Poker Books

[MrX5000]

I've noticed that the newly published books provide alot of really good information. However, after a short while, the good players recognize what you're doing and it just doesn't work at all.

Does anyone have an idea of when this sort of thinking expires? The stop and go for example....Is WAY overused online now. I probably make more money off calling that sort of move that I don't buy the mathmatics behind it anymore.

Also I see alot of the shortstack theory in Harrington's book starting to become out of date like playing small pairs on the bubble.

The squeeze move is forcing people to think about smoothcalling with their Aces and Kings....stuff like that.

Any of you pros know what I'm saying? Agree/disagree?

- X

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
I've noticed that the newly published books provide alot of really good information. However, after a short while, the good players recognize what you're doing and it just doesn't work at all.

Does anyone have an idea of when this sort of thinking expires? The stop and go for example....Is WAY overused online now. I probably make more money off calling that sort of move that I don't buy the mathmatics behind it anymore.

Also I see alot of the shortstack theory in Harrington's book starting to become out of date like playing small pairs on the bubble.

The squeeze move is forcing people to think about smoothcalling with their Aces and Kings....stuff like that.

Any of you pros know what I'm saying? Agree/disagree?

- X

[/ QUOTE ]
Books and Publications forum.

[Josem]

13 days

[phydaux]

Because bad players overuse a move doesn't mean that the the particular move is incorrect or will "expire."

C-Betting, Floating, Check-Raising, Semi-Bluffing, all these "moves" can be and are overdone by bad players. It's the job of a good player to recognise when a particular bad player had a tendency to overuse a particular move and exploit that tendency. Just like you have with the Stop-and-Go.

[MrX5000]

[ QUOTE ]
Because bad players overuse a move doesn't mean that the the particular move is incorrect or will "expire."

C-Betting, Floating, Check-Raising, Semi-Bluffing, all these "moves" can be and are overdone by bad players. It's the job of a good player to recognise when a particular bad player had a tendency to overuse a particular move and exploit that tendency. Just like you have with the Stop-and-Go.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything you're saying actually. Let me be more specific. Here's an example. In the SNG strategy book (by Collin Moshman), Hand 2-37...A pushing scenerio where you're BB, shortstacked, and going over the top of 3 limpers and the small blind with T9s.

The author assumes in his calculations:

30% fold rate = +ev
60% one caller = -ev
10% everyone calls= -ev
total after calculation: +150 ev

The outcome is a barely positive expected value. I was really surprised to see the math behind the move because I see identical scenerios where the BB may put in a smaller raise and then follow it up with the all-in post flop because they are first to act. The move in this book just seems reckless.

Now with this move out there, I can see more people willing to gamble preflop with say AT because they understand the move thus negating the fold equity behind it (lowering the assumed 30% fold rate).

I believe that there are poker trends that can change where a move is +ev or not. Awareness changes the fold rate. In this case, it's only marginally +ev. So, changing the assumed fold rate makes it a negative equity move.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that there are poker trends that can change where a move is +ev or not. Awareness changes the fold rate. In this case, it's only marginally +ev. So, changing the assumed fold rate makes it a negative equity move.

[/ QUOTE ]

It changes the specific numbers you plug into the formula, which might give different results. It doesn't change the theory in the least.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have an idea of when this sort of thinking expires? The stop and go for example....Is WAY overused online now. I probably make more money off calling that sort of move that I don't buy the mathmatics behind it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

The mathematics of the "move" are solid whether you call or not. Perhaps you didn't fully understand the concept. On the other hand, it's good that you understand other players are doing it, which you probably couldn't have figured out if you hadn't read the books.

This is like saying pot odds "don't work anymore" because I know my opponents are paying attention to them now.