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

[Quebecker]

excellent review !

[philnewall]

This book was much worse than I expected which is good for my games I guess.

So much discussion of plays such as the turn free-showdown raise which is a staple for every tag from 3/6 and up.

About the one interesting hands was where c/r's the flop and screwplays the turn..however there were so many great lines they totally did not mention such as the river c/r with lead for value.

Also, for a book about "tough games" there was far too much discussion about playing vs bad players. Frankly, everyone who reads the book should know how to adapt in the blinds vs someone who doesnt defend enough. What would be much more useful is a thorough discussion of SB-BB play when you are up against world-class opposition.

[Lestat]

I find it refreshing to see stats of a more mortal and earthly nature. In the beginning, there was so much talk about how 2bb/100 was the benchmark for good players, people like me started developing complexes with win rates rarely exceeding 1bb/100 over hundreds of thousands of hands in the bigger games, and sometimes going tens of thousands of hands at break-even. So it's nice to see sample sizes of .8bb/100 and lower for good professional players expert enough to author a book that is to be taken seriously by their peers.

Although I don't quite understand the spot picking of certain sample sizes. I believe you did this with the database I bought from you (where you inexplicably omitted large samples of hands). Although there were enough hands to justify the purchase, one has to wonder why you would do so. The default assumpion (in the absense of any explanation), has to be that you ommited some adverse stretches for aesthetic's sake. In a book, it's not like people can derive a more thorough analysis on your play from any larger of a sample size, so I don't understand the omission here either unless it is again for aesthetic reasons. The bigger the sample size, the more meaning statistical figures have. Why not use them all?

[PokerHorse]

I like the basic info on the blinds , but I ask the question, does this information in this book put me out in front of good to great players? unfortunately the answer for me is no. maybe the answer for others is yes. but the question is,unless there are players making regular mistakes at the higher levels, then in the long run a winning player can still lose money since there is no edge.
As well, aggression can cover for other wise sup optimal play and make it more difficult. I think you are really straight gambling at those levels. Obviously just my opinion. But a good example might be a player such as the russian hassuwip who appears to play sub par but his aggression makes up for it, and drives players crazy.
good luck

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]

Although I don't quite understand the spot picking of certain sample sizes. I believe you did this with the database I bought from you (where you inexplicably omitted large samples of hands). Although there were enough hands to justify the purchase, one has to wonder why you would do so. The default assumpion (in the absense of any explanation), has to be that you ommited some adverse stretches for aesthetic's sake. In a book, it's not like people can derive a more thorough analysis on your play from any larger of a sample size, so I don't understand the omission here either unless it is again for aesthetic reasons. The bigger the sample size, the more meaning statistical figures have. Why not use them all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stox, is there any truth to this?

[Mano]

I recieved the book the other day, and just started reading it. So far so good. I was wondering if the pokertracker database files for the 3 players in all the charts are available for download. It would be much easier to sift through the stats using pokertracker on my computer than thumbing through the many pages in the book. Thanks.

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Although I don't quite understand the spot picking of certain sample sizes. I believe you did this with the database I bought from you (where you inexplicably omitted large samples of hands). Although there were enough hands to justify the purchase, one has to wonder why you would do so. The default assumpion (in the absense of any explanation), has to be that you ommited some adverse stretches for aesthetic's sake. In a book, it's not like people can derive a more thorough analysis on your play from any larger of a sample size, so I don't understand the omission here either unless it is again for aesthetic reasons. The bigger the sample size, the more meaning statistical figures have. Why not use them all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stox, is there any truth to this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The wording lestat used is a bit unclear, but as to "cherry picking" anything, anywhere, there is no truth to that. I have been in touch with him via PM and I will quote part of his response here -

"No worries Stox. I wasn't attacking or insulting you. On the contrary, I think it's commendable that you did NOT cherrypick sample sizes for your book (I thought I made that clear)."

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
I recieved the book the other day, and just started reading it. So far so good. I was wondering if the pokertracker database files for the 3 players in all the charts are available for download. It would be much easier to sift through the stats using pokertracker on my computer than thumbing through the many pages in the book. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

they are not mine to give, and the identities of the 3 players are anonymous.

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Although I don't quite understand the spot picking of certain sample sizes. I believe you did this with the database I bought from you (where you inexplicably omitted large samples of hands). Although there were enough hands to justify the purchase, one has to wonder why you would do so. The default assumpion (in the absense of any explanation), has to be that you ommited some adverse stretches for aesthetic's sake. In a book, it's not like people can derive a more thorough analysis on your play from any larger of a sample size, so I don't understand the omission here either unless it is again for aesthetic reasons. The bigger the sample size, the more meaning statistical figures have. Why not use them all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stox, is there any truth to this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The wording lestat used is a bit unclear, but as to "cherry picking" anything, anywhere, there is no truth to that. I have been in touch with him via PM and I will quote part of his response here -

"No worries Stox. I wasn't attacking or insulting you. On the contrary, I think it's commendable that you did NOT cherrypick sample sizes for your book (I thought I made that clear)."

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what I thought and I appreciate your response.

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
unless there are players making regular mistakes at the higher levels,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously the case.