would learn something somewhere near proper strategy from reading the Part 3, but would be utterly helpless as to explain why any of lol donkament-looking plays are correct. He would also be utterly helpless against changing game conditions; perhaps changes that have taken place since the book’s author last played SNGs seriously. Without a Crystal Pepsi-clear understanding of the methodology behind these plays, a player will be completely lost.

The implicit collusion and micro-stack sections are decent, although I think it all makes much more sense as a variation on the same calculation we should have already done forty times by the time we get to these sections. The examples really aren't that elucidating, as I think most players could guess the correct play without really knowing or caring why.

The heads-up section, all the preflop stuff should be really simple using our methodology. The instruction needs to focus on a discussion of hand ranges, unexploitable play, and profitable variations from unexploitable play. I don’t like many of his post-flop lines. Hand 3-55 is an example of what I think is a really bad logical flaw that shows up in a lot of the example hands.

Re: SnG Book Review, Part 3: High-Blind Play
 

Huge thanks to Slim on behalf of the forum.

Slim, any overall summary, or recommendation for which type of people should buy this book?

Re: SnG Book Review, Part 3: High-Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Huge thanks to Slim on behalf of the forum.

Slim, any overall summary, or recommendation for which type of people should buy this book?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seconded, your reviews and discussion are much appreciated. I too would like to know what level of player you'd recommend this book to. For someone who is at the $6.50/$16 level, I'd hate to read the book only to have an incorrect understanding of some key fundamentals.

Re: SnG Book Review, Part 3: High-Blind Play
 

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] slim.

v thorough review, well done

Re: SnG Book Review, Part 3: High-Blind Play
 

Is this book worth the time to read or is the type of book that will lead you down the wrong path?

SnG Book Review, Part 4: Sit \'n Go Career Play
 

Part 4: Sit 'n Go Career Play

This concluding section of the book is excellent. I recommend it highly for anyone looking to get started playing SNGs. Pretty much everything he says is spot on. In particular, bankroll management is something that's often discussed and his take on it really should be made the default advice for new players.

The only weakness to this section is that it was obviously written for Party Poker v2.0 (before the US blackout but after dropping Empire, Eurbet, et. al.) and this causes some of the sub-sections to be much less relevant to today's game conditions than they would be to game conditions of a few years ago. For example, Stars and Full Tilt platforms don't allow for seat selection, so table selection can only be based off of the list of players registered. There is also one example that assumes a player can see a blind-level clock and that blind levels go from 100/200 to 200/400. Structures and visible information are not consistent site-to-site and it's important for players to understand what changes in structure do to the game so they can make the proper adjustments.

The only other minor beef I have with the section is in the multitabling sub-section, he advises "multi-tasking," meaning mixing online poker formats, reading, eating, and pretty much OK's anything you feel like doing with only one hand occupied on the mouse. I think this is a poor approach for a beginning serious SNG player, who should be focusing 100% of his attention on the current game(s).

Anyway... very good show overall on Part 4. The book might be worth buying just for this section as a SNG philosophical primer.

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

Appendices

Appendices A, C, D, and E are all good stuff to put in there. It’s widely available but I’m never opposed to a well-collected resource.

Appendix B seems to have enough typographical errors I don’t want to get too involved in it until I’m sure we’re not having some sort of failure to communicate. Charts are OK in general when they’re used to illustrate concepts. Anyone trying to play from a chart is going to get squished at higher levels and be only marginally profitable at lower ones.

Appendix F: Consecutive Hands Starting as the Bubble Short Stack

It bugs me that the stacks don’t always add up to the same amount. Maybe it’s just me being a nit, but it seems a little too careless for a finished product, especially when a lot of the decisions might be very sensitive to stack size. It’s also annoying to have the stacks posted minus any blinds, but whatever. It’s made pretty clear what’s going on.

I’m going to use SNGPT with the minimum edge set to 0.3%. That’s a little less than most people use so it will slant toward wider pushing and calling ranges. To me, that seems more appropriate for the stated buy-in level. I’d tend to raise the minimum edge at a lower buy-in.

Hand 1: fine

Hand 2: This isn’t even close to an any-two-cards (ATC) push from UTG at 200/400/A25 and another shortish stack around. With a “tight-aggressive regular” on the BB, if he’s got any skill at all in a &gt;$100 buy-in SNG he’s calling fairly wide here, especially if he’s ever seen you push wide. If I put Button on {44+,A7s+,A9o+,KJs+}, SB on {66+,ATs+,AJo+}, and BB on {44+,A7s+,A9o+,KJs+} also, the proper pushing range is less than the top 50% of hands, and those ranges are way too tight for players who any shred of a clue. As opponents’ calling ranges get wider, the correct pushing range gets tighter. I do agree that AJo is a very obvious pushing hand.

Hands 3-5 are fine.

Hand 6 is fine, but I think it confirms what I said about the ranges in our previous UTG hand, Hand 2. If Hand 2 is an ATC push then Hand 6 is too. I agree Hand 6 is a sort of “decent hand that doesn’t need to be much” push spot. If I use the same ranges as Hand 2, I get a 14.5% push range back. That also seems to confirm that the ranges I selected in Hand 2 are too tight.

Hands 7-10 are fine.

Hand 11 is so not even close it’s not worthy of discussion it gets. Also, lol@cEV.

Hand 12 is fine.

Hand 13 is an interesting one. I’m not so convinced T3o is a fold. It really depends on how much SB’s calling range will tighten up as Hero’s stack gets larger. Especially with the read on BB as being very tight on the bubble, I’m not so quick to muck T3o. With SB on {66+,AJs+,AQo+} and BB on {22+,A9s+,ATo+,KJs+,KQo}, T3o is a +0.8% push.

Hand 14 is fine.

Hand 15: I agree with the read that Button is pushing wide enough to make K8o a call and that would be an excellent hand to demonstrate a +$EV all-in bubble call.

Hand 16 is sensitive to Button’s pushing range, but I agree over-pushing K9s is correct.

Hand 17: Q3s is close enough to unexploitable, if it’s exploitable at all, that pushing here is absolutely the correct play.

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

Whoa when did this happen?

(Former STT grinder who forgot how to play for profit and now donates in 109s and 215s when not trying to go broke in NLHE 6-max)

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

Can you post hand 11?

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can you post hand 11?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a really obvious -$EV call that the author shows to be -ceV, so, like, duh.

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

I just read part 1, and i would hope that a person who reads it would learn why not to do this:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=0#Post11494954

Seriously, I've seen stuff like that in this forum for years. Now we can point them to this book instead of the FAQ.

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

I just got the book today. I've read Part 1 and I agree with Slim.

I think he covers the equity and preflop play well.

Personally I think you can call 2x and 3xBB raises from EP raises with pocket pairs. I believe Collin suggestion is to fold them to raises.

His discussion on post flop play is basically a manual on staying out of trouble. It is well done, and well suited to someone starting into sngs.

I disagree with some of the post flop analysis, but it's nothing that detracts from the quality of part 1.

So far, so good.

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

Could you post the name of this book?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

[ QUOTE ]
Could you post the name of this book?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sit 'n Go Strategy: Expert Advice for Beating One-Table Poker Tournaments.

Re: SnG Book Review, Part 3: High-Blind Play
 

Over all what grade does this book get? B or C?

Re: SnG Book Review, Part 3: High-Blind Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Over all what grade does this book get? B or C?

[/ QUOTE ]

don't forget about the greens, rhinos and commies.

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could you post the name of this book?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sit 'n Go Strategy: Expert Advice for Beating One-Table Poker Tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

Cakewalk, did you steal Bengiec's avatar? Even if you didn't, you should give it back to the Benmeister, he's had it for a long time.

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

thanks a lot Slim for this book review

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

thx slim

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

ok, I've been playing $3 SNGs and will soon be bankrolled to move to $6: snap question - should I buy this book???
if yes, where do I buy it from??

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

ledders, from what I have gathered about this book it would be PERFECT for someone at your level. I think you can find it on amazon

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

[ QUOTE ]
ledders, from what I have gathered about this book it would be PERFECT for someone at your level. I think you can find it on amazon

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks, will order it right away

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

thanks slim

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

Just wanted to thank Slim for his review efforts. I hope other experienced SnG players weigh in as well. Always helpful to read expert opinion and analysis, especially when this is the first book directed at this topic.

Despite some flaws, looks like the book is still beneficial to SnG novices like myself.

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

read low blind chapter
1. don't like hands 1-2 dude it's awful limp kk imo
2.hand 1-18 you bet in the pot when 3 players act yet with draw , man it's bad i think , you put 1/5 of your stack without hand , it's normal in cash or mtt when stack 100bb but not in sng .
3. very debatable you though about speculative hands .
you say that i need to play from mid position hands like a4s and 56s. i dont think that it's profitable hands from this position . And definitally novice never be play this hand correctly . and else if i add 2 tables instead of playing you speculative hands it will be more profitable imo.In overall the chapter not bad .

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

Hi Guys,

First, let me admit that I was expecting Slim Pickens not to give my book a fair shot and review negatively independent of content. I apologize for what was clearly a false assumption.

Now let me respond to a couple of points.

1. I think the ICM treatment is indeed thorough. I derive the model for 3 players in Part II (so that even those without a significant math background can understand where ICM comes from), and then give a multi-page example of its applications as the central hand analysis in the Bubble section.

References to push/fold equity-maximizing decisions are ICM-based as a default since we are concerned exclusively with tournament equity (dollars) rather than chip expectation – a theme throughout the book.

2. Rereading the text, I admit that Slim and Devin make a legitimate point that the results of certain problems are stated in an overly black-and-white fashion. That is, using standard push, fold, recall, (etc.) ranges, the play is correct, but revising these player assumptions allow for reasonable alternative plays. I should have stated this more clearly in the text.

3. Slim has a solid list of criteria for becoming a consistently winning SNG player. (I would, however, like an example of the 4th -- "altering a parameter" -- to make sure everyone’s on the same page.) Of the remaining three, the first two are explicitly in the text, but the third appears as well.

[ QUOTE ]
3) The sensitivity of the results to changes in a players hand, his opponents’ hand ranges, and the chip stacks at the table, as well as the limitations of ICM equity modeling and cases requiring special treatment. This is usually what separates the winning high-limit players from the break-even mid-limit players, at least it does today…

[/ QUOTE ]

With this in mind, let’s revisit Hand #2 of the consecutive bubble hands in Appendix F. (Note, BTW, that there is indeed a typo here; Hero’s stack is actually t1730 rather than t1970 after the Hand #1 steal. Sorry for any confusion.) I contend that this is an example of a hand that requires acknowledging the limitations of ICM.

Shoving here is indeed -Equity, as Slim points out. Yet ICM does not take position into account, and if you fold here, you forfeit stealing fold equity when the t200-t400 blinds hit you next hand. You should not allow yourself to get blinded out, particularly during high-blind bubble play when having a non-negligible stack allows you the best opportunity to accumulate chips in the entire game. Also, when you do fold here, you have basically resigned yourself to a battle for 3rd, which is very rarely optimal strategy (the possible exception being when the other short stack is miniscule). So despite a program like Wizard telling you to not to push ATC, I believe the shove is correct when you factor in the non-ICM parameter of blinds crippling you next hand.

Alright, thanks sincerely to Slim Pickens for his thorough and open-minded review, and I look forward to future reviews.

Best Regards,
Collin

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

Colin, Slim, SNGWizard now should support calculating the value of future steals. Would you please use the new program to answer this question decisively.
FWIW, I don't own that program.

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

[ QUOTE ]
Colin, Slim, SNGWizard now should support calculating the value of future steals. Would you please use the new program to answer this question decisively.
FWIW, I don't own that program.

[/ QUOTE ]

The way SNG-W implements future actions is very flawed to a degree of it being utter useless. Just a fair warning for everyone who regards this new feature in SNG-W as stellar.

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

[ QUOTE ]
The way SNG-W implements future actions is very flawed to a degree of it being utter useless. Just a fair warning for everyone who regards this new feature in SNG-W as stellar.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have my attention. Would you care to elaborate?

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

This is becoming a bit OT, but...

Software that takes non-ICM factors into account -- such as a miniscule-stack potentially busting out if you decline a +EV shove, or the blinds crippling you if you don't make a -EV UTG shove -- is the future of ICM programs, IMO. Wizard's Future Game Simulator is far from perfect at this point (and I doubt the Wiz guys would dispute this), but it represents a crucial first step toward push/fold/call software that goes beyond the limitations of ICM.

-- Collin

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

I'm very skeptical as to whether a software program can make ev calculations like the ones you're talking about Collin. There are so many variables that go into that kind of decision...

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is becoming a bit OT, but...

Software that takes non-ICM factors into account -- such as a miniscule-stack potentially busting out if you decline a +EV shove, or the blinds crippling you if you don't make a -EV UTG shove -- is the future of ICM programs, IMO. Wizard's Future Game Simulator is far from perfect at this point (and I doubt the Wiz guys would dispute this), but it represents a crucial first step toward push/fold/call software that goes beyond the limitations of ICM.

-- Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I won't elaborate further in here onto the shortcomings of the feature, as I don't want to clutter this thread. I will however send a mail to the SNG-W support as soon as I have the time to write it.

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

my review , dont be tell about standart thing ,say only about new features that collin suggest .
1. his theorem about don't be blind out . In a theory it sounds great but in a real table i always get call and be dominated of course every time ... this theorem is awful , and it will be good if table very tight .But it's impossible . I think it will be better call with a trash from bb .
2. Resteal , dude when i try to resteal i 90% get called and busted of course . it's a very tough do it correctly in sng without good notes .
3. speculative hands , i try , but dont notice that this hand so profitable. What you think gyus about this hands ?
I spend 5 days for read this f* ucking book and loose today 1000$ in 55$ sng . Nice work collin I play by your strategy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ,
in overall it's not a bad book but all new features that collin suggest is awful and doesnt work now .

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

pokerman777 so you think you can read a book once and be a pro at it? Can i suggest that you buy into lower stakes maybe $10, to try the concepts in the book and then re read the book a few times before playing the stakes you mentioned. I think its foolish on your part actually. no one can read a book once and master the concepts.

On a footnote, i really wish Mason would clear things up about this book because so many STT players are giving it negative reviews. Im a new SNG player and i want to buy it but these negative reviews are holding me back. This is probably the worst response of any 2+2 book ever written, so it would be appreciated if Mason would explain why he approved this manuscript since he is so very picky on the material that he chooses under the 2+2 label.

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

[ QUOTE ]
pokerman777 so you think you can read a book once and be a pro at it?

[/ QUOTE ]
of course , i am not a novice in sng and most of thing that collin describe i know yet .
[ QUOTE ]
Can i suggest that you buy into lower stakes maybe $10, to try the concepts in the book and then re read the book a few times before playing the stakes you mentioned.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes you can , but people play differently at 10 and 55 buyin and if it will be work at 10$ i am guaranteed doesnt work at the higher buyin .
[ QUOTE ]
I think its foolish on your part actually. no one can read a book once and master the concepts.


[/ QUOTE ]
ok maybe i'm idiot and can't see this concept correctly , but i'm very doubt that people who never play sng imagine this concept better than me.
[ QUOTE ]
Im a new SNG player and i want to buy it but these negative reviews are holding me back

[/ QUOTE ]
say over it's not a bad book , and standart things as how to play buble , friends play , icm , etc he wrote good. But all new features that he provide don't work in a real table. [ QUOTE ]
Mason would explain why he approved this manuscript since he is so very picky on the material that he chooses under the 2+2 label.

[/ QUOTE ]
oh dude i can explain you it's a big money and no one yet write a book about sng ...

Re: *Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*
 

Just to reiterate, I think the book lays out a very good framework for a novice player to understand the mechanics of SNG play. There's a lot that's done well and I think it's worth the purchase price to a serious beginner.

I think you're missing the point of my criticism about Appendix F Hands 2 and 6. The players are the same, your position is the same, and the stacks are the same save for one BB+antes moving from BB's stack to yours. All the external factors have to be the same unless you can justify why the small change in stacks makes a large difference in folding equity or future scenarios. You give two very different explanations for your actions, coming to two very different conclusions. I think this is the best example of a logical flaw that permeates your book, and this is the best example.

Here is the flaw. A push/fold decision should be based on how profitable it is. You rarely show your readers how to quantify push/fold decisions. When you do show it, either you use cEV or employ ICM-based $EV only semi-quantitatively. Since you have a lot of experience playing, you usually intuit the correct answer, so it isn't often apparent to your readers how you arrived at it. I think it is very important to teach people how to evaluate late-game push/fold decisions fully quantitatively and this is what I believe the book lacks.