Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

I play 1/2-3/6 FL SH, but being Canadian I'm lucky enough to be able to play on sites where I can find plenty of tables with 50-60% seeing the flop.

These certainly aren't "tough" games, so I'm wondering if the Stox book (Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games) is all that suitable for me, or if I should be reading the Tanenbaum books (Limit Hold'em: Winning Short-Handed Strategies & Advanced Limit Hold'em Strategy: Techniques for Beating Tough Games). I have the Stox book, and I've read it...I don't own any Tanenbaum books. Is there one of these books I should be focusing on more than another?

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

Definitely get the SH D&B book. IMO it is the best material available on SH play anywhere. By the way, which sites do you play at where you are seeing 50-60% to a flop? I might come and play there myself!

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one. I'd rather be HU with some weak tight guy who folds too much.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So?

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you jest.


Bobo:

Although the Stox book doesn't directly address playing in games like ours, I still found it extremely useful for making adjustments against particular opponents given their range of hands.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Surely you jest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Surely he does [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Seriously, get all the three mentioned books. Put them on top of each other on your desk. Contemplate them. Rejoice, because there will never be another time when you have not read them. The moment is precious. Give thanks. Be happy. Then study the crap out of them. Play. Repeat. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Cheers,

Smurf

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky would never make such a redundant point. What he said was a single hand that would be poor heads up, such as 98s, becomes money favourite against a bunch of Ax, Kx type hands. I forget his exact example; these days you can Pokerstove it and see it's elementary.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one. I'd rather be HU with some weak tight guy who folds too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't I have ever seen that from Sklansky, but this sounds like some of the early discussions about implicit collusion (see Morton's Theorem).

If you have a strong hand and get one caller with a marginal hand, the caller is acting incorrectly. But if you get multiple callers with marginal hands, the resulting size of the pot could be giving each caller proper odds, so that each is now making a correct decision.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you have a strong hand and get one caller with a marginal hand, the caller is acting incorrectly. But if you get multiple callers with marginal hands, the resulting size of the pot could be giving each caller proper odds, so that each is now making a correct decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one thing, when most of the people in the hand are playing unsuited broadway cards, they "get in each other's way" and a hand such as 98s can go up in equity. For another, not everyone is making good calls in a multiplayer situation. What might be right for 22 and 98s can still be wrong for K7.

Anyway, the real point is that if you have AA, it's your equity in the pot that matters, not your probability of winning the pot. Anyone drawing to a gutshot getting 15:1 understands the basic principles involved here :-) (BTW, not responding directly to you so much...)

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

yeah Stox is great, just get it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


(T is good, but not great)

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Definitely get the SH D&B book

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats the SH D&B book? I dont get what D&B stands for [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Definitely get the SH D&B book

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats the SH D&B book? I dont get what D&B stands for [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
D&B is the publisher.
SH = This short handed book.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:
Definitely get the SH D&B book



Whats the SH D&B book? I dont get what D&B stands for


D&B is the publisher.
SH = This short handed book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you!

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

Are the two Tanenbaum books a compiliation of his Card Player columns, new material or a combination (and if a combination about what percent of new v CP columns)?

~ Rick

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

His Advanced Strategy book is both a combination of stuff he has written for Card Player (some of which has been reworked) and all new material. The Shorthanded book is written by two Shorthanded experts named Terry Borer and Lawrence Mak with BT acting as a collaborator. To be honest, you could give the Advanced book a miss. It's pretty good but not "essential" however the SH book is a must have for any serious limit hold 'em player. It is the best material available on short handed play. I don't know of anyone yet who has read this book that wasn't highly impressed by it.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
however the SH book is a must have for any serious limit hold 'em player. It is the best material available on short handed play. I don't know of anyone yet who has read this book that wasn't highly impressed by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen to Adman. He speaks the truth [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] The Tanenbaum book is okay with some good points, but the Borer/Mak book is really good.

/Smurf

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
His Advanced Strategy book is both a combination of stuff he has written for Card Player (some of which has been reworked) and all new material.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll probably get it given I'm in LA and don't play much higher than 20/40; from the CP articles Barry's style is fairly well suited for these mid level full ring games.


[ QUOTE ]
The Shorthanded book is written by two Shorthanded experts named Terry Borer and Lawrence Mak with BT acting as a collaborator. To be honest, you could give the Advanced book a miss. It's pretty good but not "essential" however the SH book is a must have for any serious limit hold 'em player. It is the best material available on short handed play. I don't know of anyone yet who has read this book that wasn't highly impressed by it.

[/ QUOTE ]
It will be interesting to compare this with the Stox book. There's not too much short play in LA B&M below 40/80 but sometimes the short strategy can be applied when you have walkers or the game is starting and tight.

Thanks for the heads up.

~ Rick

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
His Advanced Strategy book is both a combination of stuff he has written for Card Player (some of which has been reworked) and all new material. The Shorthanded book is written by two Shorthanded experts named Terry Borer and Lawrence Mak with BT acting as a collaborator. To be honest, you could give the Advanced book a miss. It's pretty good but not "essential" however the SH book is a must have for any serious limit hold 'em player. It is the best material available on short handed play. I don't know of anyone yet who has read this book that wasn't highly impressed by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

qft. i have spent way too much time thinking about SH LHE over the last few years and I was still very impressed with the quality of the SH book. stox's book is great too, but it is really a precursor to Mak and Borer's more in-depth material.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know of anyone yet who has read this book that wasn't highly impressed by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that a bit early to say? And why are you so Positive about that? You get some money because of it or what? Mr. Ad Man.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's rather interesting as a complete subject. I think that horse thing was about some horses that sometimes do better than the average favorite, and Sklansky thinks it will then be no more the favorite or something like that what comes to it winning.

That could raise some views about tournament strategy; should one be the wild horse, use such a strategy and then maybe cool down as the tournament progresses or one gets enough ships. And does the will horses in the tournament decrease one's chances to get to the highest places.

In poker there are the mixes of players that make the game like rock, paper and scissors, and if one doesn't know well enough who is who, the horse that wins against any one of them individually, will not win (as well or at all) when they are together. Such things seems to happen in loose games if it has such a mix of players and in games where one has less information about the opponents' styles, like at full ring games compared to shorthanded games.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky would never make such a redundant point. What he said was a single hand that would be poor heads up, such as 98s, becomes money favourite against a bunch of Ax, Kx type hands. I forget his exact example; these days you can Pokerstove it and see it's elementary.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in Sklansky the Video or Sklansky the Seminar. I can't remember which but it is a stud or draw example and doesn't really apply to holdem. I think you are talking about "schooling" where the more people in the hand against you, the more likely you are to lose, but "schooling" doesn't usually take into consider the pots are huge when your hand holds up so it is more profitable to have a million callers. You lose more pots but win more money.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

I read the D&B book and am an experienced short-handed limit player. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who is serious about short-handed play but I do feel there are some errors in their recommendations. Examples include - limping from the SB when you are first to act, playing a tighter range from the SB than from the button when first to act and over-valuing off-suit broadway hands in early position (KTo, QTo etc.)

Overall I would recommend the book and it is easier to read than Stox's but I certainly feel there are some flaws.

YT

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]

stox's book is great too, but it is really a precursor to Mak and Borer's more in-depth material.

[/ QUOTE ]

HUH?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Let me just say that I liked the D&B shorthanded book. It's easy to read and I'd recommend it. But to suggest that WITHG is a "precursor" to the D&B book is just nonsense. Seriously.

They both contain numerous hand examples and offer good advice. However IMO the depth and quality of analysis in the Stox book is WAY better than in the D&B book. Also (and this is my main point) the D&B book only *touch* on blind defence. They offer a VERY tight defending range as their 'default', then add the cautionary advice that you should 'play looser' against very aggressive opponents. That's it. They also give very sketchy advice about SB vs BB hands. This is a huge omission given the nature of online six max games.

Stox, by comparison, has used actual databases from winning players to formulate a coherent blind defence strategy, including SB vs BB, restealing from SB, playing from the BB when SB three bets and so on. His book also includes a seperate quiz containing 448 questions to practice blind defence decisions when adjusting to player ranges.

Now granted, the D&B book contains advice about three handed and heads up play, which the Stox book doesn't. But these short chapters hardly warrant the suggestion that the Stox book is somehow a watered down version of the D&B book. The other additional material is basic stuff that most players who are ready to tackle six max will already know about (player metrics, bankroll considerations, tilt etc.)

I can understand that some people may prefer the style of the D&B book to the Stox book, but that's quite different to saying it's a better book.

IMO it's the other way around. If you are new to six max online then I'd suggest getting the borer book first. It's a good book. I'm sure it will help to turn losers into winning players at the low to mid limits. But when you feel the need to learn the game properly, read Stox.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

All, in general my feelings are:

Stox presented a tight and disciplined approach based on years of experience and nearly 1 million hands.

Borer and Mak presented a looser, more advanced strategy that pushes more small edge. I agree it was presented in a less thorough and more speculative (and contained plenty of errors) manner.

That's why I think Stox's book is a good precursor to Borer and Mak's. Stox lays out a conservative groundwork and this level of understanding is necessary to filter out the garbage and pull out the golden nuggets in Borer and Mak's book.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

What golden nuggets?

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

Stox's hand ranges are based on a more disciplined approach to the game. I wouldn't call his recommendations particularly tight as you will approach the 30/20 game that is recommended here on 2+2 (maybe 28/19 if you only play 6-handed). In my opinion and as pointed out by nomdeplume the essence of mid-stake play and higher is blind stealing and defense. This is loosely covered in the D&B book. Also if you actually crunch the hand ranges recommended in both books they work out to within a percentage point in terms of VPIP. (I'm a big enough dork to have done this).

YT

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

Hello everyone. This is Terry Borer, one of the authors of Limit Hold'em: winning short-handed strategies.

First of all, thanks very much for the overall positive reviews. We worked really hard on the book and it is gratifying to hear that others like your work. Having read (but not posted) on twoplustwo for a while, I think this is a good thread for me to chime in on.

First of all, I don't think it matters which book is "better". While there is common material I believe they are overall different books and both will be useful to a short-handed player. I enjoyed the Stox book and would recommend it to others. I like the healthy debate that takes place in twoplustwo as well.

Second, I'd like to clarify my position on the points Yertle mentioned:
[ QUOTE ]
I read the D&B book and am an experienced short-handed limit player. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who is serious about short-handed play but I do feel there are some errors in their recommendations. Examples include - limping from the SB when you are first to act, playing a tighter range from the SB than from the button when first to act and over-valuing off-suit broadway hands in early position (KTo, QTo etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

#1: From the SB we recommend "First-in raise or fold unless you opponent is passive" (pg83). I stand by this. Most of the time it is raise or fold, but passive players give you additional opportunities to make money by exploiting their mistakes. An extreme example is when you are first in from the SB ($2 blind) and the BB ($3 blind) never raises pre-flop. I believe limping in on weak hands is correct here since I'll see a cheap flop.

#2: Should you be tighter from the SB first in, or is it that same (or looser) as from the button? Yertle, I agree our chart is too tight, especially for good players. I think the Stox book is too loose (he says this as well) and so a more optimal number is in the middle but much closer to the Stox side. Looking back at my last 100k hands my stats look a lot like the middle player in Stox's book.

#3: Playing KTo and QTo from early position. We say to steal with this hands from UTG + 1 only and KTo as an expert hand from UTG (six-handed game). I like this play and make money with it. I think it also "balances my range" meaning my opponent is less able to put me on a hand when I sometimes raise with those cards. I sure win a lot of Axx flops. Please note that the players in the Stox book do not play those hands often so the charts say little about them. That doesn't mean they are unprofitable but I agree they are borderline.

In any event, our book is about teaching how to synthesize information together and the charts are just starting points. Excellent play is situational play. I hope our book teaches what information to look for and how to put it together.

If you would like to ask me a question I would be happy to answer. Putting my name in (or Tanenbaum's) would help me a lot in finding the thread.

Thanks,

Terry Borer
LHE: winning short-handed strategies

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

IMO, Stox's book is the definitive book on Limit Hold'em play for middle and high stakes games.

As for small stakes, just get SSHE.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

Have you read the Borer/ Mak book?

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

Why wouldn't you buy both? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

Thanks everyone for the great replies thus far.

As I mentioned, I already own the Stox book, have read it once, and will be reading it again. I was already leaning towards buying the Borer/Mak book, and I think I will for sure now.

If I understand the posts here correctly, it sounds like neither book is geared more towards the lower limits than the other is...it would seem more that they differ somewhat in their approaches and how they are presented, and one would benefit from reading both regardless of limits played.

Is the Tanenbaum Advanced book geared towards FR, SH, or both?

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

Hi. FR only.


-barryt

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]


I can understand that some people may prefer the style of the D&B book to the Stox book, but that's quite different to saying it's a better book.

IMO it's the other way around. If you are new to six max online then I'd suggest getting the borer book first. It's a good book. I'm sure it will help to turn losers into winning players at the low to mid limits. But when you feel the need to learn the game properly, read Stox.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for small stakes, just get SSHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is bad advice in general, and it points out the basic problem with this book and its readers.

You do not want SSHE for small stakes games, you want SSHE for loose games against bad players.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for small stakes, just get SSHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is bad advice in general, and it points out the basic problem with this book and its readers.

You do not want SSHE for small stakes games, you want SSHE for loose games against bad players.

[/ QUOTE ]

well i'd say especially for loose/passive ones...

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for small stakes, just get SSHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is bad advice in general, and it points out the basic problem with this book and its readers.

You do not want SSHE for small stakes games, you want SSHE for loose games against bad players.

[/ QUOTE ]

B&M

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

I wanted to thank Terry for responding to my comments and to reiterate that I think he (et al) wrote a solid book. I prefer Stox's book currently for the stakes and games I play at but I would have killed for this book a few years ago. I also found some valuable nuggets in here that has made me a better player overall. It is definitely worth a read by anyone serious about short-handed play.

YT

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

This could go in another thread, but since we're discussing SH materials, where does everyone feel the Dave Fromm DVDs fit in? Are they still of any value now that these two books are out there?

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

Fromm's DVD's are great but they do contradict some of Stox's/ Borers advice. Things like just cold calling raises in the small blind with hands that play well multiway instead of 3 betting when facing steal raises, defending open raises from the small blind with every single hand (read: 72o, 62o, 83o, T4o etc) when seated in the big blind, defending the big blind with any two suited etc. I'm not saying either one is wrong or right (of course I have my opinions) but just that some of the advice is different.

Re: Tanenbaum or Stox?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for small stakes, just get SSHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is bad advice in general, and it points out the basic problem with this book and its readers.

You do not want SSHE for small stakes games, you want SSHE for loose games against bad players.

[/ QUOTE ]

B&M

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, pretty much always as it turns out. The point I was making though is that we should stop talking about attributes that aren't important. (Granted, the book does this too. The title has "Small Stakes" in it, when actually that has nothing to do with it.) Technically B&M has nothing to do with it either, although conditions are almost always right there for low limits.

The attibutes you're looking for are loose opponents who go too far with their hands. Online/BM doesn't matter, high/low limits doesn't matter.