Grade the June Magazine

[Dynasty]

In anticipation of a new 2+2 SnG book and the start of the World Series of Poker, the June issue of the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine is heavy on tournament articles. A book excerpt will allow you get your first look at Colin Moshman's work. I'm particularly interested in readers' reaction to Chip Ferguson's article.

Strategy- 6
Book Excerpt: Steals and Re-Steals by Colin Mosman
Playing Through a $110 SnG by Chip Ferguson
Psychology, Blocking Bets, and Value Bets by Robin Lindsay
Examining a Difficult Situation in Pot-Limit Omaha & Devising an Unexploitable Play by Andrew Albright
Limit Omaha 8 or Better: Post Flop Theory Part 1 by Frank Jerome
Advanced Concepts in NLH MTTs by Adam Kozak

General Poker- 3
How Big is Big Enough? by Marcel Vonk
Game Selection for Tournament Players by Andrew Brokos
Poker Tournament Evaluation System by Dene Tribe

Poker and Other Fields
More on Skill and Individual Differences by Ryne A. Sherman
Classic Article: Probably Guilty by David Sklansky

Non-Poker- 1
Solving Sports Debates by King Yao

[A_F]

Loved the Ferguson article. The Moshman excerpt looked pretty good as well.

[zuluking]

I thought the Tournament Evaluation System article was very weak.

[Dr_Doctr]

I thought the article by Adam Kozak was very poor. I kept waiting for the 'advanced concepts'. What he basically says is that you want to finish first (duh) but does not analyse at all the changing value of your chips at different stages of the tournament. Saying that you should just try to make the play with the most immediate gain in chips is plainly wrong, but I can't see what else he could be saying -

'Firstly, every decision you make will be to maximize your EV and win the most amounts of chips in every situation. Second, you should have no fear in bubbling or moving up the prize ladder as you get down to the final few tables. Remember: your goal is to WIN 1st.'

The problem here of course is that maximising your EV and winning the most chips is not the same thing in tournaments like it is in a cash game - you're damn right you should be afraid of bubbling out if by playing aggressively you decrease your EV, which is nearly always the case on the bubble. This is why the big stack has such a huge advantage at this stage. I'm sure he knows this - hell I don't even play tournaments and I know it. This is why the article is disappointing imo.

He then goes off on tangent about blind battles and floating which I can't see is very relevant. Seems like he couldn't think of anything else to say.

[Dr_Doctr]

More complaining follows [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I also didn't like David's article at all. Well, it's not that I have anything specific against the article itself exactly - I didn't like where it was published. Of course I can't tell 2+2 what to publish but isn't it supposed to be a gambling magazine and not 'Mind' or 'The Philosophical Quarterly'? My two cents.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
More complaining follows [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I also didn't like David's article at all. Well, it's not that I have anything specific against the article itself exactly - I didn't like where it was published. Of course I can't tell 2+2 what to publish but isn't it supposed to be a gambling magazine and not 'Mind' or 'The Philosophical Quarterly'? My two cents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember that David wrote a post or article similar to this some time ago. However, it was more targeted at this idea: "A lot of smart people are on this forum. They can help society. Poker players can help society." It then went on to talk about some similar trial issues where people make probabilistic estimates. I wish I knew where that post was. I really liked it. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[BluffTHIS!]

Dynasty,

I want to quote the comment I made for the March magazine in the thread & poll for that one"

"This is the best magazine yet under your editorial mantle. And I think it provides the winning recipe for future ones. Namely having one, but only one, article in non-poker categories like other +EV gambling/sports, psychology and poker stories, and the rest poker strategy, with a mix from the various forms of poker."


I believe that is the winning "formula", but which isn't applied to this month's magazine, with two non-poker articles, and three on tourneys, and which I believe doesn't make this month's issue as good as some others.

Obviously as we all know, you are limited somewhat by the submissions you receive. Even so, it seems critical to me, in order to allow you to choose a good mix each month, to build up a backlog of articles. This is a standard best practice of other magazines. While that might be frustrating to some authors, in having to wait a few months to see their article used, it is what is best for the magazine. Again though, that presumes having enough such submissions in the first place, and then enough of the total that are good enough to be published in the second place.

[Moneyline]

Most of the articles I've read so far seem okay, but I don't typically play those games so they don't really help me too much. The Skalansky article was a total waste of time.

[robin lindsay]

I would be interested in reading some opinions of the June issue from Ray Zee, Mason Malmuth, David Sklansky, and other TwoPlusTwo experts.

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the article by Adam Kozak was very poor. I kept waiting for the 'advanced concepts'. What he basically says is that you want to finish first (duh) but does not analyse at all the changing value of your chips at different stages of the tournament. Saying that you should just try to make the play with the most immediate gain in chips is plainly wrong, but I can't see what else he could be saying -

'Firstly, every decision you make will be to maximize your EV and win the most amounts of chips in every situation. Second, you should have no fear in bubbling or moving up the prize ladder as you get down to the final few tables. Remember: your goal is to WIN 1st.'

The problem here of course is that maximising your EV and winning the most chips is not the same thing in tournaments like it is in a cash game - you're damn right you should be afraid of bubbling out if by playing aggressively you decrease your EV, which is nearly always the case on the bubble. This is why the big stack has such a huge advantage at this stage. I'm sure he knows this - hell I don't even play tournaments and I know it. This is why the article is disappointing imo.

He then goes off on tangent about blind battles and floating which I can't see is very relevant. Seems like he couldn't think of anything else to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is a fair assessment of the article. All you're really saying here is that he didn't address one particular concept about tournament poker as it relates to the topics he did address. I guess this could have been articulated more clearly, but I read his article as a sort of rebuttal to the popular idea about trying "survive" in tournament poker, which is often used as a justification for overly tight, passive, and all-around weak play. Blind battles are good examples of instances where people's passivity can be exploited by an appropriately aggressive player.