How to Dominate $1 and $2 No Limit Hold'em

[pokerdoc32]

I have a question for Sam.

I saw Lucky You. Not a bad movie - a little light on story, but I liked the poker scenes. I saw your name at the top of the players list at Binion's. You were the "Old Man" which didn't tell me much. Which one were you?

[The Absurdist]

Hey Sam,

I've read your book and enjoyed most of the material. In fact, I took at least a dozen new ideas from it, which, for me, makes it a very valuable purchase. It is clear you know a lot about the game. However...please, if you decide to issue a second edition, enlist a professional editor to help you with the text.

Your language is often awkward and imprecise, and every chapter is filled with needless repetition. If your ideas were more intelligible to readers it could not help but improve the reputation and marketability of the book should you decide to issue a second edition. A knowledgeable editor (and incorporating some of the strategic criticism on 2+2) would make your book one of the essential no-limit texts.

I offer my criticism with all due respect, without any snideness or snarkiness, and hope you choose to incorporate this advice in future editions.

[jeffnc]

Sam, I was wondering if you could address my specific questions (or assumptions) at the end of this thread.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=0#Post11434079

In part, I'm wondering if your premise is indeed desiring to win consistently at the expense of overall EV. And if so, is that really a good thing?

[howtodominate]

Jeff,

We're all interested in a good profit vs. time and risk balance. Our consistency vs. profit and loss swings will depend on the individual, his bankroll, and the kinds of games he chooses.

DOMINATE addresses these things in a subjective way.

Sam

[jeffnc]

You have skillfully and diplomatically avoided answering the question :-) This is not a loaded question - either way you answer, it will be legitimate. I just want to be sure I'm reviewing the book in a fair manner.

There is not necessarily anything wrong with reducing EV and reducing risk at the same time. People do this all the time with financial investments. For example, if you played 1,000 sessions, and expected to lose $1 999 times, and win $1,000 1 time, then that would be clearly unacceptable to a poker player. The question relates to degree.

My question to you is, what exactly is the premise of the dominating player, to the extent that you would give up EV in return for consistency. In your book you advise passing on +EV situations (for example, playing at a table of loose passives) in return for reduced variance. I'm asking

1) is this the case?
2) what is your estimation of the difference in profit and the difference in variance?

[howtodominate]

lol Your question reminds me of the therapist whose first question is, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

The game of loose passives has not been proven to yield a better EV than the DOMINATOR approach to the game.

You need a better premise.

Sam

[jeffnc]

I do not have a premise. If you read my post again, I ask "what exactly is the premise of the dominating player". If I ask and you don't say and it's not clear in the book, it leaves me to speculate.

Let me ask a simpler question and start from there. Why do you advise leaving and going home rather than playing in a game of loose passives? In my experience, and the experience of probably every other player on this forum, is that a game of loose/passive opposition is very profitable. Your last post seems to imply (without actually saying it) is that dominator poker against non-loose/passives is more profitable than dominator poker, or some other style, against loose/passives.

Your book gives advice in some places that is unusual and/or impractical, so to "buy it", or recommend that others "buy it", I want to understand the rationale behind it. I think I have a very legitimate question here.

[howtodominate]

Interpret the book the way you like.

The book intends to say that, although we may win some money in those loose passive games that can not be converted to more aggressive games, it doesn't suit the DOMINATOR style and purpose. So, quite naturally, on those rare occasions, we pick another game.

Nothing wrong. If you're addicted to limper games, play them.

Sam

[howtodominate]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for Sam.

I saw Lucky You. Not a bad movie - a little light on story, but I liked the poker scenes. I saw your name at the top of the players list at Binion's. You were the "Old Man" which didn't tell me much. Which one were you?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you looked for me in the tournament scenes, you were too late; I'm in the scenes filmed at Binion's. I'm in the blue jacket, drawing out on Eric Bana on the river with Drew Barrymore cheering for me. In fact, I drew out 14 times before the director was happy with it.

Thank you for looking.

Sam

[Deadpool_AZ]

Hi. New to the forums here. First post, etc.

I just moved to Biloxi and have been playing quite a bit of 1-2NL. The $100 min buy-in, no max. I've done fairly well I suppose, mostly playing TA (I think [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ), but have been looking to increase my knowledge. I have tons of books (maybe too many) but none seem to deal directly with the types of games that seem so common to 1-2 or 2-5NL games. Most seem to cover tournament play (or limit of course). Looks like this might be a decent one to check out.