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

[stingray2222]

Post deleted by deacsoft

[MarkD]

[ QUOTE ]
which book is overall better this one or Small stakes holdem

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not comparable in any way except that they are both about limit hold'em.

They are about different games with different target audiences and both books hit their mark in their own regards but you can not compare one book to the other - they aren't the same.

Each book is the best in it's class IMO.

[Heisenb3rg]

[ QUOTE ]
which book is overall better this one or Small stakes holdem

[/ QUOTE ]

I just finished reading stox's book.. I've read SSH 4 times.
Both are amazing books and are must reads for any limit hold em player, but overall I'd have to go with SSH.

SSH was the bible for any beginning limit player, it was very very well written, easy to read , easy to digest, yet packed some really powerful concepts. Not only was it easy to understand for the beginner, but it used many advanced concepts for maximillay extracting from loose-passives that im sure even some pro's had not thought of.
This book changed the game.

The more technical writing style in stox's book makes it a little harder to read in one sitting. You have to dig a little more for the good information. It is geared towards the advanced players.
I follow all the concepts in the book, but anyone new to poker theory would probabily be totally lost in many parts.
Because its target audience is narrower, and the writing isn't as fluid, I wouldn't rate it as high as SSH.

SSH = 10/10
WITHG = 9.5/10

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Niediam]

Does anybody have any thoughts as to why suited hands seem to given a lot of weight in blind steal situations?

For example, the book suggest that in MP3 (two off the button) that the smallest kings that you open with are K7s and KJo. Obviously it's better if your hand is suited but it seems to me in a situation where you will probably see the flop headsup that having your kicker be 2-4 pips higher would be more beneficial that the flush potential.

I could see situations where this may not not be true where it's unlikely where you are dominated such as 87s being significantly better than T8o but where your high cards is in the A-Q range domination seems more likely since your opponents are of course more likely to play against you with big cards.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]

Does anybody have any thoughts as to why suited hands seem to given a lot of weight in blind steal situations?

[/ QUOTE ]

Empirical results.

Did anybody notice if Stox gave a definition of "showdown bound" in terms of went to SD% ?

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does anybody have any thoughts as to why suited hands seem to given a lot of weight in blind steal situations?

[/ QUOTE ]

Empirical results.

Did anybody notice if Stox gave a definition of "showdown bound" in terms of went to SD% ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure we did in the book, but relatively speaking, I would guess that 45%+ is top 20% or so and below 37% is bottom 20% or so....

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anybody have any thoughts as to why suited hands seem to given a lot of weight in blind steal situations?

For example, the book suggest that in MP3 (two off the button) that the smallest kings that you open with are K7s and KJo. Obviously it's better if your hand is suited but it seems to me in a situation where you will probably see the flop headsup that having your kicker be 2-4 pips higher would be more beneficial that the flush potential.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flush draw potential gives your hand added strength because of the hand's increased implied odds in the event of a flush draw (and redraws), it allows you to make more when the flush comes in and it also encourages you to play the hand stronger which will at times help you win the hand through pure strength as well. Think of suited hands having greater potential earn, but you are right once the flop comes if suitedness strength is discounted there is no difference between K7s and K7o - they both have equally week kickers. The downside of suitednes strength are the hands where the hero is forced to call down and doesn't hit the flush, but in the long run the suited hands are far stronger than their unsuited siblings.

In short suited hands provide additional opportunities to win the hand, hence they are given greater weight in blind stealing situations.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did anybody notice if Stox gave a definition of "showdown bound" in terms of went to SD% ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure we did in the book, but relatively speaking, I would guess that 45%+ is top 20% or so and below 37% is bottom 20% or so....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

Wow. It appears my small-stakes opponents are quite different from yours. I took a quick random sample of 20 players. Only 1 had a WSD>45%. The average was 34.2% and the median 33.5%.

I'm curious as to how sales are going. I looked today and saw your book was ~2600 on Amazon, which is roughly the same as SSH. Of course the audience for this book is somewhat smaller, but I would expect it to have good staying power from sales due to word of mouth. Are you happy with sales so far?

[stoxtrader]

went to showdown is ALSO going to be a functino of the number of players at the table and the looseness of the table. the looser the table the LOWER went to showdown will be. if I remember right my went to showdown at 50c/1 full ring might have around 31% but i cant be positive.

I think book sales are going well but it is definitely too early to tell, we've been as high as 600 at amazon and mostly around 2k. declining a bit now.

[maurile]

I thought Ed Miller's suggestion (at NPA.com) to read the "Hands with Stox" section first was very good. It gives the rest of the book some context. Otherwise, it's kind of overwhelming to start in on pages of technical information and charts as the first thing you read.

The book is great, but in the second edition the "Hands with Stox" section should be at the beginning, not at the end.