Grade the October Magazine

[FishySayBANG!]

[ QUOTE ]
Live triple draw is making its way into some of the midlimit mixed games in Southern California and Vegas (at least that is my understanding), but otherwise live games appears only at the $100/200+ level in a mix such as Badugi/Omaha/Triple Draw (BOT).

[/ QUOTE ]

In general I would say this is probably true but if you really want to play some live TD roll down to the Venitian and you can play as low as 3-6 if you want.

I was there(the Venitian) a little while ago and I was looking for a place to play poker at night and drink some beers and they had a rotation game going that had 2-7 and Badugi in the mix....and it wasnt even started by 2+2ers or anything. I just walked over from the Mirage to check out the action and it was going.

BTW, They also had 2-7 as a part of the 40-80 mix at the Bellagio also

[jfk]

Mark,

Thanks for the reply and overview.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
Good god the HU NLHE article was awful. Ever think of getting someone with some real high stakes HU NLHE experience rather than some 4-year old that is buying in for 25BBs and open limping the SB with 72o?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Dynasty -- I was trying to figure out a diplomatic way to ask this, but then I decided that diplomacy is unnecessary.

As an editor, why would you accept a *strategy* article that's written by someone playing $200 NL?

I would trust 2+2ers logging playing time at $200 games to have useful advice on megamultitabling and bonus whoring (the keys to profitability at that level), but I would not trust them at all for sound strategic advice.

Even if you're not willing to enforce some sort of basic competency requirement for your authors, you should, as cts suggested, have someone who plays high-stakes NL vet your NL articles to avoid embarrassments like this.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good god the HU NLHE article was awful. Ever think of getting someone with some real high stakes HU NLHE experience rather than some 4-year old that is buying in for 25BBs and open limping the SB with 72o?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Dynasty -- I was trying to figure out a diplomatic way to ask this, but then I decided that diplomacy is unnecessary.

As an editor, why would you accept a *strategy* article that's written by someone playing $200 NL?

I would trust 2+2ers logging playing time at $200 games to have useful advice on megamultitabling and bonus whoring (the keys to profitability at that level), but I would not trust them at all for sound strategic advice.

Even if you're not willing to enforce some sort of basic competency requirement for your authors, you should, as cts suggested, have someone who plays high-stakes NL vet your NL articles to avoid embarrassments like this.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's interesting to read these comments. Mason actually requested that I specifically tell Richard Elks that Mason thought his articles was exceptional.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good god the HU NLHE article was awful. Ever think of getting someone with some real high stakes HU NLHE experience rather than some 4-year old that is buying in for 25BBs and open limping the SB with 72o?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Dynasty -- I was trying to figure out a diplomatic way to ask this, but then I decided that diplomacy is unnecessary.

As an editor, why would you accept a *strategy* article that's written by someone playing $200 NL?

I would trust 2+2ers logging playing time at $200 games to have useful advice on megamultitabling and bonus whoring (the keys to profitability at that level), but I would not trust them at all for sound strategic advice.

Even if you're not willing to enforce some sort of basic competency requirement for your authors, you should, as cts suggested, have someone who plays high-stakes NL vet your NL articles to avoid embarrassments like this.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's interesting to read these comments. Mason actually requested that I specifically tell Richard Elks that Mason thought his articles was exceptional.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put a poll up in the HS and MSNL boards. I think you'll find general disagreement with Mason's opinion.

Some of his analysis is fine. But it's hard to filter out the good observations from some of the very bad plays he makes (buying in short vs a very weak opponent, playing far too passively preflop and postflop, not realizing when his hands have showdown value.)

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Creed:

You need to understand that a good article is one that brings up points worthy of discussion. That's what these forums are for.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

Some of his analysis is fine. But it's hard to filter out the good observations from some of the very bad plays he makes (buying in short vs a very weak opponent, playing far too passively preflop and postflop, not realizing when his hands have showdown value.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The article was never intended to show ideal play in each individual hand. When I first read the draft, I also disagreed with plays on specific hands.

The point was to show how one winning (presumably) 1-2 no-limit player broadly approaches an unknown opponent. The author intended to show his macro-strategy over an entire session rather than a micro-strategy of specific hands.



For those criticizing the article, I'm more than happy to publish more "35 heads-up hands" written by the critics.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Creed:

You need to understand that a good article is one that brings up points worthy of discussion. That's what these forums are for.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]


Is that really the idea of the magazine, to provoke discussion? I thought the point was to provide useful advice.

You're paying the magazine authors money, and putting the official 2+2 imprimatur on what they're saying. That's different from what goes on in the other forums, and it suggests to me that you should hold them to a higher standard.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
That's different from what goes on in the other forums, and it suggests to me that you should hold them to a higher standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do. I don't know of any other poker magazine where the authors and articles can be criticized and debated as they can be here. So if you disagree with an article, ot think it contains some weaknesses, be specific and post your criticisms here.

best wishes,
mason

[RichE]

Creed (and others)

I would like to make a few points in relation to my HU NLHE article:

1. Buy-in level - It does not surprise me that some people have chosen to focus on the level at which I played that particular session. Indeed, I would wager that some high-stakes denizens of these forums saw the buy-in level, immediately decided there was nothing of value in the article, and decided to dissect individual actions rather than reading the article in the correct context. I would ask you to consider the subject matter of the article - a guide on how to develop and use reads heads-up - and therefore its target audience. I would have thought that most high stakes NL HU players would already be very well versed in the sorts of concepts I discussed. Similarly, I do not think that many high-stakes limit players would glean much from Byron Jacobs excellent article - but that anyone criticising the article on those grounds would be missing the point entirely.

Heads-up is an aspect of the game which is growing very quickly. It is also one of the most prone to being completely misunderstood by people who are strong at ring game poker, and to being misplayed by people who like to focus on starting hand requirements and what to do in very specific situations. HU is all about playing the man and not the ball, and that is what this article aims to illustrate.

I would also point out that $1/$2 HU, unlike ring games at the same level, and not about "megamultitabling and bonus whoring". It is tough to multi-table heads-up matches and still play somewhere near optimally due to the number and complexity of the decisions that need to be taken. A lot of thought goes into heads-up play at whatever level. HU is also a horribly inefficient way to clear bonuses, because you are paying the blinds on every single hand and rake on (hopefully) over 50% of the hands.

2. The play of particular hands - I have to say that, when I picked this particular set of hands out as the one I wanted to analyse for this article, I did not agree with some of my own play. However, I chose this sequence because there was an especially high number of chances to gain powerful information about opponents, and therefore many read-based plays. That was the aspect on which I was asked to focus, and I chose hands accordingly. I feel that this provided a more interesting basis for discussion than a series of perfectly played but entirely standard hands.

I am (if anyone would like) perfectly prepared to have a debate about things like open-limping with 72o in position against a passive opponent who can be moved off hands postflop. However, I would be more interested to hear any criticism (constructive or otherwise) of the accuracy or reasoning behind my reads based on the action that took place.

One of the reasons that it can be difficult to have a meaningful discussion on macro strategy is that people will always demand examples, and then focus on debateable deficiencies in the details of the example, rather than discuss the wider issues involved.

3. Buying-in short - As an opening remark, I would like to point out that I do not usually buy-in this short. This session following immediately after a session against another opponent, who had succeeded in winning a big pot from me, and had "hit-and-run" with his winnings. My standard opening buy-in is ~50BB. This information was not felt to be relevant to the article, and therefore was not included. I would also point out that I would undoubtedly have bought in for the full amount during this session, but by the relevant time I was in a position where I covered my opponent in any case. Had he rebought after falling behind, I would surely have topped up alongside him.

This is a topic which will always cause controversy, because of the belief (espoused in NLTAP) that if you are the stronger player at the table, you should always cover your opponent. However, to continue the NLTAP reference, it is also pointed out that it can be advantageous to buy-in short whilst you assess a game, and then top up when you decide that it is worthwhile. Sklansky and Miller also note that in some games it is not necessarily best to have bought in full.

As for the second point, highlighted by Ghazban, this is a matter of personal preference to do with decreased variance. Variance can be very significant in HU cash games (as opposed to HU SNGs), and is particularly high against the type of player I describe, when it can be very difficult to know whether you are ahead when you put your chips in. I respect the fact that others may choose to approach these situations differently, but the fact that not everyone shares my preference does not make my preference wrong or invalid.

As a final point, may I say that I would be fascinated to read similar articles by high stakes HU players, and I hope the disdain expressed by some high stakes players in this thread leads them to submit such articles for publication. That, I feel, would be the best possible outcome from this debate for the 2+2 community in general.