*Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*

[MadScientist]

Colin, Slim, SNGWizard now should support calculating the value of future steals. Would you please use the new program to answer this question decisively.
FWIW, I don't own that program.

[darom03]

[ QUOTE ]
Colin, Slim, SNGWizard now should support calculating the value of future steals. Would you please use the new program to answer this question decisively.
FWIW, I don't own that program.

[/ QUOTE ]

The way SNG-W implements future actions is very flawed to a degree of it being utter useless. Just a fair warning for everyone who regards this new feature in SNG-W as stellar.

[SitNGo Wizard]

[ QUOTE ]
The way SNG-W implements future actions is very flawed to a degree of it being utter useless. Just a fair warning for everyone who regards this new feature in SNG-W as stellar.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have my attention. Would you care to elaborate?

[Collin Moshman]

This is becoming a bit OT, but...

Software that takes non-ICM factors into account -- such as a miniscule-stack potentially busting out if you decline a +EV shove, or the blinds crippling you if you don't make a -EV UTG shove -- is the future of ICM programs, IMO. Wizard's Future Game Simulator is far from perfect at this point (and I doubt the Wiz guys would dispute this), but it represents a crucial first step toward push/fold/call software that goes beyond the limitations of ICM.

-- Collin

[DuderinoAB]

I'm very skeptical as to whether a software program can make ev calculations like the ones you're talking about Collin. There are so many variables that go into that kind of decision...

[darom03]

[ QUOTE ]
This is becoming a bit OT, but...

Software that takes non-ICM factors into account -- such as a miniscule-stack potentially busting out if you decline a +EV shove, or the blinds crippling you if you don't make a -EV UTG shove -- is the future of ICM programs, IMO. Wizard's Future Game Simulator is far from perfect at this point (and I doubt the Wiz guys would dispute this), but it represents a crucial first step toward push/fold/call software that goes beyond the limitations of ICM.

-- Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I won't elaborate further in here onto the shortcomings of the feature, as I don't want to clutter this thread. I will however send a mail to the SNG-W support as soon as I have the time to write it.

[pokerman777]

my review , dont be tell about standart thing ,say only about new features that collin suggest .
1. his theorem about don't be blind out . In a theory it sounds great but in a real table i always get call and be dominated of course every time ... this theorem is awful , and it will be good if table very tight .But it's impossible . I think it will be better call with a trash from bb .
2. Resteal , dude when i try to resteal i 90% get called and busted of course . it's a very tough do it correctly in sng without good notes .
3. speculative hands , i try , but dont notice that this hand so profitable. What you think gyus about this hands ?
I spend 5 days for read this f* ucking book and loose today 1000$ in 55$ sng . Nice work collin I play by your strategy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ,
in overall it's not a bad book but all new features that collin suggest is awful and doesnt work now .

[quadaces9999]

pokerman777 so you think you can read a book once and be a pro at it? Can i suggest that you buy into lower stakes maybe $10, to try the concepts in the book and then re read the book a few times before playing the stakes you mentioned. I think its foolish on your part actually. no one can read a book once and master the concepts.

On a footnote, i really wish Mason would clear things up about this book because so many STT players are giving it negative reviews. Im a new SNG player and i want to buy it but these negative reviews are holding me back. This is probably the worst response of any 2+2 book ever written, so it would be appreciated if Mason would explain why he approved this manuscript since he is so very picky on the material that he chooses under the 2+2 label.

[pokerman777]

[ QUOTE ]
pokerman777 so you think you can read a book once and be a pro at it?

[/ QUOTE ]
of course , i am not a novice in sng and most of thing that collin describe i know yet .
[ QUOTE ]
Can i suggest that you buy into lower stakes maybe $10, to try the concepts in the book and then re read the book a few times before playing the stakes you mentioned.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes you can , but people play differently at 10 and 55 buyin and if it will be work at 10$ i am guaranteed doesnt work at the higher buyin .
[ QUOTE ]
I think its foolish on your part actually. no one can read a book once and master the concepts.


[/ QUOTE ]
ok maybe i'm idiot and can't see this concept correctly , but i'm very doubt that people who never play sng imagine this concept better than me.
[ QUOTE ]
Im a new SNG player and i want to buy it but these negative reviews are holding me back

[/ QUOTE ]
say over it's not a bad book , and standart things as how to play buble , friends play , icm , etc he wrote good. But all new features that he provide don't work in a real table. [ QUOTE ]
Mason would explain why he approved this manuscript since he is so very picky on the material that he chooses under the 2+2 label.

[/ QUOTE ]
oh dude i can explain you it's a big money and no one yet write a book about sng ...

[Slim Pickens]

Just to reiterate, I think the book lays out a very good framework for a novice player to understand the mechanics of SNG play. There's a lot that's done well and I think it's worth the purchase price to a serious beginner.

I think you're missing the point of my criticism about Appendix F Hands 2 and 6. The players are the same, your position is the same, and the stacks are the same save for one BB+antes moving from BB's stack to yours. All the external factors have to be the same unless you can justify why the small change in stacks makes a large difference in folding equity or future scenarios. You give two very different explanations for your actions, coming to two very different conclusions. I think this is the best example of a logical flaw that permeates your book, and this is the best example.

Here is the flaw. A push/fold decision should be based on how profitable it is. You rarely show your readers how to quantify push/fold decisions. When you do show it, either you use cEV or employ ICM-based $EV only semi-quantitatively. Since you have a lot of experience playing, you usually intuit the correct answer, so it isn't often apparent to your readers how you arrived at it. I think it is very important to teach people how to evaluate late-game push/fold decisions fully quantitatively and this is what I believe the book lacks.