How Bout Enumerating The Flawed Hands In Colin's Book

[David Sklansky]

I was thinking it would be helpful if there was a consensus among you pros out there as to which of the sample hands are definitely wrong, in your combined opinion, as far as his answer is concerned. (Not his reasoning.) I'm not talking about debatable answers or those which "it depends". I'm talking about the ones where you would all agree his answer is incorrect. Preliminary reviews make me think there a few such questions. I, and I'm sure Mason and Colin, would like to know which ones they are.

[The Yugoslavian]

How bout posting up pics of hot scrippaz first?

TIME TO PAY YOUR STTF DUES DAVID!



Yugoslav

[Slim Pickens]

David,
Here's a pair of hands that bothered me. Hands 2 and 6 of Appendix F are essentially the same hand, yet Collin must be using two vastly different ranges on the same players to justify Hand 2 as an any-two-card push and Hand 6 as an "any decent hand" push. For what it's worth, I like the Hand 6 analysis much better, but that could be a result of different game conditions. Apparently Collin was crushing the old Party 216s when I was still 1-tabling $22 limit O8 SNGs for fun on Saturday nights.

How much am I allowed to post without infringing on copyrights? If it's OK with the law-talking-guys, I think those two hands would make for good discussion.

Slim

[David Sklansky]

For now, I just want to see a list from several good players and then cull that down to those where almost all agree the answer is wrong. (I'd expect that to be five or fewere.) Discussion of individual problems are for other threads. This thread is soley to develop that list.

[blackize]

This thread is an obvious ploy to get us to buy the book.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is an obvious ploy to get us to buy the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your chips have gone in and you've been called. Sklansky says, show your cards.

[fluorescenthippo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is an obvious ploy to get us to buy the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your chips have gone in and you've been called. Sklansky says, show your cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

our credit cards?





you probably mean that but otherwise i dont get it

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]


you probably mean that but otherwise i dont get it

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahah you're not the only one. I spent like 2 minutes staring at what he wrote just thinking WTF. Then I just started laughing.

[Slim Pickens]

<ul type="square">[*]Hand 2-4 is definitely wrong.
[*]In Appendix F, Hands 2 and 6 can't both be right because the ranges aren't consistent. I believe Hand 2 is wrong and Hand 6 is OK. I've stopping my reading of Hand 2 with "blindly push any two."[/list]
Pretty much everything else I'll leave up to a wide interpretation of "it depends" for now.

[rakemeplz]

This is an aside, but while reading his article in the magazine I was surprised at how many marginal even with reads pushes their actually were (or at least it seemed to me, and I believe Devin/others have agreed). Anyways one of things I've always enjoyed about your books David, is how they always have a decidedly correct play, and I know you've stated more than once that this is true of all your examples. That said many debatable/interesting STT plays have very slight edges.