Tanenbaum or Stox?

[Bobo Fett]

I play 1/2-3/6 FL SH, but being Canadian I'm lucky enough to be able to play on sites where I can find plenty of tables with 50-60% seeing the flop.

These certainly aren't "tough" games, so I'm wondering if the Stox book (Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games) is all that suitable for me, or if I should be reading the Tanenbaum books (Limit Hold'em: Winning Short-Handed Strategies & Advanced Limit Hold'em Strategy: Techniques for Beating Tough Games). I have the Stox book, and I've read it...I don't own any Tanenbaum books. Is there one of these books I should be focusing on more than another?

[Adman]

Definitely get the SH D&B book. IMO it is the best material available on SH play anywhere. By the way, which sites do you play at where you are seeing 50-60% to a flop? I might come and play there myself!

[Shandrax]

50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one. I'd rather be HU with some weak tight guy who folds too much.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So?

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you jest.


Bobo:

Although the Stox book doesn't directly address playing in games like ours, I still found it extremely useful for making adjustments against particular opponents given their range of hands.

[BlueSmurf]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Surely you jest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Surely he does [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Seriously, get all the three mentioned books. Put them on top of each other on your desk. Contemplate them. Rejoice, because there will never be another time when you have not read them. The moment is precious. Give thanks. Be happy. Then study the crap out of them. Play. Repeat. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Cheers,

Smurf

[6471849653]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's rather interesting as a complete subject. I think that horse thing was about some horses that sometimes do better than the average favorite, and Sklansky thinks it will then be no more the favorite or something like that what comes to it winning.

That could raise some views about tournament strategy; should one be the wild horse, use such a strategy and then maybe cool down as the tournament progresses or one gets enough ships. And does the will horses in the tournament decrease one's chances to get to the highest places.

In poker there are the mixes of players that make the game like rock, paper and scissors, and if one doesn't know well enough who is who, the horse that wins against any one of them individually, will not win (as well or at all) when they are together. Such things seems to happen in loose games if it has such a mix of players and in games where one has less information about the opponents' styles, like at full ring games compared to shorthanded games.

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky would never make such a redundant point. What he said was a single hand that would be poor heads up, such as 98s, becomes money favourite against a bunch of Ax, Kx type hands. I forget his exact example; these days you can Pokerstove it and see it's elementary.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
50-60% on the flop kinda scares me, because I always have to remember Sklansky's horse racing paradox where a bunch of weak hands can be a combined massive favorite over a single strong one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky would never make such a redundant point. What he said was a single hand that would be poor heads up, such as 98s, becomes money favourite against a bunch of Ax, Kx type hands. I forget his exact example; these days you can Pokerstove it and see it's elementary.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in Sklansky the Video or Sklansky the Seminar. I can't remember which but it is a stud or draw example and doesn't really apply to holdem. I think you are talking about "schooling" where the more people in the hand against you, the more likely you are to lose, but "schooling" doesn't usually take into consider the pots are huge when your hand holds up so it is more profitable to have a million callers. You lose more pots but win more money.

[YertleTurtle]

I read the D&B book and am an experienced short-handed limit player. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who is serious about short-handed play but I do feel there are some errors in their recommendations. Examples include - limping from the SB when you are first to act, playing a tighter range from the SB than from the button when first to act and over-valuing off-suit broadway hands in early position (KTo, QTo etc.)

Overall I would recommend the book and it is easier to read than Stox's but I certainly feel there are some flaws.

YT