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

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
They also recommends open raising 22 in the small blind page 90, Consistent with my comment about inconsistent advice.

The page 69 folding 22 advice is really quoting their empirical evidence, the page 90 raising advice appears to be them guessing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see three reasons for these types of "mistakes".

1. We used different methods in different parts of the book and thus there should be some contradictions, being able to superimpose or "cross-mesh" methods should act as a bit of a fact-checker or error finder but there would be situations that contradict on the margin.

2. Too my knowledge nobody else has attempted to find the marginal spots at which +EV becomes 0EV becomes -EV, at least to the degree in which we have. This is a very difficult task and I would EXPECT ome of the 0EV (or very very maringal +EV/-EV) spots to be hotly debated. This might then mean that we found the inflection point, which is the whole point anyways.

For instance, If you can say with relative certainty that open raising JTs 3 off the button in higher stakes games is a winner and that J8s is a loser, then I think you have accomplished alot. determing about J9s is going to be both more difficult AND less additive to your profit because if you get it wrong on either side it is a smaller mistake than the other two. You can also attempt to see what other factors influence this decision and use those to determine the correct action at that moment in time for the marginal spots.

3. We did in fact make an error, but aside from the flush draw hand (hand 25 i believe), I think most of our "errors" or explainable/marginal. I am making an excuse here, but I tabulated the data and worked on the charts and there were a lot of marginal decisions. By the end my eyes were a bit crosseyed and I was pretty sick of filtering 300-600k hand PT databases.

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
Stox - Hand #5. Please explain the flop peel, I don't get it. If you had the A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] then it would make sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's certainly close, but I remember looking at this briefly yesterday and thinking I couldnt explain it any better than I attempted to do in the book. The paragraph starts something like "the flop peel is certainly close/marginal"

[Micturition Man]

I have not read the book but I find it interesting (though not surprising) that your empirical study of preflop EV seems to fit very closey the results of Turbo Texas Hold 'Em sims.

Or so it sounds just from the hands that have been mentioned in this thread.

[uDevil]

Hi stox,

Just got my copy and I think it will be very valuable, so thank you!

*awkward transition*

How will you be handling errata?

On page 89 you state that the "folds BB to a steal HU" stat in PokerTracker does not include steal raises from the CO or button. Maybe my copy of PT is defective, but those steals are included. Would this affect your advice in that section?

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi stox,

Just got my copy and I think it will be very valuable, so thank you!

*awkward transition*

How will you be handling errata?

On page 89 you state that the "folds BB to a steal HU" stat in PokerTracker does not include steal raises from the CO or button. Maybe my copy of PT is defective, but those steals are included. Would this affect your advice in that section?

[/ QUOTE ]

it has been my understanding that the pokertracker help files incorrectly state that non-SB raises are included but the actual number includes only SB opens.

[fraac]

For how long do you think the book will be useful, based on how quickly the game has changed since you've known it?

[ThunderEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
For how long do you think the book will be useful, based on how quickly the game has changed since you've known it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to not look at it as being useful in this current time period, but look at it as a strategy to use at certain types of tables in certain types of situations.

This is all my opinion, so could be very wrong.

This is for use against tight agressive opponents that like to toss non premium hands faced with a raise, and who will give up to heavy agression. I believe a calling station will wreck you using this strategy. The point is to get a pot heads up (if you don't steal out right) and then make a read on your opponent to put him on a range.

Small Stakes hold'em will alway be useful for loose, passive games, and opponents. This book will always be useful for tight, agressive opponents.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi stox,

Just got my copy and I think it will be very valuable, so thank you!

*awkward transition*

How will you be handling errata?

On page 89 you state that the "folds BB to a steal HU" stat in PokerTracker does not include steal raises from the CO or button. Maybe my copy of PT is defective, but those steals are included. Would this affect your advice in that section?

[/ QUOTE ]

it has been my understanding that the pokertracker help files incorrectly state that non-SB raises are included but the actual number includes only SB opens.

[/ QUOTE ]

As great as PT may be, it has some problems. Try this:

General Info tab, "Known Starting Hands" section -> Filters... -> "Steal Attempted Against Your Blind" section, select "Steal Attempted & Folded Heads Up"; click OK.

You can verify that the totals row at the bottom of the "Known Starting Hands" section now shows the same number given in the "More Detail..." window for number of times folded BB to a steal HU.

Now in the "Known Starting Hands" section, click on the row for a hand like 43o (say). Then click on the 'r' button in the section below "Known Starting Hands" to replay hands where you folded 43o to a steal. For me, this includes hands where a steal was attempted by the CO or button.

[stoxtrader]

I agree that filtering process includes CO/button opens but I'm not sure that applies to the stat in the more detail section of the general tab. is it one and the same?

to answer your question, if our PT related statement is an error, it does NOT change any of the advice in the section, simply means that you cannot access that information via current PT filtering.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that filtering process includes CO/button opens but I'm not sure that applies to the stat in the more detail section of the general tab. is it one and the same?


[/ QUOTE ]
The number is the same, so I'd say yes.

[ QUOTE ]
to answer your question, if our PT related statement is an error, it does NOT change any of the advice in the section, simply means that you cannot access that information via current PT filtering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.