Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

As the new editor of the Magazine, I'm asking for opinions on how to improve it going forward.

However, one change I know I want to see is the inclusion of more Omaha/8 strategy articles. The Magazine hasn't had a single Omaha/8 article since it's first issue in January, 2005. Considering Omaha/8 is probably the most popular non-hold 'em game, this is a glaring omission.

So, I'd like to encourage all the Omaha/8 forum posters who have an article idea to make a submission to the Magazine. Feel free to contact me (via PM or e-mail) before doing any writing if you want to discuss the article in advance.

All authors who get published recieve $200 per article.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Why would we want to ruin games that are already really good for us?

The last thing I want is a bunch of TAGS filling up seats in my games. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

I'm sure we've got some guys with the ability to convey good strategy into writing. Not sure if they're willing to divulge that info though. The potential loss in EV at their tables probably outweights the $200 article fee.

Congrats on the new position and best wishes.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

There has been a longstanding myth that putting information in the public domain will "ruin the games". Doyle Brunson wrote Super/System nearly three decades ago and yet poker is better than ever.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Buzz should write an article about probabilities, odds, counting outs and all that math stuff. He's great at it.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
There has been a longstanding myth that putting information in the public domain will "ruin the games". Doyle Brunson wrote Super/System nearly three decades ago and yet poker is better than ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
Both Sklansky's and Miller's books have made holdem games harder to play. You need to be more of an expert today to make the same earn as two years ago, at least in the online world. The vast majority of players wouldn't figure out optimal play without someone taking them by the hand and showing them.

BTW congrats on the position, this is great news for us readers.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]

Both Sklansky's and Miller's books have made holdem games harder to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're assuming too much. Ed's SSHE book has sold well for a poker book. But, how many of those buyers do you think have (1) read the book thoroughly, (2) apply the information properly, and (3) are actually in your game?

The vast majority of poker players have never seriously studied the game. Many who do study still lose.

I think history shows that if you put information out there the much more likely impact is that it draws new players into the game. That's good for winning players.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Quoting Ray Zee's foreword in Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players, by Sklansky and Malmuth:

[ QUOTE ]
The book you are holding, written by David Sklansky and
Mason Malmuth, has had far-reaching effects on the poker world.
Simply put, since the original edition of this book, hold 'em has
become, on average, a much tougher game to beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway this isn't the place for this debate, and I don't wish to discourage articles for your magazine. But I caution those who want to write detailed, little known information about correct play (as opposed to articles about aspects of correct play, or discussion of specific hands), that it will affect the games, particularly PLO8.

PLO8 is unique in that it currently contains huge numbers of awful players with no clue how to play, and is the most profitable game at comparable stakes. It's also the game with the least published information. I don't think that's a coincidence, especially given that less skill is required for PLO8 than hold'em.

Limit O8 is a more complex game with a different skill set and a few articles are unlikely to make a difference.

That's not to say that I ever hold back with advice (I don't), but having a published reference guide for new players as opposed to an in forum discussion are two very different things.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
PLO8 is unique in that it currently contains huge numbers of awful players with no clue how to play, and is the most profitable game at comparable stakes. It's also the game with the least published information. I don't think that's a coincidence, especially given that less skill is required for PLO8 than hold'em.
. . .
That's not to say that I ever hold back with advice (I don't), but having a published reference guide for new players as opposed to an in forum discussion are two very different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this entirely, FWIW. PLO8 is simple relative to NLHE. The number of totally clueless suckers playing PLO8 at the highest limits online is amazing.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

My Thoughts:
-Books/information in my opinon have done way more good for the poker world, than bad.

-People don't bust as fast with some knowledge, & many times they get short term false hopes that keeps them coming back (even after they know they're losers).

-Many people simply do not have the emotional or mental facits to play the game, no matter how much knowledge they have.

-Many people gather just a little bit of information (i.e. PF play) & never move on after that. In LHE, that'd probally make a game tougher. In PLO8, this could be a huge leak.

-Many intangibles can not be taught extremely well: Adjusting to other players, hand reading, etc.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

I was very happy to publish Buzz's submission in the September issue. It's exactly the type of article I'm hoping to receive more of (especially by Buzz).

As I've said before, I want O/8 articles to be a regular feature of the Internet Magazine.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyway this isn't the place for this debate

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that a discussion SHOULD be made on this point because it is a very good point to discuss. At the end of the day why are we all here? Why do we come to this board? Ultimately, it is to learn more about this game through discussion and learning through other people's experiences. My game has elevated tremendously since I first started and I would have to credit it both to experience and coming to these boards as well.



[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're assuming too much. Ed's SSHE book has sold well for a poker book. But, how many of those buyers do you think have (1) read the book thoroughly, (2) apply the information properly, and (3) are actually in your game?

The vast majority of poker players have never seriously studied the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point. I have read Ed's book and that was probably one of THE best poker investments (as far as books, I really have no interest for any of the software) I have ever made. My game and my profitability are EONS away from where I was before I read it. But, the thing is, I read that book at least..well, I'm up at my 6th reading now. I review it constantly and study it thoroughly and through that my game has changed.

LONG STORY SHORT: I PUT IN THE TIME....and that what this whole discussion boils down to. I put in the time to go through the boards to become better at plo8, I put in the time to become better at small stakes hold em. I don't think one should be concerned about putting good info out there about the game and having the profitability go to the craphole. The game will change through the players that put in the time and ultimately most will not. Yes, there may be a few players that will become better by publishing an article, but at the end of the day, that will be a small percentage compared to the other donks that are out there that will not put in the time and thus remain donks.

Maybe an idea for an upcoming article should be titled "TO SHARE OR NOT TO SHARE, THAT IS THE QUESTION", not necessarily related simply to plo8, but to all forms of poker, and poker strategy.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

I get a laugh at people wanting to keep the knowledge in the dark, and to me, it speaks of their lack of confidence in their own game.

(Calling to mind one poster's repeated brags of questionable plays which he believes are great...)

The truth of the matter is whenever I fire up PLO8 games, or limit games (been playing 6-max lately), 2 to 4 people (and sometimes many more) are known to me on every table, meaning I have hundreds of hands on them, and many of these winning regulars, including some regular 2+2'ers here, are pretty much nut-peddlers who are hard to make money from because they are weak tight, and who don't make money from me because I know how they play, barring the exceptional fluke scenarios of quads vs. boats, etc..

Now this is fine, but lets' compare this to hold'em... which I also play a lot of, I rarely have more than 1 known player at any of the SnG's I play, and I play hundreds of them each month. Moreover, my ROI in hold'em is quite healthy, if not enviable, for the stakes I play.

Now, let's look see at NL ring games. In these, I run into very few "knowns". Plus, like O8, I certainly study my frequent opponents' styles.

From this, I have recognized a pattern which I submit every serious player has as well. Barring known "losers," the bulk of my money comes from "unknowns," and I win and lose very little to "known" winners.

But there's a ton of books on hold'em, how can that be? Simple, because as more information gets out there about a game, more people want to play that game. Information generates interest. One guy reads an O8 book, and he teaches his friends at a low stakes home game. 6 to 8 people are now interested in O8 who have not read the book, and these people will sooner or later find they way to on-line or B&M card O8 tables. If you want to bring more dead money into the game, more information will do the trick.

If you want to restrict the info, it's only because one, you have a mediocre confidence in your game at best, and two, you have no desire to improve your game at all.

Btw, O8 in any form is not simpler than hold'em. That's a myth. Any game that has more than two unknown cards, is simply more complicated than a game with only two. I know some respected posters here disagree, but respectfully, they are wrong.

Finally, I didn't know that article was Buzz's...fanastic job, Buzz!!!

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

We may not see eye to eye on SNG PT, but I agree with you here....

The Hun.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
We may not see eye to eye on SNG PT, but I agree with you here....

The Hun.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, you'll see the SNGPT light soon enough, the tool has made me $1,000's and $1,000's

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Very well put.

There's also the category that I readily admit I fall into: not being able to apply what you read correctly.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Great post, Morphball. We need more people playing O8, particularly PLO8. The more info that is out there about the game, the more new blood we'll see. The viewpoint that materials on how to play the game should not be disseminated is idiotic.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
I get a laugh at people wanting to keep the knowledge in the dark, and to me, it speaks of their lack of confidence in their own game.

(Calling to mind one poster's repeated brags of questionable plays which he believes are great...)

If you want to restrict the info, it's only because one, you have a mediocre confidence in your game at best, and two, you have no desire to improve your game at all.

Btw, O8 in any form is not simpler than hold'em. That's a myth. Any game that has more than two unknown cards, is simply more complicated than a game with only two. I know some respected posters here disagree, but respectfully, they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Morph, in your post Limit Hold Em Getting Tough you seem to contradict your stance here.

If Limit Hold Em games are getting tougher, and 7-stud games (from what I've seen) are full of very tight play, the last thing I want is to educate players intelligent enough to use this information to turn loose/passive or loose/aggressive tables into tight and unprofitable ventures.

Granted, I'm not against new blood entering the O8 realm, but I'm not keen on having players interested in studying the game and learning it in large numbers.

To me, O8 (at least in limit form) is much simpler than Hold Em, because it's usually pretty easy to tell where you stand (full-ring games). You play 6-max and then PL, so that changes things a bit, and I feel those games require more skill.

I prefer full-ring limit games because it's easier for me to focus on multiple tables, and being quartered isn't as devestating as in PL.

When you state that anyone who opposes more information out there just doesn't want to improve thier game, or imply they play medoicre, I can't agree with that.

I don't want to ruin my game selection, which is much more important than improving the way I play the game. At a good table with enough bad players, even a medoicre player can make a nice profit. And the edge between experts and good players isn't as pronounced in O8 as it is in Hold Em.

I play O8 because I find it to be the easiest game and significantly more profitable than other cash games for my style of play.

I'm not against improving my game, but this game is fairly easy enough that you don't have a lot of tough decisions until you start playing short-handed, PL or get into multi-way pots and have to promote marginal holdings both ways and try to push others out.

Also, not sure if you're talking about me or BBP when you mention a poster bragging about questionable plays.

I don't have a ton of short-handed experience, although I'm trying to work on that by hopping into full-ring tables that only have 3-4 players (but most of them have VPIP of 42-73% or whatever) so I can get some experience with short-handed aggressive play, while also encouraging others to join the table and it quickly becomes full-ring and profitable for what I'm experienced in playing.

I don't always make the correct moves, sometimes I'm too much of a calling station, other times I try to bluff at the wrong times. I'm going to continue learning the game and hopefully improve, but I don't mind facing brain-dead opponents who are limp three-betting hands like 5/5/6/9 quadruple suited.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

I agree with Dynasty. Of all the people who play O8 online, how many are part of the 2+2 community? How many of those read the magazine regularly? Even if they read the article, how many of them actually apply what they read correctly? How many of these people will you actually play against on a regular basis?

In the long run, O8 articles will improve our knowledge of the game (for those few who want to learn, compared to the majority of those who don't really) and draw new players in at the same time.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
(Calling to mind one poster's repeated brags of questionable plays which he believes are great...)

[/ QUOTE ]
Um, they were joke posts which generated interesting discussion. Nice hand reading skills, morph.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to restrict the info, it's only because one, you have a mediocre confidence in your game at best, and two, you have no desire to improve your game at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's make another generalization: people who resort to attacking their opponents instead of discussing the issue objectively usually do so because of a lack of substance in their own arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, O8 in any form is not simpler than hold'em. That's a myth. Any game that has more than two unknown cards, is simply more complicated than a game with only two.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice analysis, but completely mistaken. The time taken for an average player to both stop losing money and become an expert are significantly shorter in PLO8 than any other game. It's not just a matter of counting cards. The split pot nature of the game, the pot limit betting structure and the frequency of nut hands mean that the game has far more certainty, and it's far easier to approach optimal play with a very little study (or intelligence). This is not true for any other game.

Bottom line, games do change because of books, especially online with the added issues of multitabling and support software. If you disagree with me then you disagree with Ray Zee also (see the quote above.)

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
But I caution those who want to write detailed, little known information about correct play (as opposed to articles about aspects of correct play, or discussion of specific hands), that it will affect the games, particularly PLO8.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a key part of BBP's stance.

If you want to see what bad PLO8 games look like, try playing the 25s at Party during the first day or two of a bonus period. You might have 10 tables going with over half of them with $3 pot averages. Frighteningly, if you gave a few of these people a "Top 10 List of Nut Peddler Errors" (e.g., chasing a bare nut low), it'd probably drop lower.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Buzz is in the November issue of the Magazine again. As only an occassional O8 player, I was surprised by some of the results in his article.

I'd really like to see more post-flop strategy articles from other posters.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice analysis, but completely mistaken. The time taken for an average player to both stop losing money and become an expert are significantly shorter in PLO8 than any other game. It's not just a matter of counting cards. The split pot nature of the game, the pot limit betting structure and the frequency of nut hands mean that the game has far more certainty, and it's far easier to approach optimal play with a very little study (or intelligence). This is not true for any other game.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would be very interested in reading an article from you in which you address specifics related to this thought.

As to Buzz's article, great to see & nice job. Personally, I think that it will help most bad or mediocre players stay that way. There are no secrets disclosed in it. It doesn't help with post-flop strategy which is the place where most losers lose most. These are not criticisms of it at all.

Hopefully it will serve the purpose of encouraging more players to give the game a try while armed with very little in terms of knowledge to defend themselves with.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
As to Buzz's article, great to see & nice job.

[/ QUOTE ]Fish - Thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think that it will help most bad or mediocre players stay that way.

[/ QUOTE ]How will it do that?

[ QUOTE ]
There are no secrets disclosed in it.

[/ QUOTE ]No. But I believe it has fundamental background material for improving one's game. For example, pairs (except for aces and kings) are not included in the top forty two-card combinations found in winning hands. In the starting hand analyzer section, I sorted by win rate (given as a percentage) rather than by $ net per hand) but if sorted by $ net per hand and presented the data that way, no pairs (except aces and kings) are found in the top 40/169 two-card combos found in winning hands either.

I presented Painless Potter data. (Painless Potter is a special no bet, no fold Wilson character used in running no-fold-'em simulations). However in other simulations with a mix of Wilson characters, aggressive or passive, tight or loose, tenacious or irresolute - for any character chosen and in any mix of characters I used (and I tried dozens of mixes) pairs did not fare well. And the same group of two-card combinations (AA, A2s, A2n, A3s, A3n, A4s, A4n) kept cropping up in the top ten regardless of the way the groups were sorted and regardless of the characters used in the sims.

Where were queen pairs? Well... mostly they're losers. Did you know that already?

If so, good for you, but most people wouldn't. I didn't myself before I ran the series of simulations. And what do you think that means for jacks and tens? (Do you think they're any better than queens?)

This is not exactly a secret, but it certainly is something I didn't know before I ran the series of sims. And it doesn't matter which Wilson character is playing them, or if I'm playing them myself against a collection of tough Wilson characters.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't help with post-flop strategy which is the place where most losers lose most.

[/ QUOTE ]It's probably true that most losers lose most on the three betting rounds after the first betting round. But losing starts with hand selection. Someone sees the flop with a hand that would have been better folded, perhaps a hand with a pair of queens or even kings or aces, and then
gets caught up in the hand.

[ QUOTE ]
These are not criticisms of it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks, Fish. I felt they needed a direct response from me anyhow.

Buzz

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Dynasty - In the September issue I tried to explain how to count outs for high and low as worth less than scoop outs, but I wasn’t happy with the result. One scoop truly is worth more in real play than two average wins for high – and an average high win is truly worth more than an average low win. But it doesn’t show that way in % wins in simulations. What I wrote actually works well in terms of counting outs and roughing out odds in actual play, but my explanation was flawed. I hate it when I make mistakes and I made one in the article.

I am happy with my article for the November issue. It leads to a simple system for starting hand selection based on choosing hands with superior two-card combinations. Seems to me that’s something people keep asking about on this forum and one place they keep screwing up even when they don't directly ask about it. But you do have to understand the background material about two-card combinations for it to make good sense.

I’ve been sticking to the system for the last month in casino games - and with success (while continuing to polish it). I'll send you the latest version early next week. Maybe it will get published in the on-line magazine next month - and then the article for this month will make more sense.

Buzz

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think that it will help most bad or mediocre players stay that way.

[/ QUOTE ]How will it do that?
We both know that in LO8 if you play a hand without an ace, you are starting off in less than ideal shape. This article certainly illustrates that well. Most players can find that info in various places. The players who already (try to) follow starting hand guidelines of some sort would be reassured by this article. Some who were playing very tight may add some hands. Some who 'follow guidelines' but don't think much for themselves will be less likely to protect their blinds with so-so holdings.

[ QUOTE ]
There are no secrets disclosed in it.

[/ QUOTE ]No. But I believe it has fundamental background material for improving one's game. For example, pairs (except for aces and kings) are not included in the top forty two-card combinations found in winning hands. In the starting hand analyzer section, I sorted by win rate (given as a percentage) rather than by $ net per hand) but if sorted by $ net per hand and presented the data that way, no pairs (except aces and kings) are found in the top 40/169 two-card combos found in winning hands either.

I presented Painless Potter data. (Painless Potter is a special no bet, no fold Wilson character used in running no-fold-'em simulations). However in other simulations with a mix of Wilson characters, aggressive or passive, tight or loose, tenacious or irresolute - for any character chosen and in any mix of characters I used (and I tried dozens of mixes) pairs did not fare well. And the same group of two-card combinations (AA, A2s, A2n, A3s, A3n, A4s, A4n) kept cropping up in the top ten regardless of the way the groups were sorted and regardless of the characters used in the sims.

Where were queen pairs? Well... mostly they're losers. Did you know that already?

If so, good for you, but most people wouldn't. I didn't myself before I ran the series of simulations. And what do you think that means for jacks and tens? (Do you think they're any better than queens?)

This is not exactly a secret, but it certainly is something I didn't know before I ran the series of sims. And it doesn't matter which Wilson character is playing them, or if I'm playing them myself against a collection of tough Wilson characters.

I believe it provides fundamental information that people need to improve their game. More importantly, I believe it provides enough information to get people to try the game, yet not enough info to protect them from being outplayed by better players. I think that's a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't help with post-flop strategy which is the place where most losers lose most.

[/ QUOTE ]It's probably true that most losers lose most on the three betting rounds after the first betting round. But losing starts with hand selection. Someone sees the flop with a hand that would have been better folded, perhaps a hand with a pair of queens or even kings or aces, and then
gets caught up in the hand.

Agreed. Yet I think that the tendency of most online players is to play more hands (and weaker starting hands) than they intend to. I feel like there are gains to be made in any event. For example if they follow this hand selection exactly, I can pick up more pots against them. Losing starts with hand selection - yes & no. I can start with bad cards & win a big pot with them much more often than I will lose a big pot with them. I am quite sure you cna do the same. It's about getting away from bad flops, and knowing when you can move someone else off a hand.

[ QUOTE ]
These are not criticisms of it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks, Fish. I felt they needed a direct response from me anyhow.

Buzz

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have provided excellent information for players wanting to learn to play the game. I doubt that the majority of bad players will make the commitment needed to implement using only these starting hands & then into learning to play them for maximum value postflop as well.

Cheers!

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, I believe it provides enough information to get people to try the game, yet not enough info to protect them from being outplayed by better players.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Fish - Most of us are frequently in danger of getting out-played by better players.

[ QUOTE ]
I can start with bad cards & win a big pot with them much more often than I will lose a big pot with them. I am quite sure you cna do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]Well.... all right. You get away from the hand when you miss the flop. But you dribble away all or most of your winnings playing like that, seeing too many flops and then folding. That's not a winning strategy, at least for me.

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that the majority of bad players will make the commitment needed to implement using only these starting hands & then into learning to play them for maximum value postflop as well.

[/ QUOTE ]I think you're probably right about that.

Omaha-8 is my main diversion these days. I'm genuinely interested in the game and it's various aspects.

Take care.
Buzz

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nice analysis, but completely mistaken. The time taken for an average player to both stop losing money and become an expert are significantly shorter in PLO8 than any other game. It's not just a matter of counting cards. The split pot nature of the game, the pot limit betting structure and the frequency of nut hands mean that the game has far more certainty, and it's far easier to approach optimal play with a very little study (or intelligence). This is not true for any other game

[/ QUOTE ] I think that this is certainly true for PLO8 vs NLHE, or even PLO8 vs PLO. Im NOT sure that this is true with LO8 vs LHE, especially when played at higher limits or in SH games.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Frank Jerome (Buzz) completed his two-part pre-flop limit O/8 articles in the recent December issue. Frank is almost too prolific a writer. The two articles were nearly 7,000 words combined and were intially just one article.

I'd like to see more post-flop O/8 submissions. I've occassionally gotten PMs or e-mails from posters who have expressed interest in writing for the Magazine. But, at present, I don't have an O/8 submssion on my desk.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Buzz has written three O/8 articles in the past two issues. This month's article, Flopped Trips in Omaha 8 or Better is more narrowly focused than his previous articles.

I've gotten some recent PMs/e-mails from posters about writing some pot-limit O/8 articles. So, I may get some O/8 authors published besides Buzz in the near future.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

The March issue of the Magazine has another solid article from Frank Jerome.

Playing the Second Nut Flush Draw in Omaha 8 or Better by Frank Jerome

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Frank Jerome is easily the Magazine's most reliable and prolific writer. But, I'd still like to see others in the O/8 forum contributing to the Magazine.

Frank has two articles in the April issue.

Priming the Pump in Omaha 8 or Better

Some Pre-flop Raising Considerations in Omaha 8 or Better

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Frank's article this month is more general and somehwat applicable to hold 'em as well.

Completing From the Small Blind- Deceptive Odds

Frank has a big three-part series in the works.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Dynasty, Im curious, when you originally posted this
message, I sent something in, then some drama happened
or you quit or something and only response I got was we
have no editor this month, now you are back? So, what
is the deal, do you want submissions (asides from buzz's
which are quite good usually)

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty, Im curious, when you originally posted this
message, I sent something in, then some drama happened
or you quit or something and only response I got was we
have no editor this month, now you are back? So, what
is the deal, do you want submissions (asides from buzz's
which are quite good usually)

[/ QUOTE ]

I was never in any drama and there was never any discussion of me quitting. I've been the editor since the 09/06 issue and everything has been stable since then.

I definitely want quality submissions from as many people as possible, including you.

If you sent something in, I'm not aware of it. E-mail the submission again and make sure I confirm receipt.

The original post was mad eon 08/03/06 (you can see the date in the post).

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Frank Jerome started a three-part series in the June issue.

Limit Omaha 8 or Better: Post Flop Theory Part 1

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

Frank Jerome has been very busy with his post flop theory series. He's on Part IV this month.

Limit Omaha 8 or Better Post Flop Theory Part IV

Frank has only written limit articles so far. So, there's plenty of room for authors interested in writing PLO8 articles.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Frank Jerome has been very busy with his post flop theory series. He's on Part IV this month.

Limit Omaha 8 or Better Post Flop Theory Part IV

Frank has only written limit articles so far. So, there's plenty of room for authors interested in writing PLO8 articles.

[/ QUOTE ]

How long should the article be? I might try to write something, but I dont know if it would be good enough or what you guys are looking for.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]

How long should the article be? I might try to write something, but I dont know if it would be good enough or what you guys are looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Articles should be between 1,000 and 2,000 words.

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

I hope you guys have been keeping up with Frank's series. The last installment is in this month's Magazine.

Limit Omaha 8 or Better Post Flop Theory Part VI

Re: Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
 

There's been a change to "Contribute to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine" page. This has been added.

...some articles will be selected for translation into German and will appear on PokerOlymp. An additional fee of $100 (per article) will be paid for all selected articles. Again after three months these translated articles will come down from www.PokerOlymp.de and all rights are then returned to the authors. These translations will be used for no other purposes without the permission from the authors.