Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
+Rakeback +Bonuses that are easier to clear in Limit and it's still $$$ in your pocket.

$1/$2 is a stake to avoid imho: Bad "rake + nb of good players" to "rakeback+bonus" ratio. (could depends on the site obviously)

[/ QUOTE ]

I shouldn't have used abbreviations. By 1/2 I meant $100/$200.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the book is pretty bad fwiw.

[/ QUOTE ]


drsavage - I would particularly interested in why you think this. If you wanted to just PM some of your reasoning to me I would be cool with that but I'm sure others on here would be curious as well.

[smbruin22]

i'm definitely getting this book.. i've only become aware of nate recently, but his posts are great and he seems very knowledgable. and i had to look up his compliment of the book in the dictionary LOL....

also, i've been trying to come up in the mind with how short-stacked NL (like many situations in many types of tourneys) and tigher limit compare and contrast. i know there are differences... not ultra-short but 15-20BB type stacks. you open raise for 3X on button with K9o. BB calls. mixed type flop that missed and BB comes out with small bet. i get the idea this book might help me reading that situation, even though the situation is NL.... basically sounds like a great hand reading book. and tons of people liked roy cooke's book even though it was limit.

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm definitely getting this book.. i've only become aware of nate recently, but his posts are great and he seems very knowledgable. and i had to look up his compliment of the book in the dictionary LOL....

also, i've been trying to come up in the mind with how short-stacked NL (like many situations in many types of tourneys) and tigher limit compare and contrast. i know there are differences... not ultra-short but 15-20BB type stacks. you open raise for 3X on button with K9o. BB calls. mixed type flop that missed and BB comes out with small bet. i get the idea this book might help me reading that situation, even though the situation is NL.... basically sounds like a great hand reading book. and tons of people liked roy cooke's book even though it was limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

bruin--

Hey, thanks for the compliment.

I'm actually thoroughly interested in anything amulet has to share. What makes this book unique is what I'm least qualified to judge: the shorthanded postflop situations. This is basically the only skill set that's unique to LHE.* (That's not to say that there aren't tough postflop situations, just that they're not qualitatively all that different from those in Stud or whatnot.)

Anyway, while I consider myself technically sound, I don't have high-limit online experience and whenever I've played 80-160+ live I've had all sorts of tempo+physical information to work with. So strictly speaking this part of my game is probably deficient. Meanwhile amulet has either been perpetrating a fairly involved fraud or beating high-stakes limit games for a heck of a long time now.

Anyway, this book and Schneids' CardRunners videos are the "tough games" LHE canon, as far as I'm concerned.

--Nate

*This claim might be controversial.

[smbruin22]

nate, specifically your $5 to $1000 bankroll in a week thread was amazing... should make that into at least a major magazine article, if not more...

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Your old conjecture is still true - The fish go broke faster a NL than at limit. Modern capped buy-ins have slowed the money hemorage from a gush to a spurt, but eventually the suckers will bleed to death faster than they can be replaced with newbies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another player thinking in terms of fixed bankrolls and "dying".

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that people have been losing at casino games like roulette, craps and blackjack for decades, with no sign of slowing down? Yes, online the situation is somewhat dynamic and the current US laws have put a hurtin' on it. Reloading is a real problem for some. But it's not a question of bankroll issues or "dying". It's a question of what people enjoy doing. People with regular jobs do not "go broke".

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of these games don't really fall under Ed Miller's SSHE as much imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, really? hee hee The most misapplied book in all the universe? A table full of players ranging from 11/2 to 20/12, and you don't think it works well with a book where "tight" is described as 5 players seeing the flop? You're making quite an understatement.

[jeffnc]

I think the book is "good". But it's not the most readable book in the world. Some may read that and say "well it's difficult, not everyone can handle it, multiple readings will be rewarded, blah blah blah." But I'm not letting the authors off that easy :-)

I do think it's a technically good book, but it could have benefitted from the "Miller treatment" (to paraphrase what I heard another 2+2er say recently.) All the technical information needs to be there, but the book could have been improved by melding the examples and stats with better prose that explains the concepts and principles and overall approach better.

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the book is "good". But it's not the most readable book in the world. Some may read that and say "well it's difficult, not everyone can handle it, multiple readings will be rewarded, blah blah blah." But I'm not letting the authors off that easy :-)

I do think it's a technically good book, but it could have benefitted from the "Miller treatment" (to paraphrase what I heard another 2+2er say recently.) All the technical information needs to be there, but the book could have been improved by melding the examples and stats with better prose that explains the concepts and principles and overall approach better.

[/ QUOTE ]

jeffnc--

Careful, bud.

--Nate

[jase]

[ QUOTE ]
nate, specifically your $5 to $1000 bankroll in a week thread was amazing... should make that into at least a major magazine article, if not more...

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone post this link. I've searched and searched and have come up blank...

Thanks