SNG Book Announcement:

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Conceptually, using a set payout structure won't explain why the payout structure causes all these oddball +cEV/-$EV spots that are the bread-and-butter of SNGs. Practically, as soon as the payout structure changes, most of the book is no longer applicable.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]

So you don't trust the editors of 2+2 to make sure the material is accurate and complete?

Fine if you don't want to jump on the Collin bandwagon, but Mason and David have been putting out great poker books for years. Why do you think this would be different?

[/ QUOTE ]


Mason does not play sngs to our knowledge and someone like Sklansky has displayed that he is miles behind the regular STTF'ers in understanding sngs in his forum

And take books like HOH 1&2, despite being two of the greatest books evar and in top five of my booklist, they completely butcher sngs. (HOH3 tries to make up for this)

As stated above, SNGs are more or less a solved game, and the consesus is, that if a book ever was written by one of the World Class Players, then it would be a bible.


While there is no doubt that his book will teach noobs to beat low to middle buyin sngs and thus in turn letting the one who reads it make a living perhaps, there is concern if it will be complete ... and even as you say accurate to all extents.

There is a lot of pride in STTF.


But Pokerboy, you have read in this thread statements from world class sng players, yet you dismiss their warnings and intead state, that you put your fate in that players from a limit and stud background are natural choices to judge this book.


No one is doubting that this book will be a pleasant read, no one is doubting that it will teach a lot of players that are otherwise clueless about sngs to make a nice chip.

But this is just a branch of poker, where the bible can be written.


And I can't understand why the concerns of several top posters and players are so easily dismissed (by people who don't play sngs as well for the most part)

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]
you have read in this thread statements from world class sng players

[/ QUOTE ]

An unsubstantiated claim for the ages. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[seemorenuts]

Hi Muth, Hi Men,



Power corrupts.

Apostrophic power corrupts apostrophically.




best wishes,

seemorenuts

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but I'm worried he's one of those players who plays 500 SNGs, turns a decent profit, and thinks his "system" works.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't trust the editors of 2+2 to make sure the material is accurate and complete?

Fine if you don't want to jump on the Collin bandwagon, but Mason and David have been putting out great poker books for years. Why do you think this would be different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't really "trust" the publishers, as such. "Complete and accurate" is not the goal of a publisher. A publisher publishes books that will make him a profit. If Collin furnished a completed manuscript, asking no advance, the publishers of 2+2 can offer basically whatever they want for it and Collin is in no position to negotiate. Why would Mason and David care if Collin can actually play SNGs well? If the advice looks decent, it'll sell just as well as if it actually was decent, and it was basically free, so why not put it out there?

I think Collin is an OK low/mid-stakes SNG player, but a book effort now looks to me like classic MIT/Cal Tech undergrad behavior: get OK at one non-academic thing and think they must be God's own sweet-voiced calling at it because they're so much smarter than everyone else.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't really "trust" the publishers, as such. "Complete and accurate" is not the goal of a publisher. A publisher publishes books that will make him a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]


I actually was thinking of posting something similar above, but decided against it ..... non the less, it is true.

Then when this book has stopped selling, you can always publish SNGs for advanced players or Expert SNG advice or similar and have another go at it.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
A publisher publishes books that will make him a profit. If Collin furnished a completed manuscript, asking no advance, the publishers of 2+2 can offer basically whatever they want for it and Collin is in no position to negotiate. Why would Mason and David care if Collin can actually play SNGs well? If the advice looks decent, it'll sell just as well as if it actually was decent, and it was basically free, so why not put it out there?

[/ QUOTE ]


Look, you guys know a lot more about SNG's than I do. And I guess some of his stuff in the SNG forum just doesn't seem that hot?

But the above quote comes dangerously close to implying that Mason would practically just publish any half-decent manuscript that got thrown his way and I think we all know that this isn't the case at all.

If there are so many concerns from the SNG-forum crowd though I would hope that Mason would listen to them somewhat and find a couple of not-so-biased individuals to critique the manuscript before moving forward with publication.

If it's error-riddled or just proven to be not quite accurate then this wouldn't reflect so hot on 2+2.
And there can't possibly be anything wrong with having 1 or 2 of the SNG-forum guru's page through it I wouldn't think.

[Gelford]

I don't see that statement aimed at Mason in particular, it is just a general statement about the publishing business.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, you guys know a lot more about SNG's than I do. And I guess some of his stuff in the SNG forum just doesn't seem that hot?

But the above quote comes dangerously close to implying that Mason would practically just publish any half-decent manuscript that got thrown his way and I think we all know that this isn't the case at all.

If there are so many concerns from the SNG-forum crowd though I would hope that Mason would listen to them somewhat and find a couple of not-so-biased individuals to critique the manuscript before moving forward with publication.

If it's error-riddled or just proven to be not quite accurate then this wouldn't reflect so hot on 2+2.
And there can't possibly be anything wrong with having 1 or 2 of the SNG-forum guru's page through it I wouldn't think.

[/ QUOTE ]

This whole discussion seems like a classic case of sour grapes crossed with an example of "not invented here syndrome" gone amuck and is getting silly. The poster quoted above says a lot of what I've been thinking.

If the experts on the STTF had written a book or proposed one to Mason I assume he would have given it serious consideration. The market for such a book is obviously there. Think of all the posts asking for advice on books about SNGs in this forum.

But Mason is in the business of publishing books, not appeasing people who happen to participate on an internet forum that his company sponsors. The poster who suggested that there is room for multiple books was on the right track. If the experts in STTF can do better then they ought to do it. Mason's aware of the concerns regarding the book (not based on those with the concerns having read it, of course). I'm sure he'll get input if he thinks that is appropriate.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, you guys know a lot more about SNG's than I do. And I guess some of his stuff in the SNG forum just doesn't seem that hot?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to give anyone that impression. His STTF posts have been quality. He thinks about hands on a high level, but I'd like to see some more proof he actually knows what he's talking about. Here's an example.

This thread is where he wants to re-steal on the bubble with 52s. He gives all the necessary information, which is rare, and gives a decent interpretation of the situation. I come in later and show why I don't quite like the play based on some hand ranges I'm guessing and plugging into some analysis I didn't show, but I have no doubt Collin could duplicate if he hasn't already. Some good SNG players say it's totally standard. At least one says he'd pass. In general, it's a good post of a hand where the important factors are fairly obvious to experienced good players and maybe not so much to less experienced good players. The debate can probably go on unresolved forever about those factors. The point is, I don't like his play.

When Dan Harrington tells me to do something I don't like in a MTT, I assume he's right and I'm wrong because of his record of success in that format at the highest levels for a long time. When Collin Moshman tells me to do something I don't like in a STT, I assume he's remembering back when he used to 2-table the old Party $216's, back when there were loads of players who would fold 90% of their UTG raising ranges to a push because they didn't notice a payout bubble until being faced with an all-in. I'm questioning his level of experience in a way that should be easy to answer. My worry is that he's writing an "expert" book as a novice.