Poker Tournament Formula ...help me avold confusion

[JJay1231]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Except that some of the info in PTF appears to be wrong.

A better statement might be that if you assimilate everything in HoH, you should get a good return if your practice good game selection.

Luck is definitely NOT the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you even read the book? i'm guessing NOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have. Now what was your point, aside from guessing incorrectly?

[/ QUOTE ]
then maybe you could tell us exactly whats "wrong" with it?

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Except that some of the info in PTF appears to be wrong.

A better statement might be that if you assimilate everything in HoH, you should get a good return if your practice good game selection.

Luck is definitely NOT the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you even read the book? i'm guessing NOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have. Now what was your point, aside from guessing incorrectly?

[/ QUOTE ]
then maybe you could tell us exactly whats "wrong" with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

After there's already been an N page thread on it?

Tell you what - if you really want my opinion, compile a list of perceived deficiencies from that thread, and I'll be glad to give you my up/down opinion as to whether the book is in fact correct on each point.

I'm guessing your interest in my opinion is actually mostly feigned, however, and you won't do the work.

[JJay1231]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Except that some of the info in PTF appears to be wrong.

A better statement might be that if you assimilate everything in HoH, you should get a good return if your practice good game selection.

Luck is definitely NOT the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you even read the book? i'm guessing NOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have. Now what was your point, aside from guessing incorrectly?

[/ QUOTE ]
then maybe you could tell us exactly whats "wrong" with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

After there's already been an N page thread on it?

Tell you what - if you really want my opinion, compile a list of perceived deficiencies from that thread, and I'll be glad to give you my up/down opinion as to whether the book is in fact correct on each point.

I'm guessing your interest in my opinion is actually mostly feigned, however, and you won't do the work.

[/ QUOTE ]

so much for asking a simple question to someone who says they've read the book. But nevermind I've just lost interest in your opinion of it.

cheers.

[New York Jet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can assimilate everything in HoH 1 and 2 and PTF, you should do very, very well in tournaments, if you get lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that some of the info in PTF appears to be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
I saw nothing wrong with the book. I believe the biggest gripe with the book had more to do with the author questioning HoH.

[ QUOTE ]
A better statement might be that if you assimilate everything in HoH, you should get a good return if your practice good game selection.

Luck is definitely NOT the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Game selection in tournaments? Does this mean inviting friends who suck a poker over for a tournament?

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]

I saw nothing wrong with the book. I believe the biggest gripe with the book had more to do with the author questioning HoH.

Game selection in tournaments? Does this mean inviting friends who suck a poker over for a tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]

The issues have nothing to do with question HoH. They have to do with being wrong in areas where HoH is correct. Big difference.

And I"m not even a huge fan of HoH. But it's 100x more useful that PTF.

As far as game selection, you do realize there exists a choice of what tournaments to play, right?

[jeffnc]

The author doesn't contradict Harrington (at least not in the main premise of the book.) Harrington just didn't do the full monty, but he hinted there was more to it than raw M alone. That's what Mason won't admit.