Tournament Poker for Advanced Players??

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, Mason has a sense of humor, who knew?

boris, perhaps some of the reasons you mention are the reason to rerelease it, not a reason not to. I heard it has many new pages.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see how the limit discussion is of value, since it fills a niche. I admit that comment is off the mark.

But what about the fact that there is just horrible advice given in this book? On several occasions excessively tight play is advocated in NLHE MTT's, which may have been correct circa 1995, but nowadays this type of play will simply get devoured by the more aggressive styles that understand the necessity of taking risks. If you are consistently folding AQ and TT to reraises (mentioned in the "dont turn good hands into 72" section) then you are getting annihilated on resteals, particularly during the late stages.

Winning MTT's is all about constantly pushing small edges via aggressiveness, capitalizing on fold equity, etc. For Sklansky's recommendations to be correct, the rest of the field has to be really bad, and that simply isn't the case anymore, except perhaps in the WSOPME, or the Sunday Million (or generally tournaments with many satellite entries).

[fraac]

Sklansky's advice is still applicable. Check it.

[borisp]

I agree that the majority of the book is applicable, if perhaps not as relevant, as, say, the advice in HoH. But is it not important to 2+2 to have all of the advice be correct, as opposed to 98%? That is why I say it is the worst 2+2 book; it is the only one in which I've been able to identify outright logical mistakes.

As better example hands, he could have chosen Axs, or low pairs. AQ and TT are both easily good enough to play against a reraising LAGtard, and are both easily good enough to raise pf nearly 100% of the time.

And I still contend that his basic argument involving passing up small edges is way off for MTT's. The accumulation of small edges IS your edge in MTT's. People aren't waiting around to get their money in bad in the way his argument assumes they are. (Obviously, this analysis changes in final table scenarios, as the poster who assumed I knew nothing about ICM so graciously pointed out.)

[fraac]

No, really, it's good. Check it.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

And I still contend that his basic argument involving passing up small edges is way off for MTT's

[/ QUOTE ]


You disagreeing with Sklansky about something does not necessarily mean that Sklansky is wrong.
DUCY?!?!

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, Mason has a sense of humor, who knew?

boris, perhaps some of the reasons you mention are the reason to rerelease it, not a reason not to. I heard it has many new pages.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see how the limit discussion is of value, since it fills a niche. I admit that comment is off the mark.

But what about the fact that there is just horrible advice given in this book?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you were missing the point I was trying to make. It's not just a "rerelease" or "reprint", it's a new version with new and updated information. So how do you know those problems won't be addressed? (Assuming they are problems.) It seems you won't be satisfied - you're criticizing the old book. If they didn't offer a new version to make changes, you'd criticize the old book. If they do make changes, you're criticizing it before even reading it. That's called a "tough audience".

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, Mason has a sense of humor, who knew?

boris, perhaps some of the reasons you mention are the reason to rerelease it, not a reason not to. I heard it has many new pages.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see how the limit discussion is of value, since it fills a niche. I admit that comment is off the mark.

But what about the fact that there is just horrible advice given in this book?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you were missing the point I was trying to make. It's not just a "rerelease" or "reprint", it's a new version with new and updated information. So how do you know those problems won't be addressed? (Assuming they are problems.) It seems you won't be satisfied - you're criticizing the old book. If they didn't offer a new version to make changes, you'd criticize the old book. If they do make changes, you're criticizing it before even reading it. That's called a "tough audience".

[/ QUOTE ]
I did misinterpret what you said. Yes, if they address this stuff then I'll be satisfied, except that I'll have to read it all in Barnes & Noble, since I won't buy it, obv. I guess I'm just venting since I bought this book a while back and it turned out to be crap.

[fraac]

Read it again in a couple of years, you'll appreciate it much more.

[SuperUberBob]

I don't think it's a great book (I'd recommend Harrington's books and Full Tilt's book). But the material in it definitely holds merit.

Sklansky has written much better books. But that doesn't make this a bad one.

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky has written much better books

[/ QUOTE ]

Not recently.