[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
What are some points you disagree with? And whose side do you take in the razz discussion? I have the book, it seems a good one, but I'm unfamiliar with many of the games.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think their most heated argument was over the idea that there are some spots where huck would throw away an A23 starter on 3rd st to limit his variance. The example he gave was a little extreme, but plausible, in that there were 4 or 5 of his out cards showing on the board and the action had been completed, called, and raised before getting to him (implying that the pot would be capped 3 or 4 ways if he chose to play). He didn't want to put in a significant % of his stack when it might show a tiny +EV, but Ted disagreed saying something like he could make a lot of money off of Huck's discards.

I have to side with Huck in this argument. The swings in a limit tournament get large once it gets past level 6 or so and playing huge multiway pots, even with a slight equity edge (which depending on the opponents' holdings an A23 may not even have), is a good way to go bust. You can't just play a tournament like you would a cash game where if you have a 3% edge you don't mind putting in the max allowable number of bets. Also, ignoring tournament issues like this erases some of the skill edge of better players because once the pot is large, plays become more automatic (tho not completely). In fact, I overheard one laggy pro at the WSOP razz event say that his strategy is to jam the pot whenever possible on 3rd or 4th streets specifically in order to cut down the skill edge of his opponents. He may not have known the game all that well, but he certainly knew how to play tournaments and was rewarded with a final table appearance.