berry tenanbaum (spelling?) is coming out with a book?

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
Supposedly, the Sampson book consists of 100 hands with the thought processes behind it. So not the textbook approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, didn't realize that .... so we are in for a HGIYLH2, The Sampson book and God willing Stox will continue to think that making a Hands with Stox book is a good idea and get it published (You hear me Mason !! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

[*TT*]

Mason - you are far more eloquent than I am, you expressed what I was thinking very well. Thanks.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason - you are far more eloquent than I am, you expressed what I was thinking very well. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically you are both saying that full ring limit hold'em is a solved game ... and really not worthy of anymore attention or/and elaboration ?

[BlueSmurf]

[ QUOTE ]
So basically you are both saying that full ring limit hold'em is a solved game ... and really not worthy of anymore attention or/and elaboration?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how I read it too and I had a long stroke-your-beard, introspective, philosophical panel debate with myself over it.

[ragazzobello]

[ QUOTE ]
I also a while back attended a talk he gave and was surprised with how weak-tight the advice was including things like you need the best hand or best draw to play on the flop. But he certainly doesn't play that way...

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur based on my limited experience playing 30/60 at the Bellagio with BT in my game. To me, his advice has been very contradictory over the years especially when viewed in light of how he plays himself.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also a while back attended a talk he gave and was surprised with how weak-tight the advice was including things like you need the best hand or best draw to play on the flop. But he certainly doesn't play that way...

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur based on my limited experience playing 30/60 at the Bellagio with BT in my game. To me, his advice has been very contradictory over the years especially when viewed in light of how he plays himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what happens with a lot of great players who try to write books is that they have developed a good feel for where they are in a hand after years of experience, but this 'feel' can't be taught in a book. So they are forced to revert to giving cookie-cutter weak-tight advice to their readers, or they go the opposite direction and give broad advice on being hyper-aggressive, which is dangerous in the hands of the inexperienced reader. Instead of focusing on what *can* effectively be taught in books, which is largely theoretical and isn't necessarily learned through experience at the tables but nevertheless very useful if properly applied. Not too sound too much like a fanboy, but I think this is what generally separates the 2+2 books from the rest.

[PokerHorse]

NoTT, I dont really have anything personal against you , other than the fact that, as i said previously ,I fell I'm looking at Fox news with the posts you are involved in. You are quick to back 2plus 2 authors very aggressively and also quick to discount non 2plus2 authors in the same style.
i'm not going to waste time by giving examples, as I really dont want to get into a full fledged fight about this.Yes, I realize I started this one, but i would ask you
to put things into perspective,(re-my comments about ED).
David Sklansky is brilliant ,but his writing style is less than optimal, but we all try to get through it.
There is a credibilty issue here, maybe not so much as to the idea as to whether what someone like Ed Miller writes factually, but more as to whether theories hold up under fire. I liked Eds limit book,for example because it felt asw though he had played enough to back up some of his more aggressive strategies from experience. No limit, is another matter. The same is true of Mark Blade, as a (non 2plus2 example) Hes played some poker but is primarily a marketing major from USC, who self published a book on being a Pro-Player. He went to various tourneys and snapped pictures with the pros, implying hes friends with them, when really, he's not. I dont care if the book makes logical sense, he lacks credibility.
You have an advantage on me because I havent played with Barry, but I find his articles relevant, especially to beg-intermediatte players. I'm not sure if players can benefit from his personal instruction, because from what I have read of his articles, he appears to be a strong "reader" of the table and plays accordingly, and that stuff you just cant teach. You can point and thats about it. Never the less
if the guy is a long term big bet winner , which i havent heard anyone dispute, then I will pick up his book and hope for the best. If there is something relevant to his backround that you or mason have information on, then present it. But "Idont like him", isnt enough.
The book may turn out to be terrible, who knows, but you cant discount a winning record.
Also, he actually is able to speak about his record while almost all other authors who have playing experience never
speak about it. You, TT said Stox made a million dollars last year playing high limit, yet almost all the posters who play the 100-200 , have revealed their online handles, yet he has apparently changed his...?? Why,??? Eric123, The Salmon, has people watching him play all the time .Why not Stox////??
I'm not saying that he has anything to hide, but it just
fuels suspicion. The IRS excuse aint it.
Please Stox, if you read this ,you dont need to respond.
Im not on a witch hunt. Im just expressing views that are probably more widely held than you might realize.
Openess will sell more books, if that is the goal.
If Barry's book sucks, I will be the first one on this forum to say so.

[PokerHorse]

As far as everything has been written about limit holdem, etc. that mason spoke of, well maybe yes in some respect and a big no way in others.
But, sometimes it helps when things are re-framed, and presented from a different perspective. Once again speaking of Ed Miller, his limit book had really, just a couple of items that hadnt been presented in hfap, but the whole presentation was reframed, and more emphasis was put on , for example not calling raises without premium hands. hfap talks about this as well, but Eds book, re-framed it as one of the most important leaks you could stop. So a full time pros perspective on the game would hopefully be different and there might be more emphasis on aspects of the game that havent been spotlighted enough. seeya

[daveT]

The one BT article that comes to mind is the one where he holds pocket kings.

The UTG limp-re-raises. This guy is supposed to be a pro, but I think he is described as predictable. So BT specifically puts him on AA.

The flop comes down one suit, and BT calls (raises?) with his pair of kings. Whatever he did, I don't understand. If the pro is so WT that he has aces, then BT should be calling if he thinks that the pro does not have the trump ace. So the turn comes and blanks out. Some manniac bets into pro and the pro raises. The thought process he takes here is amazingly wierd, and he (incorrectly, regardless of the outcome) folds. After reading a few articles like this, I am not impressed.

I think MM hit it on the head. Not saying that Limit has been solved, just that there are limits to what can be writen, and concepts that cannot/ should not be explained. Edge is edge, and the teacher cannot tell everything they know.

I agree with TT that there is a certain quality to the 2+2 books that aren't found anywhere else, and the miller limit book is basically the end-all for medium limits. This is an example where the authors gave away far more information than nessecary. Of coarse I am greatful for that. The best 32 dollars I ever spent.

I am wondering about the new Miller NL book. I am not a big fan of NLTP, not saying that it is not good, but I simply disagree with it. I play NL professionally, but I am not an author. I will tip my hat to it because it has divided reviews, and I always respect something like that. But this is not too say that I didn't gain from reading it. But I most certaintly do not feel as though I am a world-class player after reading, as the intro suggests that I would become.

But I won't be the first to say, as there have been several posts, that some of the 2+2 books are not money well-spent. But that goes with your preferences.

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
The one BT article that comes to mind is the one where he holds pocket kings.

The UTG limp-re-raises. This guy is supposed to be a pro, but I think he is described as predictable. So BT specifically puts him on AA.

The flop comes down one suit, and BT calls (raises?) with his pair of kings. Whatever he did, I don't understand. If the pro is so WT that he has aces, then BT should be calling if he thinks that the pro does not have the trump ace. So the turn comes and blanks out. Some manniac bets into pro and the pro raises. The thought process he takes here is amazingly wierd, and he (incorrectly, regardless of the outcome) folds. After reading a few articles like this, I am not impressed.

[/ QUOTE ]
The hand was KQo, not pocket kings. Here's a link to the article.
Barry's article