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

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Higher winrate does not necessarily mean better book (repeat Harvey Penick example above.) But there is an obvious correlation. There is a tendency for the strategy to be better for players with higher win rates. There is a tendency for books espousing better strategies to be better books. That seems pretty obvious to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obvious but misses the point. It's easier to see trends and differences that matter if you compare data from good, ok, and not so good players rather than just look at stats of good players. Logical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah that's logical, but I don't agree that I was missing the point at all. The point was that a high win rate correlates with correct poker strategy.

[jeffnc]

I think you could make a great - 3 volume set for limit poker. ITH by Hilger as the base volume, SSH by Miller for loose games in particular, and WITHG for shorthanded/tough games. (Ciaffone's book might fit in there too.)

I really think this is a good book. The only problem I have with it is that it's kind of boring. But that's not necessarily a criticism of the book, because I think short handed strategy to me is just less interesting. Sometimes it's more a game of chicken, or plain math of the sort that's pretty dry for me.

But I think the book is well written and (probably) very good strategy-wise.

[SparkMan]

Bump

Would it be mathematically correct to tighten up the preflop raising standards in smaller games where the rake is much more of a factor? Pushing small edges would seem to be less profitable. Plus with the much bigger player pool, meta game considerations are important but not as important as in the very high stakes games.

[stoxtrader]

yes, the higher the rake, the tighter it is correct to play, generally speaking.

[uDevil]

Hi Stox,

I had asked Dr. Al to ask you this question on his show, but I guess he forgot (great interview by the way):


As much as anything, the book is about adjusting our game to our opponents. If in smaller stakes games bluffing and semibluffing are less successful, how should we adjust when we defend or attack the blinds? Should we require greater equity for the hands we play? If so, how much more?

[smbruin22]

does this book have any applicability in terms of no-limit, short to moderate stacks, playing out of blinds???....

i realize it's not what the book is intended for, but i find there's so little info about so many topics, that i often have to take limit advice and customize it (i know it's dangerous)

[sputum]

[ QUOTE ]
does this book have any applicability in terms of no-limit, short to moderate stacks, playing out of blinds???....

i realize it's not what the book is intended for, but i find there's so little info about so many topics, that i often have to take limit advice and customize it (i know it's dangerous)

[/ QUOTE ]
If it helps, I bought the book while not being part of its target audience just to see what it was like. So although it's over my head and I'm lazy to study it properly and get limit experience etc, the overwhelming thing I got from a casual read is it's limitness. It is really about limit poker. So imo don't do it. It seems customised FOR limit.
Not ragging on the book in any way, I'm guessing it does what it says on the tin [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[YertleTurtle]

I agree that the blind vs. blind and re-stealing section is specifically suited for limit play but I think an intelligent player could read these sections, play around with hand ranges in pokerstove and come up with some nice responses based on PT stats on opponents. I am in no way a NL expert so take this with a grain of salt.

uDevil - I know your question was directed at Stox but I thought I would take a stab at it. Although bluffing and semi-bluffing are less successful in lower limit games this doesn't mean that you should make drastic changes to your hand ranges in stealing and defending positions. The adjustments should be made to counter the higher percentage of rake and in the way hands are played after the flop (value-betting more and semi-bluffing/bluffing less).

YT

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
does this book have any applicability in terms of no-limit, short to moderate stacks, playing out of blinds???....

i realize it's not what the book is intended for, but i find there's so little info about so many topics, that i often have to take limit advice and customize it (i know it's dangerous)

[/ QUOTE ]

You get a sense of hot and cold equity equations based on the data rich nature of the playing advice. However, in a theoretical sense, the Sklansky-Chubukov numbers are already in place for a no limit push or fold type short stack considerations.

This book is very, very specific to limit games. As you would with any good poker book, you'll glean some insights, but the extrapolation of NL lessons will need to be done by the reader.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
uDevil - I know your question was directed at Stox but I thought I would take a stab at it. Although bluffing and semi-bluffing are less successful in lower limit games this doesn't mean that you should make drastic changes to your hand ranges in stealing and defending positions. The adjustments should be made to counter the higher percentage of rake and in the way hands are played after the flop (value-betting more and semi-bluffing/bluffing less).

YT

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Yertle,

The problem I have is that value betting more and bluffing and semibluffing less means I'll generally be betting less because my opening range includes hands that often have little value after the flop. In that case, I'll often be pushed out of the hand immediately because if my hand doesn't have enough value to bet, I can't call either.

Just because bluffs and semibluffs won't often succeed in these games doesn't mean players don't try. When they do, I'll usually be defenseless. That's why I'm led back to reconsider my opening range.