Review: Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games by Stox/Zobags

[fraac]

Or people will be suss to hype and more trustful of downplayed stats. Next level, innit. I really don't think the book will have a problem on this score.

[ QUOTE ]
If people never stop to fully understand a concept, but rather mimick it because they respsect the person too much.. This is bad too.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this bad? There is evidence that in many fields, this exact strategy is very successful.

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
Or people will be suss to hype and more trustful of downplayed stats. Next level, innit. I really don't think the book will have a problem on this score.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

let's just say that if I thought it added value to the book there could have been additional stats I assume people would find impressive.

[malorum]

Yup I wasn't knocking the usefulness of the book with regard to the win rates. Unfortunately I think the advice given in the book is sound.
I was questioning the usefulness of the set of win rates included, given the broad range of data included.

I'm always interested in win-rates as they reflect the ever changing nature of the game. For example my own win-rates seem to be inversely proportional to the number of players at the table, and I suspect this is the same for many short handed players.

[Lestat]

I find it refreshing to see stats of a more mortal and earthly nature. In the beginning, there was so much talk about how 2bb/100 was the benchmark for good players, people like me started developing complexes with win rates rarely exceeding 1bb/100 over hundreds of thousands of hands in the bigger games, and sometimes going tens of thousands of hands at break-even. So it's nice to see sample sizes of .8bb/100 and lower for good professional players expert enough to author a book that is to be taken seriously by their peers.

Although I don't quite understand the spot picking of certain sample sizes. I believe you did this with the database I bought from you (where you inexplicably omitted large samples of hands). Although there were enough hands to justify the purchase, one has to wonder why you would do so. The default assumpion (in the absense of any explanation), has to be that you ommited some adverse stretches for aesthetic's sake. In a book, it's not like people can derive a more thorough analysis on your play from any larger of a sample size, so I don't understand the omission here either unless it is again for aesthetic reasons. The bigger the sample size, the more meaning statistical figures have. Why not use them all?

[PokerHorse]

I like the basic info on the blinds , but I ask the question, does this information in this book put me out in front of good to great players? unfortunately the answer for me is no. maybe the answer for others is yes. but the question is,unless there are players making regular mistakes at the higher levels, then in the long run a winning player can still lose money since there is no edge.
As well, aggression can cover for other wise sup optimal play and make it more difficult. I think you are really straight gambling at those levels. Obviously just my opinion. But a good example might be a player such as the russian hassuwip who appears to play sub par but his aggression makes up for it, and drives players crazy.
good luck

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
unless there are players making regular mistakes at the higher levels,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously the case.

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the basic info on the blinds , but I ask the question, does this information in this book put me out in front of good to great players? unfortunately the answer for me is no. maybe the answer for others is yes. but the question is,unless there are players making regular mistakes at the higher levels, then in the long run a winning player can still lose money since there is no edge.
As well, aggression can cover for other wise sup optimal play and make it more difficult. I think you are really straight gambling at those levels. Obviously just my opinion. But a good example might be a player such as the russian hassuwip who appears to play sub par but his aggression makes up for it, and drives players crazy.
good luck

[/ QUOTE ]

table/game selection is certainly important here, also being able to correctly identify and exploit bad play is a corollary to identifying good play and not opening yourself up to exploitation. From a game theory perspective, there can be a tradeoff between playing in an unexploitable fashion, and playing in a fashion that exploits other's play.

[Adman]

I probably shouldn't even comment here since I am nowhere near the limits you guys are discussing but surely in nosebleed games like Stox plays there is NO WAY you are going to have a 2bb/100 win rate or anything like that? I would imagine that if your winrate is even slightly positive in those games then you are most likely doing very, very well. I mean surely there are no real fish at that limit and if there were they wouldn't last very long. Weak losing players simply couldn't afford to continually play that high unless they are rock stars or movie stars who occasionally play a bit of poker for fun on weekends or whatever!

In those games the edge any one player would have over others could only possibly be very small and could take quite some time to manifest itself in the form of earnings. I assume most of the players there have moved up to that limit after being proven winners in smaller games? I really doubt someone says to themselves one evening "I might give online poker a try. I'll deposit 180 grand and give 300/600 limit a bash. That should be fun."

With regards to the book I find it fascinating and I'm going to start my third reading today when I'm sitting on my ass in my boring job this afternoon. I will be very interested to read Dave Fromm's shorthanded book since a lot of the recommendations he makes in his DVD set directly contradict Stox.

[ddubois]

I'm half-way through the book, and I feel like I've read 20 pages. The tables, they make my eyes bleed! While I think it important that the author's have poured over every piece of data contained in the innumerable tables contained in this book, I think we the readers would have been just fine if the data had been provided solely online, and only the author's analysis and conclusions been printed. The only thing I got out of those tables is a chuckle when High open-folded AA from the SB.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

In those games the edge any one player would have over others could only possibly be very small and could take quite some time to manifest itself in the form of earnings. I assume most of the players there have moved up to that limit after being proven winners in smaller games? I really doubt someone says to themselves one evening "I might give online poker a try. I'll deposit 180 grand and give 300/600 limit a bash. That should be fun."

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of the fish at higher games tend to be lower players who run hot and jump up in stakes. They might drop 1,000 into a site, play 10/20 and run it up to 10,000 and give 50/100 a shot. you also get lower stakes regulars who take a shot/get drunk/tilt and chase losses, or someone who makes a big score in a donkament or NL game.