Re: Player Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
Both, however, are very good at math and poker theory. I imagine the book will be written in a way that focuses on NL topics that take advantage of those strengths.
[/ QUOTE ]
That would be a very poor book, IMO.
Take, for example, the ridiculous example being given here by Mason. He wants to turn this into a math problem. Like XX% of the time an A or Q will flop, and the AQ will check call the 3/4 pot continuation bet, etc.
This is not limit poker, and that kind of simplicity (trying to turn this into a math problem, with all significant decisions ending when an A or Q flops) will only cause beginning players to horribly misplay their hands.
Remember, the opponent is aggressive enough to be reraising an EP raiser with JJ. And aggressive enough for us to be calling this reraise with just AQs. This means the post flop action might be a little more complicated then check-bet-call, check-check, check-check. This is not a mere math problem.
As for the people who claim there is "piling on" occurring here because it is Mason who posted this - I couldn't disagree more. If anyone outside of a certain select few had posted this, they would have gotten ripped a lot harder.
|