Sit 'N Go strategy-reviews?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
When I talk about increasing variance, I mean that we will tend to win fewer pots with a line, but on average those pots will be bigger. It is absolutely the case that limping KK UTG will cause us to win fewer pots no matter what our post flop game plan is, and presumably we will win bigger pots on average when we do win to offset the pots we lose. Winning bigger pots less often is the type of strategy I try to avoid in STTs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that you'd win bigger pots less often, but that's not necessarily a bad form of variance. It would be similar to limping with pocket pairs, but getting away if there was a raise. If you can stack someone, the risk/reward ratio is excellent. Your variance might go up, but that doesn't tell the whole story. For example, you might lose 1BB 10 times, and double up once for 40BB. You might not miss 1BB at all, especially if the blinds are going up soon, but on the other hand doubling or tripling can really help.

I'd still like to hear from CM if different kinds of variance are good or bad in SnGs.

[MiJ305]

collin what stakes did u play ? and what was/is your ROI at said stakes ...

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
They're sulking because they weren't consulted. Given the level of analysis most of the rated players indulge in, I'm not very surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. If you think that the top sng players weren't consulted because of the strategy advice in STTF, then you are very disillusioned.

[DevinLake]

Also, the reason why STTF likes to see buy-in in the subject is because the first line of most post is:

"No reads."

So, the buy in is important in making assumptions on how the typical opponent is going to be playing.

However, if Collin is giving reads in his examples, I don't see how leaving out buy-ins in his examples could detract from the quality of the book.

[RobertJohn]

I received the book today and have read up to the mid-blind play section.

I have to say that so far it is well-written with a lot of hand examples. Moshman explains the reasoning behind his plays and offers solid general principles and theory to guide his remarks. The layout and organization is similar to the HOH series and this makes the book very easy to read and it flows nicely.

A plus in my opinion is that Moshman does not disclose what occurs after the critical decision is made, whereas Harrington shows the results of the plays which is a little gratuitous I think. I prefer to ignore the results à la these forums.

I would definitely recommend the book to anyone who wants to improve their SNG play. I disagree with one of the posters who wrote that this is not a good book for a beginning SNG player.

I think anyone who has read HOH would easily find this book very helpful; all of the concepts/decisions in SS (that I've read so far) are explained clearly and it appears that the beginning SNG player is the main target audience. However, there is a lot of detailed analysis that would be good for intermediate players looking to tighten up their game.

I look forward to reading the rest.

[agoldenbear]

When an except of this book was first posted, I mentioned in the thread that I thought it could use some proof-reading and editing. I was ridiculed because, in my haste, I used one piece of poor syntax in the post. Of course, in the eyes of the overzealous posters I often encounter here, one such error invalidates my entire point, so I didn't bother to post any further and my comments went unheeded.

Now, I think the book is lucid and readable, but there are, at the very least, two syntactic errors that should have been caught.

p.24 (top)
"(While many of the hand examples in this section continue post-flop, so play after the flop will be discussed systematically in the next section."
OBVIOUSLY, THE WORD "SO" IS ENTIRELY UNECESSARY, AND MAKES AN OTHERWISE SIMPLE SENTENCE HARDER TO UNDERSTAND.

P.29 (bottom)
"The call allows you to see the flop with a good hand if no remaining opponent raises, nor are you over-committing yourself."
AGAIN, ONE MISUSED WORD THROWS AN ENTIRE SENTENCE OFF. "NOR" IS USUALLY PRECEDED BY "NEITHER" OR "NOT" AND IS CLEARLY WRONG HERE.

So far I'm through p.30, not nearly far enough to pass judgment on the entire text, but for christ's sake 2p2, can we get someone with a middle school education to make at least ONE thorough proof-reading pass before we give you our money?

[Two Tells]

You aint not reedin shaks pear ya no. Is a book on strageegy, not an engulish text bok.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
You aint not reedin shaks pear ya no. Is a book on strageegy, not an engulish text bok.

[/ QUOTE ]

But he's right. Those words made the sentence harder to read and understand. With a slight change, it was much easier.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
You aint not reedin shaks pear ya no. Is a book on strageegy, not an engulish text bok.

[/ QUOTE ]

lacky, your spelling has improved dramatically!

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You aint not reedin shaks pear ya no. Is a book on strageegy, not an engulish text bok.

[/ QUOTE ]

lacky, your spelling has improved dramatically!

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like somebody is trying to suck up for a proof-reader job at 2+2.