Jeff Hwang PLO Book

[BlackMajic]

Does anybody know anything about this guy? I was poking around Amazon for info on the Farha book and I found about his upcomming book. It called "Pot Limit Omaha - The Big Play Strategy". He has a website, jeffhwang.com ,while full of interesting information on the gaming industry in general, has no info at all on his own book beyond the fact that he has one comiing out. Any info would be appreciated since there is so little on PLO available.

[BvlyHls90210]

From what I understand, Jeff is really big into getting to know all of his opponents personally, and really using them as a "network" to get continual feedback on his own game and to better understand how to adjust. He doesn't feel that this is a bad idea, as he feels his poker network acts in his best interest, because like most poker players (and Jeff himself) they are genuinely nice people!

He also has some cutting edge thoughts on the difference between semibluffing and value betting. Jeff feels it doesn't matter if you are the favorite in the hand, sometime s you can have the nuts and bet and have it both be a value bet and a semibluff! It doesn't make any sense to me, but maybe it will after I read his book.

From what I understand, Jeff has been thoroughly quoted in blogs which gives him the credibility he is leveraging into this book.

Finally, Jeff hates online poker and people who play online, and only views live poker as real poker. In other words, he is a losing online player, so expect the book to deal with exclusively how to play live and about how dumb online players are. Jeff values poker players by the number of people they play against live (more players=more experience). So if you are looking for help with your online game, you should probably go elsewhere.

[engine_block]

Grind axes much Guap?

A few of us know Jeff from another forum. I can't tell you anything about the quality of the upcoming book other than that it's gotten a nice endorsement from Lou Krieger. I know his original intention in writing the book was to demystefy Omaha for the Hold Em player. From what I have seen out of the book it has probably exceeded that goal and is more of a broad-strategy PL Omaha book.

Jeff is a full time semi-pro who also gets work in stock and industry analysis. As you can tell from his site he has a particular interest in the gaming industry. I only mention this to paint a picture of the man. He has tirelessly applied his analysis skills to poker and specifically Omaha, and as I understand things travels quite a bit and has played in just about all of the decent live games in the midwest and south. I predict the book will cover a good bit of material that has not yet found its way to print.

If this sounds like a ringing endorsement, it isn't. I really don't know but I did want to provide a counterbalance to BvlyHils. BvlyHls is correct on several points. Jeff has fought for philosophies - some since abandoned - which indicate a very poor understanding of basic math and strategy. Furthermore he does have an aggressive personality and tends to hold people who don't play "his" games with a lot of disdain. His attitude has been that on-line poker is inferior to live, which from a skills and strategy perspective flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Furthermore he has only played Omaha regularly for a couple of years, and his total lifetime hand count is certainly inferior to most regular on-line players. His book will reflect regurgitated writings of others and his private situational analysis much more than it will reflect his personal experience with the game.

I haven't read the book, and even if I did I certainly do not have enough exposure to Omaha to either endorse it or to otherwise. I suspect it will be worth reading, if nothing other than to sharpen your critical skills on Omaha. I suspect there will be at least a few debatable points in the book.

[Jeff Hwang]

I suppose it might be somewhat flattering, but let’s put aside for a moment the improbability of some fanatic taking cheap shots at me on an Internet forum where nobody knows me yet. There are a couple of points I would like to clear up, starting with how unlikely it is for me to “hate online poker and people who play online,” given:

1. Did Congress Kill Online Poker? - 10/3/06
http://www.fool.com/investing/small-...ine-poker.aspx

2. I was four-, five-, and six-tabling PLO games online before PartyPoker shut us out.

3. I’ve played about a zillion hands of Omaha online, and in fact recommend that anyone interested in learning to play PLO takes their licks online. It is a virtual certainty that anyone learning to play PLO is going to make mistakes, and mistakes in PLO tend to be expensive. It is best to learn the expensive lessons cheaply in small stakes games online rather than in the card room.

That said, my objection isn’t actually to people who play poker online; my objection is when someone who plays online virtually exclusively (such as BvlyHls90210) presumes to tell me who I should and shouldn’t make friends with in the card room. Also, while I would characterize Engine Block’s assessment as mostly fair, the idea that I hold people “who don't play ‘[my]’ games with a lot of disdain” is a misperception; my objection is when someone exhibits strong opinions on games they don’t even really play, or when someone (such as BvlyHls90210) has such strong opinions on a book that he hasn’t read on a game (Omaha) that he doesn’t even play for micro limits.

I also think it might be a little presumptuous to characterize material that to this point very few people have seen. I will say that the book runs about 320 pages, though probably half of them are practice hands. About 100 pages of the book is on limit Omaha Hi/Lo, and another roughly 40 pages on PLO Hi/Lo.

The PLO Hi material itself is a concerted deep stack strategy centering primarily around the straight draws. The Big Play Objectives themselves are:

1. The Nut Straight Freeroll
2. The Nut Full House Freeroll
3. Set-over-Set
4. Flush Over Flush
5. Overfull vs. Underfull
6. Top Set-Plus
7. Dominating Draws

The third chapter covers the straight draws in depth, which yields the beginnings of proper starting hand construction.

Chapter Four is the deepest look at starting hands yet. Our goal is to play only hands that meet the Big Play Objectives. After covering playable hands by type (such as rundowns and wrap hands, suited-Ace hands, pair-plus hands, and AA hands), we classify the hands as either Premium, Speculative, Marginal, and Trash. The classifications help dictate pre-flop playing strategy.

Chapter Five is After Flop

Chapter Six is Practice Situations and Hand Quizzes. I think there are about 35 practice situations and maybe 20 hand quizzes.

Chapter Seven is Miscellaneous Topics, including general ideas on bankroll management, as well as lessons from investors.

Chapter Eight is limit Omaha Hi/Lo, which includes over 20 practice hand quizzes.

Chapter Nine is PLO Hi/Lo, including 9 hand quizzes.

And I guess that's the book in a nutshell.

Jeff

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]
my objection is when someone exhibits strong opinions on games they don’t even really play, or when someone (such as BvlyHls90210) has such strong opinions on a book that he hasn’t read on a game (Omaha) that he doesn’t even play for micro limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 2+2, mister. We don't let facts interfere with our opinions around here.

[BvlyHls90210]

Wow, where to start?

[ QUOTE ]
That said, my objection isn’t actually to people who play poker online

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff, you do realize I can just link to the stuff you've written in the past. You have a very strong disdain for online players.

[ QUOTE ]
my objection is when someone who plays online virtually exclusively (such as BvlyHls90210) presumes to tell me who I should and shouldn’t make friends with in the card room.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's quite the humorous misinterpretation of, well everything that exists in the universe.

Some background for others, Jeff has a very peculiar arguing style. He lays out very wrong and retarded ideas about poker, and when faced with clearly laid out facts about why he is wrong, he diversts to pleas to authority amongst other weak techniques. He says ridiculous stuff like how a knowledge base attained from online discussion forums such as 2+2 is inferior compared to what he gets from the discussions he has with the group of players he's plays with live. I don't know if that makes much sense, as these players who Jeff plays against certainly aren't incentivized to help him plug all his various leaks and teach him all the tricks and tools of the game. Whereas online is a much different type of animal but I'm certainly more comfortable getting advice from people who I don't play with.

So I don't care who you make friends with Jeff, I'm just defending the attacks you make on me and every other online player which you've stated repeatedly is an inferior poker playing environment for whatever reason you concoct. All I've said is maybe you should take the poker advice you get from someone you play with every week with a little grain of salt.

You don't want me to actually dig up links, do you?

Remember when you said this:

"you have to admit it is kind of lame that you've played professionally, and yet the extent of your poker network consists entirely of people on the internet you've never met."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=25899986

While we are at it with quotes.

On your qualifications to write a book:
"I have been quoted a number times outside of the Fool, including in the Reno Gazette-Journal and the Las Vegas Business Press, not to mention various blogs and even some grad school papers."

"I've seen more of the gaming industry in person than anybody on Wall Street, or in the media."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username

This is a gem:
"Frankly, having a self-proclaimed "pro" tell me I don't "play a ton" when he probably doesn't play much more than me himself -- and doesn't play live to boot -- is ridiculous. If you tell me I need X years of experience before I can write a book, I will tell you that Edward Thorpe pioneered card counting without having ever played a lick of blackjack seriously himself."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username

Wait, I thought you said you have to extensively play a game to have an opinion? Also, this is when you start on your whole online poker is inferior to live poker thing. It just doesn't make much sense (nor am I a pro, but whatever you want to believe).

Some nice digs on 2+2 in this thread, but I love this quote:
"Why should I care what somebody who doesn't even play Omaha thinks about what I have to say about it? "
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username

A classic moment in On Tilt:
"I disagree with your very definition of a semibluff. A semibluff suggests that you have a chance to win the hand outright by betting with a hand that doesn't figure to be good at the moment. It is entirely indepedent of the value of your drawing hand. Therefore, betting a drawing hand for value is semi-bluffing."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username

"You're still making up your own definitions of a semi-bluff. If you don't have a made hand, you are bluffing. It is that simple."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username

"And personally, I like a strict interperation of Sklansky, and I like the idea that a bet with a big drawing hand can be both a semi-bluff and a value bet."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username

"And there's another issue that's been glossed over: It's that all of the example hands you guys have been giving - JTs on a KQx suited flop, Td9d on a 8d7d4s flop, ATs with overcards and the nut flush -- these are all favorites with two cards to come. It is only a value bet if the money goes all in on the flop."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username

On online pros:
"I should add that if your idea of "playing a ton" requires sitting a home fingering a mouse 60 hours a week, you should probably re-think your life."

And this gem:
"And not only have I gotten paid to write a book about the game, but I also have the respect of the people I play with every day."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username

Some ground breaking HE analysis from one month ago:
"I've been playing a little bit more hold'em lately, and one of the things I've noticed is more of the players in the game have started playing back because they are more aware of the continuation bet."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username

On online players again
"Besides, you don't even play poker with real people."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username

While critiqueing those who dare question the Gospel of your work:
"And how many people count live poker as a significant part of their playing experience, without the benefit of Poker Tracker to assist them with their reads"
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username

"You know what else is interesting is that the people most in conflict with my posts as a group don't play much live poker"
"And not coincidentally, every single person who has expressed how stupid this is spends far more time playing poker online than with live opponents."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username
etc
etc
etc


[ QUOTE ]
my objection is when someone exhibits strong opinions on games they don’t even really play

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. I have played an extensive number of poker hands over the past few years, and I feel like I have attained some level of poker knowledge that is applicable to all poker games. I think that goes for absolutely anyone who plays poker. I don't have to play a single hand of Omaha ever to understand when you are misusing terms like value betting and semibluffing. But rather than admitting you are wrong, you always just go into this whole character assassination on me, and you denegrate all online players. Just freaking admit you are wrong when you are so blatantly wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
when someone (such as BvlyHls90210) has such strong opinions on a book that he hasn’t read on a game (Omaha) that he doesn’t even play for micro limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to your book? How would I have read it? I can have an opinion based on the other "strategy" stuff you have shared, which is DEEPLY flawed material. Consider me skeptical. I don't think that is all that offbase.

And FWIW for the hundred billiointh time, I have played PLO, I have even won a PLO tournament, but for a variety of reasons I choose not to make it my main game, like 99.99999% of all poker players. I think if you are only going to accept comments from people who devote all their poker time to Omaha, you are cutting off a lot of great potential analysis. Maybe you should think about how to develop the game rather than your current stance which does the opposite.

[Gelford]

I have no idea who Jeff is, but not being able to answer a post in an online forum in a civilized manner kinda kills this book for anyone even remotely interested to start of with.

Why you want to market yourself this way is beyond me .... oh well.

[fraac]

Bvly's rebuttal makes me think the book may be sufficiently fascinating. Jeff has funny prejudices but if his ideas are interesting, I don't care whether he uses nonstandard terms (I assumed that valuebetting semi-bluffs was normal anyway).

Could a PLO pro please say if the approach Jeff outlines is promising?

[Jeff Hwang]

Whatever dude, your act is old. The only thing I had ever actually said to you was that it was probably too much to assume that you have any idea what your were talking about when you started talking about how "the Fool doesn't make a ton of money." And then you started attacking me personally.

Listen. Like I said, I don't know you, and you don't know me, so this can't be personal. The fact is that whatever "beef" you think you have with me doesn't stand up on its own. You know it, too, because every single time you have hijacked my threads, your whole strategy of attack has been to make it about "me against everybody else" when that's just not how it is. For example, every time you list "online pros", my jab wasn't at online pros but rather at YOU.

And don't even begin to act as if you have ever tried to "debate" poker in any form with me in a civilized manner. The fact that you've been cataloging posts and planning for this is pure evidence that you've been on my case for the long haul.

You are acting like the guy who can't get a girl's attention legitimately, so instead you respond by assaulting her. It's not healthy behavior.

And seriously, dude, I can't be that important to you. If the fact that I have written a book induces such emotional swings for you that you spent however many months waiting for me to post just so you can attack me in such a manner (I can data mine your posts too), then you need to take a step back and chill out.

[BvlyHls90210]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing I had ever actually said to you was that it was probably too much to assume that you have any idea what your were talking about when you started talking about how "the Fool doesn't make a ton of money." And then you started attacking me personally.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is a funny interpretation, but not the truth at all.

Just go back and read it: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=25009012

You just completely freak out when I explain why no PE buyout of TMF. Just objectively read what I said and your reponses. The idea that they are valuable because they make more money than before doesn't make sense. If I lose 100, then I lose 90, is whatever I am doing valuable? No.

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, I don't know you, and you don't know me, so this can't be personal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It gets personal to me when you rag on online poker players and say that it isn't real poker and online players need to get out of the house and stop being losers, etc, etc. That really offends me. All I ask for is some respect.

[ QUOTE ]
You are acting like the guy who can't get a girl's attention legitimately, so instead you respond by assaulting her.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't very hard for you to sound incredibly creepy is it? Kind of weird stuff there.

[ QUOTE ]
nd don't even begin to act as if you have ever tried to "debate" poker in any form with me in a civilized manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL dude, you are famous for putting some thought out there, and then tearing apart any slight criticism. It is impossible for anyone to ever say anything that you disagree with because you freak out every time, 100%. It is really annoying. For example, if you post something about an Omaha hand, and I comment (which I have done many times, just go look), if you disagree you go into a big diatribe about how people who don't play Omaha are not qualified to discuss Omaha hands. LOLWTF

[ QUOTE ]
If the fact that I have written a book induces such emotional swings for you that you spent however many months waiting for me to post just so you can attack me

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, I found those posts this afternoon. It isn't that hard to do, with the search function, google and things. But again, whatever you want to believe.

[ QUOTE ]
I can data mine your posts too

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do man, I am sure it is of complete interest to everyone thinking of buying my poker book. Wait, I'm not publishing a poker book, am I? So go ahead.

Your calm rationality has impressed me again. You must be a fantastic poker player. I would just hate to see what a bad beat does to you.