[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
The book certainly has some value, but sorting through it and trying to determine what is "good" advice and what is "bad" may be beyond a lot of beginner's capabilities...

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Some of the advice is just bad. Consider this example. You have AKo. The flop is QT7 rainbow. (ed: You have no idea what the preflop action was on this hand, other than a vague speculation that you raised because the author implies this hand should be raised. You have no idea how many opponents you have, or if anyone else raised.)

Except for certain exceptions based on players who bluff frequently, "This hand must be checked, if we can. If we're bet into, we will usually throw it away. We have only [2 cards coming to pair our ace or king], and we will have to pay for each draw. We have a 12.7% chance of catching an ace or king on the turn, and less chance on the river.

Anybody even think about the inside draw to the straight? Then go back [to the beginning of the book] and start over. We have an 8.5% chance of making the straight. Even adding it to the 12.7% chance of catching an ace or king, we're the underdog against a small pair."

So basically, without considering the size of the pot, the size of the bet, the number of opponents you have, your position, or the tendencies of your opponents (for example to pay you off if you hit), you are just supposed to fold your 10 outs (assuming you don't have the best hand right now) if bet into.

A smaller detail is that your 12.7% chance of hitting an ace or king on the turn does not go down on the river, it goes up. Actually it's closer to 12.8% on the turn, and if you miss the turn, it's 13% for the river. (6/47 on the turn, 6/46 on the river.)

Further bizarre advice is that playing in loose passive games is a waste of time. He suggests that your "power image" or "dominating" game style cannot be utilized in such a game. So? Loose passive games can be very profitable. He suggests simply going home if the game turns loose/passive. If you feel you must play, wait until you win one nice pot, and then leave, because winning that one pot might be the peak of your evening.

I can understand an author saying that a "dominator" strategy is not optimal for such a game, but to imply that we can only play one style, or that the game is unprofitable by its nature, is absurd.

It's things like these that take away from the overall confidence I have in the text. Although some of the advice is still interesting to me. But I'm not a beginner and I can filter.