Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Poker > Stud

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-25-2007, 12:27 AM
PokrLikeItsProse PokrLikeItsProse is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,751
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I may post it for David's attention at some point, but I find it hard to believe I'm the first person in 25 years to notice it. In any event, it seems like only 5 people in the world care about razz anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I've found errors that have never been caught before in the hi-low book and pointed it out to Mason, what makes you think that they know there is an error?

And as I pointed out before I believe there is an error in mathematics, but not in play. But I'll let David address that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it might be better to post in the book forum and see if Mason Malmuth has a response than to try and get a response from David Sklansky in his special forum.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-25-2007, 12:31 AM
SGspecial SGspecial is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Doctor Razz
Posts: 1,209
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
I think most would agree that the vast vast majority of Stud 8 hands played today and for the last few years are very unlike the games written about by Zee, Brunson, and whoever. Yes probably 99% of Stud 8 hands played are played online now but how long will it be before the influence of online play will finally overrun the few pockets of oldtimer live play remaining in LA etc.

As always what works, works however KK doesn't play well in a crowd and it is more crowded these days. This is not to say that Zee, etc. are incorrect or not helpful. Their work could just use some tweaking to be more current. QJT suited sucks now.

Times are changing and Razz works are likely to experience the same growing pains.

Patty

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Patty, glad to see someone else is actually listening to this debate.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-25-2007, 06:24 PM
SGspecial SGspecial is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Doctor Razz
Posts: 1,209
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My other contention is that Sklansky doesn't always differentiate between the 15/30 and 30/60 games when giving advice, but says himself that the ante structure is EXTREMELY important in determining correct strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You never provided any quantifiable proof of that, I think its time you drop that assertion.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Maybe you're too familiar with the text and with Sklansky's thoughts on razz to remember reading this book for the first time. SO as my final word on the subject I will just issue a warning to readers of the book who are not quite as savvy at razz as we are:

IF you reading Sklansky on Razz (specifically the 3rd st section) and are unsure which ante structure game he is talking about in a given paragraph, it is MY INTERPRETATION that he is referring to strategy and situations regarding a micro-ante 15/30 game and not the large ante games played at 95% of the tables today.

Now, on to 4th Street!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-25-2007, 08:17 PM
*TT* *TT* is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vehicle Chooser For Life!
Posts: 17,198
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My other contention is that Sklansky doesn't always differentiate between the 15/30 and 30/60 games when giving advice, but says himself that the ante structure is EXTREMELY important in determining correct strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You never provided any quantifiable proof of that, I think its time you drop that assertion.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Maybe you're too familiar with the text and with Sklansky's thoughts on razz to remember reading this book for the first time. SO as my final word on the subject I will just issue a warning to readers of the book who are not quite as savvy at razz as we are:

IF you reading Sklansky on Razz (specifically the 3rd st section) and are unsure which ante structure game he is talking about in a given paragraph, it is MY INTERPRETATION that he is referring to strategy and situations regarding a micro-ante 15/30 game and not the large ante games played at 95% of the tables today.

Now, on to 4th Street!

[/ QUOTE ]

My final word on this matter is that I now believe SGspecial is a form of troll. A very nice form of troll who means well and I actually like the guy's gumption, but the unfortunate side effect is that his argument seems to be more based on self affirmation than fact. This thread is based on SGspecial's argument that Razz games today play different therefore Sklansky on Razz is outdated. Interestingly enough the only argument SGspecial was able to prove was that there seems to be a mathematical error in calculating pot odds in SOR - an error that doesn't change the optimal play in the book or in a loose game and therefore has little significance on the game.

SGspecial's argument is the same asthe ones we have heard many times about HPFAP. When it first came out it was accused of being too lose, and not accurate. Now a days it is slammed as being too tight for today's modern games. There have always been detracters of the book, but those who do are usually looking for a play by play. What these readers don't realize is that the game doesn't change, the same textures are accounted for in both books if you just read between the lines and adjust as advised.

Sklansky on Razz is perhaps David Skalnsky's best and most basic work, but you apply only page by page strategy you aren't getting the value of the full text where within you will learn how to deal with lags, loose passive players, steal scenarios optimally. Anything less than playing optimally will result in lower long term win rates for the expert player.

I hoped that SGspecial would walk away from this thread seeing that much of his argument is debunked by applying the whole of the book's strategy advice, however I now know that SGspecial's means well but ignores the parts of the thread which counter his arguments and therefore cannot learn. Its unfortunate because I like his writing style and as I previously said I think he means well - but unfortunately the end result is no result.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-26-2007, 12:31 AM
SGspecial SGspecial is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Doctor Razz
Posts: 1,209
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
My final word on this matter is that I now believe SGspecial is a form of troll. A very nice form of troll who means well and I actually like the guy's gumption, but the unfortunate side effect is that his argument seems to be more based on self affirmation than fact. This thread is based on SGspecial's argument that Razz games today play different therefore Sklansky on Razz is outdated. Interestingly enough the only argument SGspecial was able to prove was that there seems to be a mathematical error in calculating pot odds in SOR - an error that doesn't change the optimal play in the book or in a loose game and therefore has little significance on the game.
TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I must come clean here -- I'm relatively new to these forums and have no idea what a "troll" is. But if it takes being a troll to help players to get the most helpful and accurate advice possible on Razz, then I guess I'll take the roll of a troll. Players can decide for themselves if they want to read advice that is tailored to an ancient version of the game, but usually qualifies itself by telling you to "adjust a little" in a high-ante, loose game like is predominant today. I'm sure I have some books around here with excellent advice on how to play limit HE when it only had one blind (the small), but may mention adjustments for the "modern" version with two blinds. I'd be glad to lend them to anyone who asks.

One thing I have learned from this debate is I should be very clear to differentiate between my opinion or inference and the FACTS. For any times when I was unclear or vague about which was which, I apologize to all readers and ask them to bear with me as I'm not a professional writer. While we can have a lively debate about our opinions, I hope all logical readers can agree on the facts. What we all seem to have agreed on in SOR's 3rd st chapter is that there is a repeated mathematical error that presents the increase in the (initial pot vs. the small bet) from the 15/30 game to the 30/60 game as 46% instead of the correct 80%. I'll leave it up to the readers of this forum to decide their own opinion on whether this error does or "doesn't change the optimal play in the book OR in a loose game and therefore has little significance on the game."

If enough forum readers are interested, I will work on some more opinions and facts regarding other chapters of the book.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-26-2007, 12:51 AM
7n7 7n7 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,369
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
If enough forum readers are interested, I will work on some more opinions and facts regarding other chapters of the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I volunteer my interest.

And for what it's worth (nothing really), I disagree with your label as a troll. I've actually found this discussion to be quite interesting.

As for the mistake in SOR, I noticed it too, but always assumed the experts in this particular forum had already had the discussion several times over. I could have sworn I saw this mentioned in Books/Publications but I might be thinking of another internet poker forum that I used to frequent.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-09-2007, 01:31 PM
halhal halhal is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18
Default Re: Razz past and present

I don't know, I did a comparison spreadsheet of the structures at various Razz limits on Stars. The 30/60 is the same structure as in the book. The 2/4 might also be considered high ante, while the 3/6 is low ante, as they both have a 0.25 ante and 1.00 bring-in, but at 3/6 you have to bet more when stealing relative to what's in the pot already, and it's a double bet to you if you want to defend your bring-in. The other limits on Stars are pretty much in between, for steal purposes.

For defending a bring-in, for the 2/4 and lower, it's more doable as it's only another half-bet. Higher up, not accounting for other factors, defending is more questionable since you have to call a 2/3 of a whole bet (3/5's at $5/$10), although at 30/60 there is more dead money if it's heads up and you are getting 4 to1(80 to 20) to call.

The other possibility on 3rd, is if you are the last to act, and there is one caller, you get 6 to 1 to outflop the caller if you just call with a non-premium hand. At $10/$20 you get 4.66 to 1, and the lower limits are much worse.

So those are the big 3 things I've gleaned from the book, regarding game structure and how it affects your play on 3rd street: steal frequency, defending your bring-in, and overcalling one caller.

Some of the rest, you have to infer for yourself and make adjustments accordingly. If other players change their play on these bases, you adjust to them; if they are more loose, say in the 2/4 and 30/60 and therefore try to steal more, the counterstrategy is logically to defend the bring-in more
or re-raise with decent hands those you think are stealing.


[ QUOTE ]
IF you reading Sklansky on Razz (specifically the 3rd st section) and are unsure which ante structure game he is talking about in a given paragraph, it is MY INTERPRETATION that he is referring to strategy and situations regarding a micro-ante 15/30 game and not the large ante games played at 95% of the tables today.

Now, on to 4th Street!

[/ QUOTE ]
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-10-2007, 02:23 PM
Andy B Andy B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blowing 0.0%
Posts: 9,170
Default Re: Razz past and present

Since I've been given the opportunity to reread this thread, I'll just make a couple of points. First, I find it extremely unlikely that someone who was killing a $15/30 razz game with a $1 ante back in the day would suddenly become a losing player in a game with a $3 ante. Also, when *TT* says that the difference in ante structures might make a 5% difference in what hands you play, I believe that that's the difference between playing, say, 20% and 21% of your hands, not 20% and 25% (1% is 5% of 20%). It's not a huge adjustment.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-10-2007, 03:39 PM
*TT* *TT* is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vehicle Chooser For Life!
Posts: 17,198
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]

As for the mistake in SOR, I noticed it too, but always assumed the experts in this particular forum had already had the discussion several times over. I could have sworn I saw this mentioned in Books/Publications but I might be thinking of another internet poker forum that I used to frequent.

[/ QUOTE ]

2+2 books are a bit famous for typos and small errors, but one of the things Mason is very proud of is that 2+2 books concepts are always correct. In the case of this error its a mathematical typo, but the playing concept is still valid and shouldn't change how you play. I asked SGspecial to ask David about it in the Sklansky Special Forum, I don't think he has yet. I could explain why, but I really think David should jump in to explain rather than me because its his typo/error - I'm pretty sure he would be happy to discuss.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-10-2007, 03:44 PM
*TT* *TT* is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vehicle Chooser For Life!
Posts: 17,198
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
Since I've been given the opportunity to reread this thread, I'll just make a couple of points. First, I find it extremely unlikely that someone who was killing a $15/30 razz game with a $1 ante back in the day would suddenly become a losing player in a game with a $3 ante.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I also would go as far as to say that some people though they were winning players, but in reality were not. Now that I live in Vegas I have come across countless oldtimers from the 70's who tell stories about how they were the best xxxx player around, then when I sit down with them to play they are usually the reason the game is good.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, when *TT* says that the difference in ante structures might make a 5% difference in what hands you play, I believe that that's the difference between playing, say, 20% and 21% of your hands, not 20% and 25% (1% is 5% of 20%). It's not a huge adjustment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for clarifying that Andy, your correct once again. I didn't realize my statement might bring confusion. I'd also add the vast majority of the difference takes place while attempting to steal the antes.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.