[acekingoffsuit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A shame.

I was hoping the people bashing this book would back their statements up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a passage (one of many) that made me cringe. He's just moved "over the rail" to a 15/30 game:

[ QUOTE ]

First hand. I shuffle then look: 10-7. One middle position calls. I raise my position. He calls. The dealer flops 4-3-Q with two spades. The guy checks. I bet. He folds. Nice start. I jot a mental note that the guy plays rather weakly. He should have bet into me on principle, especially to test the new player. I would have folded, although a reraise would have been an aggressive alternative


[/ QUOTE ]
I've highlighted the moronic parts in case you couldn't find them on your own.

This book reads like the generic drivel of a misguided 1/2 player's myspace blog. The author's heart's in the right place, but none of the hands are even very interesting and the analysis of play and poker concepts ranges from painfully bad to average-at-best.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for replying.

good, we have a meaty point of disagreement.

to call this "moronic", or "the drivel of a misguided 1/2 limit myspace blog" is simply not correct.

checking a 7-10 button post, then checking and folding the turn is the sound, basic play, BUT i believe the way he played it is FINE (and maybe better): he's on a blind steal + one other caller(not raiser)= weak field. There's a good chance the blinds will fold (typical blind stealing philosophy), also he's forced into this pot, so why not raise if you have to call anyway? OK it costs a bet, but what about the value of the initiative against a weak field? the flop looks threatening, the guy checks, so he follows through with a bet, and wins.

is this a guy who is an unintelligent player, or a guy who simply has an aggressive style?

He calls his opponent "weak": OK i think tis is too judgemental of the charachter, but there's truth to his statement. I think a better play might have been to bet into the main charachter. Remember, it's heads up here, odds are no one hit the flop, i would think it's +EV to bet into the button, as you'd have to expect him to bet if you don't, as he should be playing against your non-bet.

and let's remember that this is NOT a book of conclusive best plays, its the depition of a frustrated yet intelligent burnout who only scrapes by.

my point: I dont think this guy is a bad player. I dont think you can find one instance of him overcalling with a bad draw, getting involved with a lose-lose hand (like calling a raise with A-6), or not understanding the neccessary elements of situations. This guy thinks pretty deeply about his plays, and I feel I'm a better player because of it.

primarily, this book has taught me the opportunities to play only against the opponent's cards.

Like I said before, I think the main reason some find this book disagreeable is because they have built their poker education on dry, clear cut mathematical principles of dense poker theory books. This is fine, and probably lucrative, but it doesn't mean there are those that can and do survive in different, more psychological styles.