Review: Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games by Stox/Zobags

[Soundwave]

[ QUOTE ]

By defending less I would think the added respect you get when you actually do defend would make a difference too.

This would be from a thinking opponents's standpoint who is going to observe that you don't defend very often, therefore the thinking-opponent could be more easily pushed out of the battle with marginal stuff.

I wonder how much EV you would gain on your better hands if you were 'under-defending' against thinking players by just ditching the super-marginal stuff.

Would AK or AQ unimproved possibly do better because you're getting more respect now and an opponent will be less likely to call-down with marginal hands?
When you over-defend does that usually provoke your opponent to 'look you up' more often?
I tend to think it could.


This is the aspect that has always concerned me about the idea of "you need to defend with such-and-such hand, because in the long-run you will net 0.001 more BB's by playing it instead of folding."

Well, that's just the EV that I'm gaining on THAT particular hand.
I just don't know if "should I defend or steal with this or not?" should be looked at in a vacuum based on how it alone performs.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem I have with this is that if you under-defend, in my experience you get less respect, not more. A good opponent is only going to use your under-defending as a license to pound on you all the more post-flop. While you might get a little more credit for a better starting hand when you do play back, you're still going to miss the flop with most of the hands you do defend with, and your opponent will know that. Short-handed, people are likely to (often correctly) look you up with anything decent regardless of what you started with because you'll miss so often.

Moreover, while you might get a little more credit for a better starting hand when you play back if you under-defend, I don't think it would compensate for the equity you'd be losing in the blinds by folding too much against an aggressive stealer. If your opponent is blind stealing with a wide range then your stack will be getting stolen in the blinds while you wait for big cards to play back with. It would only be correct to tighten up if your opponent was stealing less, not if he's stealing very often.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Short-handed, people are likely to (often correctly) look you up with anything decent regardless of what you started with because you'll miss so often.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they do look you up more often when you defend correctly (as opposed to "under defending"), then they'll be paying you off more often when you have a strong hand.

For MicroBob:

Are you saying that you favor defending less often than recommended even after compensating for your opponents' actual steal percentage? And out of curiosity, how often do your opponents steal on average?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess it's human nature to talk about money/winrates, but for our purposes with the text, higher winrate did not mean better book. I'm curious if anyone disagrees, and if so, why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for the obvious reason - the bigger the winrate, the better the strategy, weighted by sample size. The better the strategy, the better the book. Not that it's a big deal, since Harvey Penick who probably couldn't swing a club could still give good golf advice. But as I said, the rationale is pretty obvious.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
2. How much would it cost to have the suits colored? Especially with this book being geared toward online players it would be a much easier read if the suits were in the standard 4 color deck setup. I personally identify flushes more by color than shape nowadays (god help me when i play live) and i think a lot of other online players would agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yuck.

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess it's human nature to talk about money/winrates, but for our purposes with the text, higher winrate did not mean better book. I'm curious if anyone disagrees, and if so, why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for the obvious reason - the bigger the winrate, the better the strategy, weighted by sample size. The better the strategy, the better the book. Not that it's a big deal, since Harvey Penick who probably couldn't swing a club could still give good golf advice. But as I said, the rationale is pretty obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true. we did not show winrates and then write about the strategy of the player's who achieved those rates. We examined their results emperically to attempt to narrow down into pre-flop standards.

If we were to take the BEST 3 LHE players in the world and examine their stats for pre-flop and blind recommendations and then say that is what everyone should do it would not be correct. We chose instead to take 3 players with moderate to decent success and examine their stats in order to come up with pre-flop strategy for the purposes of the book, again never going to be exactly correct for everyone, but it should be closer and made more sense to us.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, for the obvious reason - the bigger the winrate, the better the strategy, weighted by sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

I ran this by a five year old I know and his reply was that this statement isn't necessarily accurate. A couple of easy ways to increase your win rate would be to drop down in limit and play in easier games, or just be extremely game selective at the higher limit. Each way you can increase your win rate and win less, plus your actual playing strategy can be inferior.

Another example is the tout who claims to hit 70 percent of his picks at sports. That almost has to mean he passes on games that are 60 percent shots.

MM

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, for the obvious reason - the bigger the winrate, the better the strategy, weighted by sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

I ran this by a five year old I know

[/ QUOTE ]

I literally laughed out loud. Mason's humor rocks.

[Gonso]

If anyone has this book and doesn't like it, I'd gladly trade my Ed Miller DVDs for it

Edit: Nothing against the DVDs or Ed

[Alex424]

Excellent book - filled in alot of gaps in my game and after reading it i feel like i have a major advantage in blind steal situations over my opponents, where before at times i went into them with confusion and spewing chips.

Preflop material is excellent and great postflop information although most will be known by good middle / high limit players

This book is a must for any limit.

[*TT*]

I'd like to add that the Value Checks chapter was hands down the best one in the book IMHO. I already integrated this thinking into my game however I never considered the concept mathematically before. All along I was afraid I was giving up too much value as I was going through the motions because everyone else said it was the right thing to do. Thanks Stox & Zobags for opening my eyes!