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

[JJay1231]

the fewer the people who have this book the better! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (sorry stox)

great book

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
the fewer the people who have this book the better! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (sorry stox)

great book

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree. People used to say the same thing about SSHE, yet look at the hundreds of chip-spewing semi-tags who raise and re-raise fruitlessly because they think thats what SSHE advocates? They build big pots correctly but are not big winners because they misapply the concepts in SSHE. My favorite move in Vegas is the 3-bet the check raise with 1 overcard because I have position move that has become so common in Vegas post SSHE - yum!

Now take that same situation and magnify it by 10x - thats what we will see with Stox's book, the data within and the playing concepts will be grossly misapplied by even the biggest name players in the long run, having this book on the market will actually encourage the games to get wilder in an odd way!

[JJay1231]

maybe, but then again I would rather sit at a high limit table against players who haven't read this book than against players that have.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
went to showdown is ALSO going to be a functino of the number of players at the table and the looseness of the table. the looser the table the LOWER went to showdown will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

That being the case, should we discard the idea of a showdown-bound player for small-stakes games?

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
went to showdown is ALSO going to be a functino of the number of players at the table and the looseness of the table. the looser the table the LOWER went to showdown will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

That being the case, should we discard the idea of a showdown-bound player for small-stakes games?

[/ QUOTE ]

definitely not! you have to adjust the definition of SHOWDOWN BOUND (according to the stats) for the types of games those stats are taken for. There are definitely showdown bound players in lower limit games (in fact they have a name - fishy calling station).

[johnnyrocket]

sweet review

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
you have to adjust the definition of SHOWDOWN BOUND (according to the stats) for the types of games those stats are taken for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm on it.

[ QUOTE ]
There are definitely showdown bound players in lower limit games (in fact they have a name - fishy calling station).

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm a fishier betting station, they're outplaying me. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

This will become my most studied poker book-- thanks again.

Are you still planning to do a DVD series?

[tobotronik]

ok, well... i just came across the blind defense section and i think i noticed a mistake. the chapter deals with 3 betting from the small blind in a steal situation.

(page 144)
introduction:
"if you 3 bet a button raiser and the small blind folds and the initial raiser caps, then...etc"
then he goes on about postflop play and says:
"check and if he bets out you get 9:1"

why 9? 4 bets from the raiser, 4 bets from hero + 1 dead from the BB who folded, +1 bet from the button on the flop makes 10, so it should be 10:1 - or where's my mistake?

the book is great by the way. always loved stoxtraders play very much, the book really fulfilled my expectations!

[stoxtrader]

I read that page 145 and agree with you. 10-1 is the correct odds you are getting. sorry!

[adanthar]

stox,

One minor error I haven't seen mentioned - in Hand 25 (page 261), the board has 4 diamonds on it at the end of the hand, but it looks like the 3 on the turn is supposed to be a brick.

Aside from that...as an almost pure NL/some HORSE player, this is a book that let me instantly take a shot at HSL and understand what I was doing postflop. This is a gold standard book and better than SSH by a significant amount when it comes to mid and high stakes games. Thanks.