Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine

[thehun69]

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyway this isn't the place for this debate

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that a discussion SHOULD be made on this point because it is a very good point to discuss. At the end of the day why are we all here? Why do we come to this board? Ultimately, it is to learn more about this game through discussion and learning through other people's experiences. My game has elevated tremendously since I first started and I would have to credit it both to experience and coming to these boards as well.



[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're assuming too much. Ed's SSHE book has sold well for a poker book. But, how many of those buyers do you think have (1) read the book thoroughly, (2) apply the information properly, and (3) are actually in your game?

The vast majority of poker players have never seriously studied the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point. I have read Ed's book and that was probably one of THE best poker investments (as far as books, I really have no interest for any of the software) I have ever made. My game and my profitability are EONS away from where I was before I read it. But, the thing is, I read that book at least..well, I'm up at my 6th reading now. I review it constantly and study it thoroughly and through that my game has changed.

LONG STORY SHORT: I PUT IN THE TIME....and that what this whole discussion boils down to. I put in the time to go through the boards to become better at plo8, I put in the time to become better at small stakes hold em. I don't think one should be concerned about putting good info out there about the game and having the profitability go to the craphole. The game will change through the players that put in the time and ultimately most will not. Yes, there may be a few players that will become better by publishing an article, but at the end of the day, that will be a small percentage compared to the other donks that are out there that will not put in the time and thus remain donks.

Maybe an idea for an upcoming article should be titled "TO SHARE OR NOT TO SHARE, THAT IS THE QUESTION", not necessarily related simply to plo8, but to all forms of poker, and poker strategy.

[morphball]

I get a laugh at people wanting to keep the knowledge in the dark, and to me, it speaks of their lack of confidence in their own game.

(Calling to mind one poster's repeated brags of questionable plays which he believes are great...)

The truth of the matter is whenever I fire up PLO8 games, or limit games (been playing 6-max lately), 2 to 4 people (and sometimes many more) are known to me on every table, meaning I have hundreds of hands on them, and many of these winning regulars, including some regular 2+2'ers here, are pretty much nut-peddlers who are hard to make money from because they are weak tight, and who don't make money from me because I know how they play, barring the exceptional fluke scenarios of quads vs. boats, etc..

Now this is fine, but lets' compare this to hold'em... which I also play a lot of, I rarely have more than 1 known player at any of the SnG's I play, and I play hundreds of them each month. Moreover, my ROI in hold'em is quite healthy, if not enviable, for the stakes I play.

Now, let's look see at NL ring games. In these, I run into very few "knowns". Plus, like O8, I certainly study my frequent opponents' styles.

From this, I have recognized a pattern which I submit every serious player has as well. Barring known "losers," the bulk of my money comes from "unknowns," and I win and lose very little to "known" winners.

But there's a ton of books on hold'em, how can that be? Simple, because as more information gets out there about a game, more people want to play that game. Information generates interest. One guy reads an O8 book, and he teaches his friends at a low stakes home game. 6 to 8 people are now interested in O8 who have not read the book, and these people will sooner or later find they way to on-line or B&M card O8 tables. If you want to bring more dead money into the game, more information will do the trick.

If you want to restrict the info, it's only because one, you have a mediocre confidence in your game at best, and two, you have no desire to improve your game at all.

Btw, O8 in any form is not simpler than hold'em. That's a myth. Any game that has more than two unknown cards, is simply more complicated than a game with only two. I know some respected posters here disagree, but respectfully, they are wrong.

Finally, I didn't know that article was Buzz's...fanastic job, Buzz!!!

[thehun69]

We may not see eye to eye on SNG PT, but I agree with you here....

The Hun.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
We may not see eye to eye on SNG PT, but I agree with you here....

The Hun.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, you'll see the SNGPT light soon enough, the tool has made me $1,000's and $1,000's

[7n7]

Very well put.

There's also the category that I readily admit I fall into: not being able to apply what you read correctly.

[niss]

Great post, Morphball. We need more people playing O8, particularly PLO8. The more info that is out there about the game, the more new blood we'll see. The viewpoint that materials on how to play the game should not be disseminated is idiotic.

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
I get a laugh at people wanting to keep the knowledge in the dark, and to me, it speaks of their lack of confidence in their own game.

(Calling to mind one poster's repeated brags of questionable plays which he believes are great...)

If you want to restrict the info, it's only because one, you have a mediocre confidence in your game at best, and two, you have no desire to improve your game at all.

Btw, O8 in any form is not simpler than hold'em. That's a myth. Any game that has more than two unknown cards, is simply more complicated than a game with only two. I know some respected posters here disagree, but respectfully, they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Morph, in your post Limit Hold Em Getting Tough you seem to contradict your stance here.

If Limit Hold Em games are getting tougher, and 7-stud games (from what I've seen) are full of very tight play, the last thing I want is to educate players intelligent enough to use this information to turn loose/passive or loose/aggressive tables into tight and unprofitable ventures.

Granted, I'm not against new blood entering the O8 realm, but I'm not keen on having players interested in studying the game and learning it in large numbers.

To me, O8 (at least in limit form) is much simpler than Hold Em, because it's usually pretty easy to tell where you stand (full-ring games). You play 6-max and then PL, so that changes things a bit, and I feel those games require more skill.

I prefer full-ring limit games because it's easier for me to focus on multiple tables, and being quartered isn't as devestating as in PL.

When you state that anyone who opposes more information out there just doesn't want to improve thier game, or imply they play medoicre, I can't agree with that.

I don't want to ruin my game selection, which is much more important than improving the way I play the game. At a good table with enough bad players, even a medoicre player can make a nice profit. And the edge between experts and good players isn't as pronounced in O8 as it is in Hold Em.

I play O8 because I find it to be the easiest game and significantly more profitable than other cash games for my style of play.

I'm not against improving my game, but this game is fairly easy enough that you don't have a lot of tough decisions until you start playing short-handed, PL or get into multi-way pots and have to promote marginal holdings both ways and try to push others out.

Also, not sure if you're talking about me or BBP when you mention a poster bragging about questionable plays.

I don't have a ton of short-handed experience, although I'm trying to work on that by hopping into full-ring tables that only have 3-4 players (but most of them have VPIP of 42-73% or whatever) so I can get some experience with short-handed aggressive play, while also encouraging others to join the table and it quickly becomes full-ring and profitable for what I'm experienced in playing.

I don't always make the correct moves, sometimes I'm too much of a calling station, other times I try to bluff at the wrong times. I'm going to continue learning the game and hopefully improve, but I don't mind facing brain-dead opponents who are limp three-betting hands like 5/5/6/9 quadruple suited.

[FC2000]

I agree with Dynasty. Of all the people who play O8 online, how many are part of the 2+2 community? How many of those read the magazine regularly? Even if they read the article, how many of them actually apply what they read correctly? How many of these people will you actually play against on a regular basis?

In the long run, O8 articles will improve our knowledge of the game (for those few who want to learn, compared to the majority of those who don't really) and draw new players in at the same time.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
(Calling to mind one poster's repeated brags of questionable plays which he believes are great...)

[/ QUOTE ]
Um, they were joke posts which generated interesting discussion. Nice hand reading skills, morph.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to restrict the info, it's only because one, you have a mediocre confidence in your game at best, and two, you have no desire to improve your game at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's make another generalization: people who resort to attacking their opponents instead of discussing the issue objectively usually do so because of a lack of substance in their own arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, O8 in any form is not simpler than hold'em. That's a myth. Any game that has more than two unknown cards, is simply more complicated than a game with only two.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice analysis, but completely mistaken. The time taken for an average player to both stop losing money and become an expert are significantly shorter in PLO8 than any other game. It's not just a matter of counting cards. The split pot nature of the game, the pot limit betting structure and the frequency of nut hands mean that the game has far more certainty, and it's far easier to approach optimal play with a very little study (or intelligence). This is not true for any other game.

Bottom line, games do change because of books, especially online with the added issues of multitabling and support software. If you disagree with me then you disagree with Ray Zee also (see the quote above.)

[Kuso]

[ QUOTE ]
But I caution those who want to write detailed, little known information about correct play (as opposed to articles about aspects of correct play, or discussion of specific hands), that it will affect the games, particularly PLO8.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a key part of BBP's stance.

If you want to see what bad PLO8 games look like, try playing the 25s at Party during the first day or two of a bonus period. You might have 10 tables going with over half of them with $3 pot averages. Frighteningly, if you gave a few of these people a "Top 10 List of Nut Peddler Errors" (e.g., chasing a bare nut low), it'd probably drop lower.