Tanenbaum or Stox?

[Bobo Fett]

I play 1/2-3/6 FL SH, but being Canadian I'm lucky enough to be able to play on sites where I can find plenty of tables with 50-60% seeing the flop.

These certainly aren't "tough" games, so I'm wondering if the Stox book (Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games) is all that suitable for me, or if I should be reading the Tanenbaum books (Limit Hold'em: Winning Short-Handed Strategies & Advanced Limit Hold'em Strategy: Techniques for Beating Tough Games). I have the Stox book, and I've read it...I don't own any Tanenbaum books. Is there one of these books I should be focusing on more than another?

[Adman]

Definitely get the SH D&B book. IMO it is the best material available on SH play anywhere. By the way, which sites do you play at where you are seeing 50-60% to a flop? I might come and play there myself!

[Shandrax]

50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one. I'd rather be HU with some weak tight guy who folds too much.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So?

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you jest.


Bobo:

Although the Stox book doesn't directly address playing in games like ours, I still found it extremely useful for making adjustments against particular opponents given their range of hands.

[BlueSmurf]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Surely you jest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Surely he does [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Seriously, get all the three mentioned books. Put them on top of each other on your desk. Contemplate them. Rejoice, because there will never be another time when you have not read them. The moment is precious. Give thanks. Be happy. Then study the crap out of them. Play. Repeat. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Cheers,

Smurf

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky would never make such a redundant point. What he said was a single hand that would be poor heads up, such as 98s, becomes money favourite against a bunch of Ax, Kx type hands. I forget his exact example; these days you can Pokerstove it and see it's elementary.

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one. I'd rather be HU with some weak tight guy who folds too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't I have ever seen that from Sklansky, but this sounds like some of the early discussions about implicit collusion (see Morton's Theorem).

If you have a strong hand and get one caller with a marginal hand, the caller is acting incorrectly. But if you get multiple callers with marginal hands, the resulting size of the pot could be giving each caller proper odds, so that each is now making a correct decision.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have a strong hand and get one caller with a marginal hand, the caller is acting incorrectly. But if you get multiple callers with marginal hands, the resulting size of the pot could be giving each caller proper odds, so that each is now making a correct decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one thing, when most of the people in the hand are playing unsuited broadway cards, they "get in each other's way" and a hand such as 98s can go up in equity. For another, not everyone is making good calls in a multiplayer situation. What might be right for 22 and 98s can still be wrong for K7.

Anyway, the real point is that if you have AA, it's your equity in the pot that matters, not your probability of winning the pot. Anyone drawing to a gutshot getting 15:1 understands the basic principles involved here :-) (BTW, not responding directly to you so much...)

[Gelford]

yeah Stox is great, just get it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


(T is good, but not great)