Sit 'N Go strategy-reviews?

[agoldenbear]

When an except of this book was first posted, I mentioned in the thread that I thought it could use some proof-reading and editing. I was ridiculed because, in my haste, I used one piece of poor syntax in the post. Of course, in the eyes of the overzealous posters I often encounter here, one such error invalidates my entire point, so I didn't bother to post any further and my comments went unheeded.

Now, I think the book is lucid and readable, but there are, at the very least, two syntactic errors that should have been caught.

p.24 (top)
"(While many of the hand examples in this section continue post-flop, so play after the flop will be discussed systematically in the next section."
OBVIOUSLY, THE WORD "SO" IS ENTIRELY UNECESSARY, AND MAKES AN OTHERWISE SIMPLE SENTENCE HARDER TO UNDERSTAND.

P.29 (bottom)
"The call allows you to see the flop with a good hand if no remaining opponent raises, nor are you over-committing yourself."
AGAIN, ONE MISUSED WORD THROWS AN ENTIRE SENTENCE OFF. "NOR" IS USUALLY PRECEDED BY "NEITHER" OR "NOT" AND IS CLEARLY WRONG HERE.

So far I'm through p.30, not nearly far enough to pass judgment on the entire text, but for christ's sake 2p2, can we get someone with a middle school education to make at least ONE thorough proof-reading pass before we give you our money?

[Two Tells]

You aint not reedin shaks pear ya no. Is a book on strageegy, not an engulish text bok.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
You aint not reedin shaks pear ya no. Is a book on strageegy, not an engulish text bok.

[/ QUOTE ]

But he's right. Those words made the sentence harder to read and understand. With a slight change, it was much easier.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
You aint not reedin shaks pear ya no. Is a book on strageegy, not an engulish text bok.

[/ QUOTE ]

lacky, your spelling has improved dramatically!

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You aint not reedin shaks pear ya no. Is a book on strageegy, not an engulish text bok.

[/ QUOTE ]

lacky, your spelling has improved dramatically!

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like somebody is trying to suck up for a proof-reader job at 2+2.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
When an except of this book was first posted, I mentioned in the thread that I thought it could use some proof-reading and editing. I was ridiculed because, in my haste, I used one piece of poor syntax in the post. Of course, in the eyes of the overzealous posters I often encounter here, one such error invalidates my entire point, so I didn't bother to post any further and my comments went unheeded.

Now, I think the book is lucid and readable, but there are, at the very least, two syntactic errors that should have been caught.

p.24 (top)
"(While many of the hand examples in this section continue post-flop, so play after the flop will be discussed systematically in the next section."
OBVIOUSLY, THE WORD "SO" IS ENTIRELY UNECESSARY

[/ QUOTE ]

I had to stop reading your post because I couldn't find that last word in the dictionary.

[agoldenbear]

to be fair, jeff, you should have stopped reading at the third word ("except") in my post, because although it is in the dictionary, it is certainly not the word i intended to put there. maybe I could have gotten through to you had i used "excerpt"...

[Sir Pwn A Donk]

I just got mine and will read it and share my thoughts after playing a bit after reading...