[jacksup]

[ 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.