Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine

[Dynasty]

As the new editor of the Magazine, I'm asking for opinions on how to improve it going forward.

However, one change I know I want to see is the inclusion of more Omaha/8 strategy articles. The Magazine hasn't had a single Omaha/8 article since it's first issue in January, 2005. Considering Omaha/8 is probably the most popular non-hold 'em game, this is a glaring omission.

So, I'd like to encourage all the Omaha/8 forum posters who have an article idea to make a submission to the Magazine. Feel free to contact me (via PM or e-mail) before doing any writing if you want to discuss the article in advance.

All authors who get published recieve $200 per article.

[grandgnu]

Why would we want to ruin games that are already really good for us?

The last thing I want is a bunch of TAGS filling up seats in my games. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

I'm sure we've got some guys with the ability to convey good strategy into writing. Not sure if they're willing to divulge that info though. The potential loss in EV at their tables probably outweights the $200 article fee.

Congrats on the new position and best wishes.

[Dynasty]

There has been a longstanding myth that putting information in the public domain will "ruin the games". Doyle Brunson wrote Super/System nearly three decades ago and yet poker is better than ever.

[Pnigro]

Buzz should write an article about probabilities, odds, counting outs and all that math stuff. He's great at it.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
There has been a longstanding myth that putting information in the public domain will "ruin the games". Doyle Brunson wrote Super/System nearly three decades ago and yet poker is better than ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
Both Sklansky's and Miller's books have made holdem games harder to play. You need to be more of an expert today to make the same earn as two years ago, at least in the online world. The vast majority of players wouldn't figure out optimal play without someone taking them by the hand and showing them.

BTW congrats on the position, this is great news for us readers.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

Both Sklansky's and Miller's books have made holdem games harder to play.

[/ 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. Many who do study still lose.

I think history shows that if you put information out there the much more likely impact is that it draws new players into the game. That's good for winning players.

[Phil153]

Quoting Ray Zee's foreword in Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players, by Sklansky and Malmuth:

[ QUOTE ]
The book you are holding, written by David Sklansky and
Mason Malmuth, has had far-reaching effects on the poker world.
Simply put, since the original edition of this book, hold 'em has
become, on average, a much tougher game to beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway this isn't the place for this debate, and I don't wish to discourage articles for your magazine. 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.

PLO8 is unique in that it currently contains huge numbers of awful players with no clue how to play, and is the most profitable game at comparable stakes. It's also the game with the least published information. I don't think that's a coincidence, especially given that less skill is required for PLO8 than hold'em.

Limit O8 is a more complex game with a different skill set and a few articles are unlikely to make a difference.

That's not to say that I ever hold back with advice (I don't), but having a published reference guide for new players as opposed to an in forum discussion are two very different things.

[Dynasty]

I was very happy to publish Buzz's submission in the September issue. It's exactly the type of article I'm hoping to receive more of (especially by Buzz).

As I've said before, I want O/8 articles to be a regular feature of the Internet Magazine.

[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.