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

[JJay1231]

well if Harrington can write one, why not Stox... right? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fourth: i still have no confidence in the bindings of these books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I suggest you form your own publishing company and do a better job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Typical arrogant response. The binding on the Harrington books are just plain bad. Go into any bookstore and look at them on the shelves. They look like crap. It's either because they start falling apart even when shoppers are browsing, or they've all been returned. It's not like it's a matter of opinion. All the other books on the shelves got it better, somehow.

[/ QUOTE ]


I love the book.
I still hate the binding.
I know I've ranted about this before but I just wanted to add my agreement to the general sentiment.

I prefer the feel of almost any other paperback book more than this one or any other thicker 2+2 book.

If that means the other publishing companies are spending less than 2+2 then sobeit.
I consider their money better spent whereas 2+2 is spending more money for a quality of paper and binding which is just completely unpleasant.

Just my preference i guess but obviously I'm not the only one.

[fraac]

I don't like the 2+2 binding either. Feels cheap like it's going to fall apart.

[toss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stox, I flipped around the first few pages, then found the "Hands with Stox" section and immediately devoured it along with the quizzes.

Any chance you'll be releasing a "workbook" of sorts composed primarily of "Hands with Stox" and quizzes? The insight you provide is simply invaluable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hadnt thought about it, but you make a good point and I guess the answer is possibly because I actually had a ton of hands to choose from for this section.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please do it, I don't have to tell you that you have a legion of 2+2ers who will eat-up that sort of book.

[Moneyball16]

I got this book yesterday and have enjoyed reading it very much. Well I started with the Hands with Stox section from the recommendation of Ed Miller on his blog and found the hands very insightful, but I think they would have been better if your reads of your opponents were giving at the beginning of the hand. I find that without these reads it makes it difficult for the reader to determine what their course of action in the hand would be before you gave your thoughts on the hand. Maybe Im just too used to seeing it in that format when reading the forums.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fourth: i still have no confidence in the bindings of these books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I suggest you form your own publishing company and do a better job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Typical arrogant response. The binding on the Harrington books are just plain bad. Go into any bookstore and look at them on the shelves. They look like crap. It's either because they start falling apart even when shoppers are browsing, or they've all been returned. It's not like it's a matter of opinion. All the other books on the shelves got it better, somehow.

[/ QUOTE ]

2 + 2 = 0

2 partners + 2 egos = 0 customer service

[mojobluesman]

I'm still a micro limit player, but I bought the book because I was sure I would gain some valuable insights. (and I was right)

I have a few general comments and I hope at least a few expert players will give me their thoughts in response.

When I look at "any" advice (especially pre flop) I almost always play more conservatively than suggested. The reason is that virtually every marginal situation in my hands is worth less than it is in the hands of an expert (the author for example). IMHO, if I were to follow the advice given for many marginal situations, my win rate would actually start falling until my entire game had improved to the expert level.

I think this is something that way too few people (even extremely bright ones) seem to give enough consideration.

The profitability of a hand or play is very correlated to the overall skill of the person trying it. A great player can even turn marginally EV- hands profitable and vice versa.

[VespaRally]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stox, I flipped around the first few pages, then found the "Hands with Stox" section and immediately devoured it along with the quizzes.

Any chance you'll be releasing a "workbook" of sorts composed primarily of "Hands with Stox" and quizzes? The insight you provide is simply invaluable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hadnt thought about it, but you make a good point and I guess the answer is possibly because I actually had a ton of hands to choose from for this section.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be awesome.

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still a micro limit player, but I bought the book because I was sure I would gain some valuable insights. (and I was right)

I have a few general comments and I hope at least a few expert players will give me their thoughts in response.

When I look at "any" advice (especially pre flop) I almost always play more conservatively than suggested. The reason is that virtually every marginal situation in my hands is worth less than it is in the hands of an expert (the author for example). IMHO, if I were to follow the advice given for many marginal situations, my win rate would actually start falling until my entire game had improved to the expert level.

I think this is something that way too few people (even extremely bright ones) seem to give enough consideration.

The profitability of a hand or play is very correlated to the overall skill of the person trying it. A great player can even turn marginally EV- hands profitable and vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, a large factor in examing pre-flop play by emperical profitability, as we did, is the POST FLOP SKILL of the player. We did use three different players with different results to try and mitigate this somewhat but you are exactly correct that the worse you play post flop then the worse each hand should perform. Also, the rake is a consideration as well for marginal hands, so overall I think your thought process is sound.

Remember however, there is a mitigating factor at work here as well. If you feel like your abilities are not as strong as they could be and correctly play at lower levels, then the average skill level of your opponent should be lower as well, so your ABSOLUTE skill level is not really the issue here, it is your skill level RELATIVE to your competition.

As an example, you may have a LARGER skill advantage against a 50c/1 player than I have against a 30/60 player....

[fatgirl_lover]

Post deleted by deacsoft