[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
My final word on this matter is that I now believe SGspecial is a form of troll. A very nice form of troll who means well and I actually like the guy's gumption, but the unfortunate side effect is that his argument seems to be more based on self affirmation than fact. This thread is based on SGspecial's argument that Razz games today play different therefore Sklansky on Razz is outdated. Interestingly enough the only argument SGspecial was able to prove was that there seems to be a mathematical error in calculating pot odds in SOR - an error that doesn't change the optimal play in the book or in a loose game and therefore has little significance on the game.
TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I must come clean here -- I'm relatively new to these forums and have no idea what a "troll" is. But if it takes being a troll to help players to get the most helpful and accurate advice possible on Razz, then I guess I'll take the roll of a troll. Players can decide for themselves if they want to read advice that is tailored to an ancient version of the game, but usually qualifies itself by telling you to "adjust a little" in a high-ante, loose game like is predominant today. I'm sure I have some books around here with excellent advice on how to play limit HE when it only had one blind (the small), but may mention adjustments for the "modern" version with two blinds. I'd be glad to lend them to anyone who asks.

One thing I have learned from this debate is I should be very clear to differentiate between my opinion or inference and the FACTS. For any times when I was unclear or vague about which was which, I apologize to all readers and ask them to bear with me as I'm not a professional writer. While we can have a lively debate about our opinions, I hope all logical readers can agree on the facts. What we all seem to have agreed on in SOR's 3rd st chapter is that there is a repeated mathematical error that presents the increase in the (initial pot vs. the small bet) from the 15/30 game to the 30/60 game as 46% instead of the correct 80%. I'll leave it up to the readers of this forum to decide their own opinion on whether this error does or "doesn't change the optimal play in the book OR in a loose game and therefore has little significance on the game."

If enough forum readers are interested, I will work on some more opinions and facts regarding other chapters of the book.