[ QUOTE ]
first two book reviews on the internet (non-2p2.com) that i saw. a few of the paragraphs look pretty similar to mine. and i'm pretty sure these reviewers have read the book.
http://cardsharp.org/?p=89
[/ QUOTE ]
Let's take a look at this one. It's certainly a much more well informed and well written criticism than yours. Note, for example the correct use of "premise".
That critique does better at raising some interesting points. For example, they might have a point about a small target audience (although even here they seem to view the book in a vacuum, rather than Vol 1 of 2 volumes.) But still, it's incorrect in spots.
For example,
"The fact which Flynn and Mehta seem to be blind to is that no matter what SPR ratio you shoot for with a relatively weak hand like top pair (assuming there’s any meaningful chips left at all) their is some betting line that will put you to a difficult decision. That’s simply the nature of NL."
That is blatantly incorrect, plain and simple. Just plain wrong.
The ideas in the book that some people are misunderstanding seem fairly easy to understand to me. I'll say this in hindsight - it sounds like the authors could have done a better job (somehow) of explaining SPR so that people didn't think the book is about going all-in with TPTK. I'm not quite sure why readers are having this comprehension problem, but they are, and that's the problem the authors have to deal with.
SPR is a factor for determining how the hand should be played and is being played, the same in that respect as pot odds, starting stacks, implied odds, etc. It helps you avoid certain lines as well as attempt other lines. It tells you what you should be thinking about and trying for. You might not always get what you want, just like you might not get your whole stack in preflop with AA. But you should know what you want, and don't want, regardless of whether your opponent allows you to achieve it or not.
With regard to your comment about me being some sort of shill for 2+2, that's laughable. My comments and reviews are easily accessible and I've been critical of some 2+2 books and laudatory of others. I've flamed Mason and criticized some of Sklansky (see my recent comment in the magazine forum about Sklansky's article.) I'm the mod for limit Holdem at internettexasholdem.com, the companion web site for the book of the same name, a direct competitor to 2+2 books. I've never received any money for any opinions or comments or any association with any web site or forum. I just know good books when I see them and weak books or part of books when I see them.
PNL Vol 1
might have some problems getting its point across to readers. You
definitely have a problem in comprehending some of its points however. Probably what's happened is that you read something, you jumped to a (wrong) conclusion early, and then you could no longer view the remaining material in an objective context.