New D&B Shorthanded book.

[Adman]

I've read (and I own) Stox's book and I think the D&B one is far better. I don't expect any of the 2+2 sycophants to even consider the possibility that that may be true since their objectivity went out the window a long time ago.

TT I own a lot of 2+2's books including the Stox one so don't panic. I am just giving credit where credit is due- something I know you are incapable of given your blind, obsessive (almost scary) allegiance/ love of 2+2. That's fine and thats your prerogative.

The quote I provided wasn't to show the "new/ previously unknown" material that I have learned from the book. I just said I loved some of the examples meaning I like the style of writing and the general attitude towards short games. Sorry, I should have been more specific there.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
TT I own a lot of 2+2's books including the Stox one so don't panic. I am just giving credit where credit is due- something I know you are incapable of given your blind, obsessive (almost scary) allegiance/ love of 2+2. That's fine and thats your prerogative.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, the owner of D&B is a friend, he taught me how to play heads up limit hold'em (hi Byron!). Trust me, I don't have a blind allegiance, I was the first person to advocate How Good is your Limit Hold'em on this forum for example - another D&B book. Quality work should always be promoted, even mason agrees with that. Problem is until the past few years quality work was rare outside of 2+2, this is slowly getting better.

[ QUOTE ]
The quote I provided wasn't to show the "new/ previously unknown" material that I have learned from the book. I just said I loved some of the examples meaning I like the style of writing and the general attitude towards short games. Sorry, I should have been more specific there.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said earlier I think the quote might have been taken out of context because there was information missing. The hero doesn't have 15 clean outs, he has 9 outs to a flush + 6 pair outs if the villain has a hand like Ax, etc. In the event the villain holds AJ or A6 the hero's pair outs are significantly crippled, and the villain might win on the river with A high if he is showdown bound with AK (as so many short handed players tend to be). The play is 100% correct, but there is more to the hand than was just shown in the quote.

If anyone cares the last time I "struck gold" in a limit book it was Stox's equity calculations of blind defense ranges, that was a truly eye opening experience for me. I dont think we will have too many more of those ground breaking moments in limit literature from any publisher, from this point forward it will mostly be rehashing the same existing thoughts and concepts presented with a different author's voice. Of course if the voice works for you, then by all means read it! Byron publishes good product, he is a very good communicator; In general I would trust his judgment.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think we will have too many more of those ground breaking moments in limit literature from any publisher, from this point forward it will mostly be rehashing the same existing thoughts and concepts presented with a different author's voice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Though the audience is small, there is plenty more to say.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think we will have too many more of those ground breaking moments in limit literature from any publisher, from this point forward it will mostly be rehashing the same existing thoughts and concepts presented with a different author's voice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Though the audience is small, there is plenty more to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

plent to say- yes. new concepts - unlikely. I cant think of any concepts that haven't been discussed in detail before besides Heads Up play, and thats not an easy topic to write about. At this point it will be mostly rehashing of existing knowledge, even SSHE was rehashing of existing knowledge, applied specifically to the loose and passive games played in multi-way pots found at small stakes.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think we will have too many more of those ground breaking moments in limit literature from any publisher, from this point forward it will mostly be rehashing the same existing thoughts and concepts presented with a different author's voice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Though the audience is small, there is plenty more to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

plent to say- yes. new concepts - unlikely. I cant think of any concepts that haven't been discussed in detail before besides Heads Up play, and thats not an easy topic to write about. At this point it will be mostly rehashing of existing knowledge, even SSHE was rehashing of existing knowledge, applied specifically to the loose and passive games played in multi-way pots found at small stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there isn't anything really new under the sun. After Theory of Poker it's all a matter of application. That's all that SSHE or WTHG, or any other good book has added. Though they may only be of interest to mathematically inclined poker geeks, there are subjects the surface of which have only been scratched.

[Adman]

Re-read the quote, they say you LIKELY have 15 outs and against a cutoff steal raise I would say that is a pretty fair assumption. They did not say that you have 15 clean outs for sure.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
Re-read the quote, they say you LIKELY have 15 outs and against a cutoff steal raise I would say that is a pretty fair assumption. They did not say that you have 15 clean outs for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I give up.

[nomdeplume]

[ QUOTE ]
From the posts so far it appears (and I might be wrong) that Barry's book is more for the player who cant figure out how to adjust to short handed games while Stox's book is at an expert level for the guy who beats short handed games but is looking to squeek out ever last bit of equity edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

TT, you're spot on here. I've had the Borer/Mak book for a couple of days now, and I've read/skimmed most of the sections. I think this is a good book for players with a little experience but who don't know what adjustments they need to make when the table drops to six players or fewer. If you want to eek out an edge against tough players (which generally means playing better in the blinds than they do) then you certainly won't find it here.

For experienced players who regularly read the shorthanded forum here and particularly those who've read and understood Stoxtrader's book, there's nothing to be gained by reading this book IMO. I'd be interested to hear the OP's opinion on what he would view as 'groundbreaking' material here, because as I say I haven't read it completely but I haven't spotted anything yet.

I think the book will be very popular because it's easy to read and contains lots of hand examples (probably more than in Stox's book, I haven't counted). But unlike Stox's book it doesn't go into the same depth in terms of EV calcs and explanation. With due respect to the OP, to say that this book is clearly better than Stox's book is just nonsense IMO.

The blind play section in WITHG is just outstanding, whereas the D&B book gives a starting hand chart with 'default' plays and warns that you may need to 'adjust' depending on the raiser's stealing range.

The D&B book contains chapters relating to online play, dealing with for example PokerTracker stats (VPIP etc) and profiling opponents. It has chapters about bankroll considerations, adjusting to different player types and tilt. Again, all valuable for newer players, but nothing new here for more experienced players.

The hand examples are numerous and varied, and generally the advice is short and to the point and well explained. I'll be interested to hear better players than me comment on these, I'm sure they'll provide some instructive debate which is always a good thing.

The D&B book also contains chapters on what they call 'super shorthanded play' for games with 4 to 2 players. I don't play very much heads up so someone better qualified could comment, but I thought it gave good advice. But the Byron Jacobs DVDs on heads up limit were far better IMO. To be fair, given the limited space in the book, I think they did a decent job.

So in summary I think this book will probably be very popular, and if I was advising a new player to the game I'd certainly encourage them to buy it. It's easy to read and given the dearth of other material in this area (for players who don't play high limit games I mean) I'm sure it will be valuable. But honestly, to suggest it's one of the best poker books ever is, I think, a bit much.

Don't get me wrong though, I liked it. But then, I'm a poker book whore. If I don't read something about poker for more than a few hours I start to shake.

[Adman]

I never said anything in it was groundbreaking. I do think it's better than Stox's book but thats my opinion; it reads better, the hand examples are better and more numerous, it's better organized and I think the explanations are clearer in every section. No, it doesn't have pages and pages of PT stats detailing how much money was won/ lost on a per hand basis when defending the blinds against a steal raise or how much was won/ lost per hand open raising various hands from various positions but I don't consider that a negative at all. I'd rather analyze and learn from the conclusions that are drawn from such data than read page after page of PT screen dumps.

I have played a lot of shorthanded poker and I've been a pretty consistent winner for a fairly long time albeit only up to and including 5/10. I am not, as has been suggested someone who prior to this book "doesn't understand how to adjust when a game gets short." I started at the micros and turned $20 into a decent five figure bankroll over a period of time. Having said that, I'm certainly not Stox, Schneids or Dave Fromm, I never claimed to be and I'm almost positive (no, totally positive) I never will be. If that means my opinion on a book is less valid then so be it; just ignore it. I think though, to dismiss it before you've even glanced at it because it isn't a 2+2 book is a mistake but that's just me.

I do think this is one of the best poker books ever written and I've read over 70. Again, my opinion only and I'm probably biased because I only play shorthanded limit so I'm not one to judge, say, PNLH or the new Moshman book (I do own both and have read both but NL or SNG's aren't my thing). Anyway, I'm not looking to start an argument that I can't possibly win- I think the book is fantastic. Others can form their own opinions when they read it or they can just assume it isn't very good because it's not a 2+2 book and refuse to look at it. That would be their loss.

[nomdeplume]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said anything in it was groundbreaking. I do think it's better than Stox's book but thats my opinion; it reads better, the hand examples are better and more numerous, it's better organized and I think the explanations are clearer in every section.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the Borer book is better organized, but I don't see why you think the explanations or hand examples are better. I think the explanations are good in both, but there's no doubt that many of the explanations in the Stox book include much more analysis of hand ranges, equity and the like. I'm puzzled as to why you think the explanations are better. In what way? Do you mean they are easier to read? I wonder if you might be favouring ease of understanding and brevity over depth and analysis? If you are, that's fine, each to their own. But in that case describing the Borer book as 'better' in this respect may be somewhat misleading.

Have you read the hand examples in WITHG? Personally I thought the 'Hands with Stox' section was the most instructive 80 pages I've ever read. I honestly don't see why you would rate the quality of explanation in this book as better.

[ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't have pages and pages of PT stats detailing how much money was won/ lost on a per hand basis when defending the blinds against a steal raise or how much was won/ lost per hand open raising various hands from various positions but I don't consider that a negative at all. I'd rather analyze and learn from the conclusions that are drawn from such data than read page after page of PT screen dumps.

[/ QUOTE ]

So would I. But then, like you, my name isn't Nick Grudzien. Most low limit players aren't going to be super interested in this stuff because their poor opponents give up so much EV postflop anyway. It isn't as big an issue as it is in nosebleed games, where every tiny edge is valuable. But the fact someone may not be interested in it, shouldn't detract from the usefulness of that information.

The Borer book gives basic preflop advice. The Stoxtrader book is pretty much state of the art as far as preflop goes. That's not necessarily a criticism of the Borer book, it's just that they cater for a different audience.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think that someone like yourself, a good mid limit player with experience will be able to move up to tougher games on the basis of the information in this book? I doubt it. Now you might say the same thing about WITHG, but at least he sets out the foundations of correct blind play, and his preflop recommendations are based around his experience of high limit games. The Stox book would at least give you a decent shot.

[ QUOTE ]
I have played a lot of shorthanded poker and I've been a pretty consistent winner for a fairly long time albeit only up to and including 5/10. I am not, as has been suggested someone who prior to this book "doesn't understand how to adjust when a game gets short." I started at the micros and turned $20 into a decent five figure bankroll over a period of time. Having said that, I'm certainly not Stox, Schneids or Dave Fromm, I never claimed to be and I'm almost positive (no, totally positive) I never will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither am I, and nor are the vast majority of people playing the game. In fact my experience has been almost identical to yours.

[ QUOTE ]
If that means my opinion on a book is less valid then so be it; just ignore it. I think though, to dismiss it before you've even glanced at it because it isn't a 2+2 book is a mistake but that's just me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shhhh, calm down cowboy. It'll be ok. Nobody has suggested that your opinion is any less valid than anyone elses.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I'm not looking to start an argument that I can't possibly win- I think the book is fantastic. Others can form their own opinions when they read it or they can just assume it isn't very good because it's not a 2+2 book and refuse to look at it. That would be their loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you read this thread again. Not a single poster who's read the book has said they didn't like it. I've already said I'd recommend it for most players and certainly those new to the game. I think it's a good book and a valuable addition to the literature on shorthanded games. I just think describing it as 'the best poker book ever' and 'fantastic' is a bit much.