A Chapter from Another Book that Doesn't impress me
Twoplustwo has book coming out some time or other on sit-and-goes, or one table satellites. The title says sit-and-goes and also says one table tournaments. -There's a difference between sit-n-goes and satellites in the payout structure. The title just doesn't make it clear.
Again, twoplustwo magazine has a sample chapter. Again, I'm not impressed.
If anybody wants to read it and comment on it I'll probably have something to say, but otherwise, I find it so confusing and incomplete that I'm just not in a mood to get into it right now. It looks pretty bad to me.
Maybe I just need to take more naps.
Update: What I don't like about the book?
1. To start with the title is confusing. I'm not sure what the book is about. One table sit-n-goes or one table satellites? Doe's he deal with different payout structures? I don't know, and if he's going that have a long title with a long sub-title it just seems like he could tell me that.
But that's not a big deal. My hold'em book gets a lot of grief from people who don't like the title and I don't really want to be one of those people.
But the second thing is really more substantive.
His start in the chapter is
Huh? I'm not sure what mid-blind play means, I guess it means the blinds are above the starting levels, but he never says.
But his two component list is very incomplete, very superficial, enough so to just make it wrong. There's lot's of other reasons someone might make a raise, even if he's only talking about pre-flop raises (which he doesn't say).
I guess he intends to talk about things within a very limited context and I'm supposed to figure out what that context is. I'm not a fan of that approach.
3. He somewhat clarifies things in his next section where he gives 4 situational examples in a Q/A format where he asks the reader to classify each as a steal or a value raise. Each of the 4 is a situation where the raiser is the opener pre-flop. So, although he never says, it appears he's going to treat someone who raises after a limper separately somewhere else.
That's fine, someone raising limpers is a different situation than someone opening with a raise. But when you don't tell me what the hell you're talking about, when you leave it up to me to pick up the bread crumb clues to figure out what the topic is, then I'm not going to be happy.
4. Then he goes through a bunch of structured examples of when you might want to conclude on opening raise is a steal attempt and try to re-steal. I don't really like the format of these examples, but they're okay, and I really have no complaint about them.
5. Until he gets to the end, that is. This illustrates what's really wrong with the whole chapter. He says.
That's just flat out wrong. It's very important to think about what kinds of players these are and what they think about you in this situation. That's one of the keys he just ignores in the whole chapter.
If you have an image of being an aggressive player with FPS (and his focus on re-stealing in this chapter suggests that might be the case), then you'll get called by that limper (who isn't bluffing, even if he's weak) hoping to hit a flop and check call you to the felt.
There are nuances to everything that he just ignores. It's a very hack oriented, formulaic approach to the game. Against weak opposition in small buy in sit and goes online it might work. But it's not a general approach that's going to really win a lot of money.
I think mostly I'm not impressed because that lead material is just flat out wrong unless you know he's talking about a very specific situation that he never clearly identifies. That kind of sloppiness in writing always suggests to me a sloppiness in thinking.
Update:
The thing that really bothers me about the presentation style has nothing to do with nolimit poker and is just more generally about the style of presentation of poker analysis. I talk about that elsewhere.
Again, twoplustwo magazine has a sample chapter. Again, I'm not impressed.
If anybody wants to read it and comment on it I'll probably have something to say, but otherwise, I find it so confusing and incomplete that I'm just not in a mood to get into it right now. It looks pretty bad to me.
Maybe I just need to take more naps.
Update: What I don't like about the book?
1. To start with the title is confusing. I'm not sure what the book is about. One table sit-n-goes or one table satellites? Doe's he deal with different payout structures? I don't know, and if he's going that have a long title with a long sub-title it just seems like he could tell me that.
But that's not a big deal. My hold'em book gets a lot of grief from people who don't like the title and I don't really want to be one of those people.
But the second thing is really more substantive.
His start in the chapter is
Before discussing the crucial re-steal play of next section, we must learn how to classify a raise. When someone makes a raise during mid-blind play, his motive may be broken down into two components:
1. Desire to steal the blinds.
2. Wanting value on a superior holding.
Huh? I'm not sure what mid-blind play means, I guess it means the blinds are above the starting levels, but he never says.
But his two component list is very incomplete, very superficial, enough so to just make it wrong. There's lot's of other reasons someone might make a raise, even if he's only talking about pre-flop raises (which he doesn't say).
I guess he intends to talk about things within a very limited context and I'm supposed to figure out what that context is. I'm not a fan of that approach.
3. He somewhat clarifies things in his next section where he gives 4 situational examples in a Q/A format where he asks the reader to classify each as a steal or a value raise. Each of the 4 is a situation where the raiser is the opener pre-flop. So, although he never says, it appears he's going to treat someone who raises after a limper separately somewhere else.
That's fine, someone raising limpers is a different situation than someone opening with a raise. But when you don't tell me what the hell you're talking about, when you leave it up to me to pick up the bread crumb clues to figure out what the topic is, then I'm not going to be happy.
4. Then he goes through a bunch of structured examples of when you might want to conclude on opening raise is a steal attempt and try to re-steal. I don't really like the format of these examples, but they're okay, and I really have no complaint about them.
5. Until he gets to the end, that is. This illustrates what's really wrong with the whole chapter. He says.
There is a key restealing principle in this hand:
You should be much more inclined to resteal against a stealer and a caller(s) than against a single stealer.
This is because the pot grows enormously with each extra caller, yet no more strength has been shown. Sure, a tricky player might sometimes smooth-call a pre-flop raise with aces or kings. But in general, a second player who stays in the pot is showing weakness by not reraising, and you should attack this weakness when the pot is large and your hand has decent showdown potential.
That's just flat out wrong. It's very important to think about what kinds of players these are and what they think about you in this situation. That's one of the keys he just ignores in the whole chapter.
If you have an image of being an aggressive player with FPS (and his focus on re-stealing in this chapter suggests that might be the case), then you'll get called by that limper (who isn't bluffing, even if he's weak) hoping to hit a flop and check call you to the felt.
There are nuances to everything that he just ignores. It's a very hack oriented, formulaic approach to the game. Against weak opposition in small buy in sit and goes online it might work. But it's not a general approach that's going to really win a lot of money.
I think mostly I'm not impressed because that lead material is just flat out wrong unless you know he's talking about a very specific situation that he never clearly identifies. That kind of sloppiness in writing always suggests to me a sloppiness in thinking.
Update:
The thing that really bothers me about the presentation style has nothing to do with nolimit poker and is just more generally about the style of presentation of poker analysis. I talk about that elsewhere.
Labels: sit and goes
posted by Gary Carson at 8:34 PM
5 Comments:
Gary, try to be specific about what you don't like. Collin is a smart guy and seems to know his stuff. I think you can argue the specifics about that chapter but generally it seems about right. I am really looking forward to reading his book but, as ever, I'm interested in your perspective too.
1. About satellites, you should probably read the whole thing before judging. He probably does deal with it. It depends how many seats are paid whether you actually change strategy.
2. "Mid blind" would mean t100, t150 to me. He probably talks about early blinds somewhere, because I don't have to read the book to know he'll advocate extremely tight play early.
I think you're wrong though and his analysis of raises is just about right. Raises at these sorts of blinds are either for value or to steal the blinds. It's crucial to read players correctly at this stage, because some players will only make value raises and some will steal liberally. There isn't any other reason to raise that couldn't be categorised in that way. And the distinction is crucial in an SNG.
He's only talking about preflop raises because the section is on preflop resteals. You shouldn't be too harsh on an excerpt, Gary, because the context might be elsewhere.
5. You're just wrong! I can't believe you play SNGs, Gary, because he's absolutely right about resteals. And no one is checkcalling you anywhere, because he's advocating pushing, not making a smaller raise. The caller has not shown strength. He's shown weakness because if he was strong he would have raised himself! Yes, sometimes they'll slowplay a big pair, but that's the chance you take.
The image you are most likely to have is that you are very very tight. You've barely played a hand up to this point, and if you showed one down, it was a monster.
He is not advocating FPS (far from it, from the little I know about him, he's a fan of playing very straightforwardly), and these resteals are not at low blinds, where you might have play postflop.
The thing is, SNGs *are* quite formulaic. The key is having a good understanding of your opponents' ranges: what they raise/push with, what they call with. Other nuances are worthless, because you just don't get enough play for them to make a difference. And there is a right and wrong way to play at the later blinds. On PokerRoom, where I mostly play, an SNG runs about an hour. The levels are 8 minutes. I often fold every single hand for the first three levels. That's half the tourney without playing a hand. My stack will be about 1100-1200, depending on how fast the hands have been played. I am not going to be playing fancy!
There may be other ways to play SNGs but I don't know of any that's equally as effective. If you advise a different style in SNGs, your book will be panned, I guarantee that, because whatever you think, Collin's type of play beats SNGs at all levels.
Maybe you're right generally.
You're wrong about those being the only reason to raise. There are other reasons to raise when you're raising limpers.
I've sold articles that are book chapters. I've always done what minimal rewrites are needed to make them self-contianed.
If he's so lazy that he can't figure out how to do that them I'm even less impressed with the work.
I wasn't as harsh on this book as I was in the other one, because I don't think this one was as bad, I just wasn't really impressed.
There is a huge difference between an event with a graduated payout and an event that has the last n remaining getting an entry chip.
Also, in live entry chip events even when they have a payout schedule they are easy to negoiate good deals towards the end (this is particularly true at WSOP satellites).
I'm also bothered by him never mentioning how many players remain or what the payout is at any point in the chapter. That's very weak.
As other's have said about me, just because he can play well does not mean he can communicate worth a shit, it does not mean the book is any good.
He also doesn't focus much on stuff like how big a stack the big blind has. That's a key indicator of whether or not a raise is a steal and whether or not a re-steal will work.
I'm just not impressed.
You sound like you had a preconceived idea about what he was going to say, so you're brain is automatically filling in the blanks where he skips over stuff.
That's not an indication of a good book.
You may be right about filling in the gaps. Of course I do know the basic outline of what he's conveying.
You are wrong about satellites *so far as the strategy he proposes goes*. The play is the same because he proposes aiming for the money first, then worrying about whether you can win the tourney. There is a difference, of course, because your equity is different between the two, but in general terms the play is the same.
He doesn't mention the payout because it's quite standard. I think he will have mentioned this upfront.
About this though:
"He also doesn't focus much on stuff like how big a stack the big blind has. That's a key indicator of whether or not a raise is a steal and whether or not a re-steal will work."
The general principle he is outlining isn't affected by the size of the big blind's stack. You are right about the resteals though. I'm much more inclined to resteal if the big blind is not too big a stack. But I'm much more concerned with how loose he is, and that's the focus of Collin's book.
Maybe give the whole book a go, Gary. I think some of your criticisms have merit, but they may well be answered by the broader context.
If somebody raises when the big blind has either a real big stack or a real small stack then that raise is not a steal unless the guy is just an idiot.
Post a Comment
<< Home