*Official STTF SnG Book Review Thread*

[MadScientist]

Cakewalk, did you steal Bengiec's avatar? Even if you didn't, you should give it back to the Benmeister, he's had it for a long time.

[agnoke10]

thanks a lot Slim for this book review

[mmorpg]

thx slim

[ledders07]

ok, I've been playing $3 SNGs and will soon be bankrolled to move to $6: snap question - should I buy this book???
if yes, where do I buy it from??

[agnoke10]

ledders, from what I have gathered about this book it would be PERFECT for someone at your level. I think you can find it on amazon

[ledders07]

[ QUOTE ]
ledders, from what I have gathered about this book it would be PERFECT for someone at your level. I think you can find it on amazon

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks, will order it right away

[MauMau]

thanks slim

[BozMan82]

Just wanted to thank Slim for his review efforts. I hope other experienced SnG players weigh in as well. Always helpful to read expert opinion and analysis, especially when this is the first book directed at this topic.

Despite some flaws, looks like the book is still beneficial to SnG novices like myself.

[pokerman777]

read low blind chapter
1. don't like hands 1-2 dude it's awful limp kk imo
2.hand 1-18 you bet in the pot when 3 players act yet with draw , man it's bad i think , you put 1/5 of your stack without hand , it's normal in cash or mtt when stack 100bb but not in sng .
3. very debatable you though about speculative hands .
you say that i need to play from mid position hands like a4s and 56s. i dont think that it's profitable hands from this position . And definitally novice never be play this hand correctly . and else if i add 2 tables instead of playing you speculative hands it will be more profitable imo.In overall the chapter not bad .

[Collin Moshman]

Hi Guys,

First, let me admit that I was expecting Slim Pickens not to give my book a fair shot and review negatively independent of content. I apologize for what was clearly a false assumption.

Now let me respond to a couple of points.

1. I think the ICM treatment is indeed thorough. I derive the model for 3 players in Part II (so that even those without a significant math background can understand where ICM comes from), and then give a multi-page example of its applications as the central hand analysis in the Bubble section.

References to push/fold equity-maximizing decisions are ICM-based as a default since we are concerned exclusively with tournament equity (dollars) rather than chip expectation – a theme throughout the book.

2. Rereading the text, I admit that Slim and Devin make a legitimate point that the results of certain problems are stated in an overly black-and-white fashion. That is, using standard push, fold, recall, (etc.) ranges, the play is correct, but revising these player assumptions allow for reasonable alternative plays. I should have stated this more clearly in the text.

3. Slim has a solid list of criteria for becoming a consistently winning SNG player. (I would, however, like an example of the 4th -- "altering a parameter" -- to make sure everyone’s on the same page.) Of the remaining three, the first two are explicitly in the text, but the third appears as well.

[ QUOTE ]
3) The sensitivity of the results to changes in a players hand, his opponents’ hand ranges, and the chip stacks at the table, as well as the limitations of ICM equity modeling and cases requiring special treatment. This is usually what separates the winning high-limit players from the break-even mid-limit players, at least it does today…

[/ QUOTE ]

With this in mind, let’s revisit Hand #2 of the consecutive bubble hands in Appendix F. (Note, BTW, that there is indeed a typo here; Hero’s stack is actually t1730 rather than t1970 after the Hand #1 steal. Sorry for any confusion.) I contend that this is an example of a hand that requires acknowledging the limitations of ICM.

Shoving here is indeed -Equity, as Slim points out. Yet ICM does not take position into account, and if you fold here, you forfeit stealing fold equity when the t200-t400 blinds hit you next hand. You should not allow yourself to get blinded out, particularly during high-blind bubble play when having a non-negligible stack allows you the best opportunity to accumulate chips in the entire game. Also, when you do fold here, you have basically resigned yourself to a battle for 3rd, which is very rarely optimal strategy (the possible exception being when the other short stack is miniscule). So despite a program like Wizard telling you to not to push ATC, I believe the shove is correct when you factor in the non-ICM parameter of blinds crippling you next hand.

Alright, thanks sincerely to Slim Pickens for his thorough and open-minded review, and I look forward to future reviews.

Best Regards,
Collin