Sit 'N Go strategy-reviews?

[DevinLake]

Because I'm a mod of STTF, I feel a need to make a few comments:

1) STTF did over react to the fact that none of high stakes sit no go players were consulted about a book on sit n goes.

However, all the hate towards the STTF hate is also an over reaction. So, why doesn't everyone just shut up about it and let the book stand on it's own merits?

2) There is a book review thread in the STTF. It has not been trashed. Slim pointed out some flaws, but gave it a good review. I've read part one so far, and thing it was good straight forward advice for beginners.

3) Skalansky et al. sit n goes credentials. No one asked them if they are good at sit n goes, because no one has played them in sit n goes because they do not play the high stakes sit n goes, so therefore, they must not be well versed in sit n goes. Pretty simple logic and something I'm sure David will admit to.

Also, if you want a soft high stakes sit n go, seek out one with a few FTP pros playing.

4) Collin has offered up the screen names he played under. They were not useful in defining his credibility as a sit n go player as his sample size was very small on the various database websites. This is just a fact, no a judgement on Collin's credentials.

5) Collin had an excerpt from the book published in the magazine a couple months ago about restealing. I read it and qualitatively the resteal examples looked marginal at best. So, I made a post in the magazine forum about his example and gave mathematical analysis to show how one should be going about thinking about sit n goes.

The lack of math and general light discussion in that section probably sparked some of the STTF doubt about the book.

[Galwegian]

[ QUOTE ]
However, all the hate towards the STTF hate is also an over reaction. So, why doesn't everyone just shut up about it and let the book stand on it's own merits?


[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. I am all in favour of letting any book stand or fall on its own merits. However, I must object when someone claims (as Blackize did in a earlier post in this thread) that none of the hate and whining about this book occurred until after its publication. This is just not true. And I think that it reflected badly on STTF at the time for precisely the reasons that you have highlighted i.e. many people were unable to just judge the book on what it contained, but insisted on questioning the authors credentials and knowledge before having seen a page of the text.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
STTF did over react to the fact that none of high stakes sit no go players were consulted about a book on sit n goes.

However, all the hate towards the STTF hate is also an over reaction. So, why doesn't everyone just shut up about it and let the book stand on it's own merits?


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And for the record, the vast majority of STTF posters have either not commented on the book, or have made constructive and fair criticism.

Some people seem to take any criticism of a 2+2 book as some kind of unfair attack. The bottom line is that almost all books have some issues. I remember how when Adanthar posted a critical review of HoH2 in STTF I thought he was absolutely insane. I also thought, “Who the hell does this Adanthar guy think he is questioning Harrington?” I’ve since come to realize that Adanthar was absolutely correct in the hands he picked apart, yet at the same time I still believe HoH2 is one of the greatest poker books ever written.

Regarding this book, I’ve read most of it and I think it’s pretty good although I do disagree with some things. Slim’s review in STTF and Devin’s comments in the magazine forum are spot on IMO. Most of the hand examples I personally disagree with involve postflop play at low and medium blind levels.

Specifically, I have some issues with hands where Collin chooses to c-bet, and where he blocks on the river. I also disagree with his general contention that, “if you have to call a bet, you might as well bet yourself first.” If you follow this advice without understanding why you should or shouldn't bet in specific circumstances, controlling the pot size with medium strength and marginal hands will be difficult.

In general, I believe the book is well written and is overall a worthwhile read for beginner and intermediate STT players. For a player new to NL Poker who wanted to learn how to play STT’s I would recommend the following reading materials:

* HoH1 for general NL play and starting hands by position (Would recommend tightening up a bit over Harrington’s recommendations though.)
* STTF
* This book
* Chris Ferguson’s section on postflop play in the FT tournament book

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have enough SNG's under my belt to say with any conviction exactly how much more money I have made, but if I had to make a wild guess, I would say my ROI is 7-12% higher since reading the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that's a wild guess.

[Slim Pickens]

For what it's worth, pretty much all of the reservations voiced by "respected" STTF posters prior to the book's release turned out to be quite accurate. Sure, there were some swilling lethal doses of Haterade, but for the most part the people criticizing the author had very good reasons for doing so and raised valid points about the author's credentials that have still not been answered. In addition, I don't think any good SNG player would be convinced Collin really knows what he's doing after reading his book. The post-book result is just as inconclusive as the preliminary one.

It's really a disappointment that no one else having a reputation as a solid SNG strategist and teacher was consulted before the book was published. There were so many of them who would have done it for nothing more than a mention in the acknowledgments, and it would have improved the quality of the final publication dramatically. My feedback took about eight hours total including the reading time, and those were eight hours I would have spent watching TV anyway, so it's no big loss. To leave a collective resource like STTF untapped was, in poker terms, leaving a lot of money on the table.

I've decided the most benefit a serious SNG beginner could get from the book would be to buy it and read it, but ignore every hand example.

[JJay1231]

[ QUOTE ]
It's really a disappointment that no one else having a reputation as a solid SNG strategist and teacher was consulted before the book was published.

[/ QUOTE ]

this was my concern from the very beginning. I must admit I have the book but havent got around to reading it yet, but as far as I know Mason and David liked the manuscript and decided to go ahead and publish it. Does Mason or David have extensive knowledge and experience at SnG's? who knows...

But IMO 2+2 should have got few SnG experts (or some high stakes pros on this forum) to give their 2 cents on the manuscript before agreeing to publish it.

[timmay28]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any money to be made in SNGs anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping to read a more in depth reply to this question within this thread, but didn't see it in all the pages I skimmed.

From what I've gathered, the consensus seems to be that the higher stakes are screwed due to the high rake, as even the better players are not exactly getting rich off them. How beatable are the mid staked games, like $33+3 or $55+5 at FTP... does it require especially good skill nowadays to really make out over the long haul in these as well?

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
4) Collin has offered up the screen names he played under. They were not useful in defining his credibility as a sit n go player as his sample size was very small on the various database websites. This is just a fact, no a judgement on Collin's credentials.

[/ QUOTE ]


Of all the arguments I have read that were cons of the book I always felt this was the most unfair argument. People did the same to Ed Miller when Small Stakes Hold'em came out too even though he was a long term respected poster here others across the poker community crapped all over SSHE because Ed was an unknown to them.

I'd rather read a brilliant book from a relative unknown who has the ability to communicate solid concepts correctly than than a crappy book from an expert. He could be a long term losing player, I'd buy the book of any author if his ability to teach correctly outweighs his ability to ability to play in real life. Obviously Mason saw something in Collin and we all know Mason doesn't accept outside content without very careful analysis first, perhaps in all the ZOMYGOD zeel the quality of what Colin offers has been overlooked?

PS: This isn't a reply to DevinLake, I am just quoting a small part of his post because its relevant.

[Jan]

[ QUOTE ]

I've decided the most benefit a serious SNG beginner could get from the book would be to buy it and read it, but ignore every hand example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Every hand example? Are you saying that his advice on every hand example is incorrect?

Jan

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've decided the most benefit a serious SNG beginner could get from the book would be to buy it and read it, but ignore every hand example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Every hand example? Are you saying that his advice on every hand example is incorrect?

Jan

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Most of his hand examples give the correct answer. The problem is that the logical process isn't explained well and it could easily be misunderstood by a smart person attempting to absorb the book's advice. He lays out most of the framework for how this sort of analysis is done, but then he doesn't show how he's applied it to the hand examples. I'm not saying he didn't usually apply the proper methodology himself because most of his answers are correct, but I am saying that the critical points of SNG analysis aren't at all reflected in the hand examples, taken as a whole.

If I feel like it later I'll see if I can find a hand example I like, though I don't remember seeing one off-hand.