I've bought your book and finished it tonight, without picking certain aspects apart, why do you think limping mediocre hands then Re-raising them pre flop is better than open raising? the first time around you run the risk of everyone limping yet you advocate playing them headsup, you rely on less factors by simply raising in the first place. I don't have time now but I will provide examples.

As to your second point about videos, if you watch the series on pre flop play on pokersavvy from Learned from TV,(which you have), it mirrors your section on it and also covers every concept you mention, and lets put it this way I'm 100% sure he didn't read your book before he made the video.

For the record, I wish I had an affiliation with Jeff as he might share some more unbelievable tips with me. For now, I am just grateful to have my game transformed in the same way that I did when Harrington's Cash Games books stopped me getting crushed at NLHE ring games.

Jeff's first Chapter alone has transformed my game overnight. It's obviously too early with variance to say if I've gone from losing to winning, but, I know the spots that I'm playing differently. I'm getting taken advantage of much less and winning far more uncontested spots.

Most noticeable is my W$SD stats which have improved significantly. I put this down to knowing where I am at far more. Maybe Jeff's style isn't for everyone, but it is certainly working for me just at the moment.

I moved to PLO from NLHE because I felt that there was so much known about NLHE Game Theory and Maths that it was effectively solved by this community and the games were way too tough for me at meaningful levels. Omaha is still a work in progress and I have no doubts that Jeff's concepts will be remembered as advancing 2+2ers edge in the game. By all means, lets debate them which Jeff has not only welcomed but participated in.

Thanks Jeff.

i somehow doubt this is true. they may not be droolers, but i somehow doubt they have a "good idea".

apologies for replying to this so late, but i just started reading this thread, and this point struck me as absurd enough to warrant a comment.

That one video covers every concept? Well, here's your opportunity to drop the other shoe. You're implying that Jeff Hwang watched a video and then whipped out his laptop and wrote a 500 page book based upon it, so why don't you just say it straight? Oh, I see. You meant that he plagerized just the small ball section.

Now, I'm not a member of Pokersavvy, but I was curious so I just now visited. The video you mentioned seems to have been posted on 5/17/09. Jeff Hwang signed my copy of his book on 6/19/09, so I guess we can safely assume that it had been printed before that date. I spent 22 years in publishing and I will tell you that it's completely impossible to even make substantive edits to a project that big and still have it printed, bound, and delivered in one month.

I think you are way off base and you owe Jeff Hwang an apology. I find it inconceivable that you have been around here this long and have chosen these two people (Hwang and phydaux) to antagonize.

Anobody know offhand the date that Jeff Hwang's book started distribution? Maybe the book came out before the video.

What does it mean to be an "unbiased fan".

Just because you admire and appreciate ones fine work does not mean you are affiliated with that person.

I admire plenty of poker authors that includes Jeff, Harrington, Mason, Sklansky and Hilger. Im not affiliated with any of them but i have plenty of praise and good words for them.

Themagnet why you want to cause trouble for. Jeff is a great guy who has made plenty of contributions to the poker community. If you read his first poker book you would know he is the real deal.

LOL watch you don't get a nosebleed.
For a start if I wanted to "drop the other shoe" and imply plagiarism I would have came straight out and said it, I didn't. BTW you spelt it wrong.

What a did do was point Jeff to a SERIES of videos that covered the points he mentioned, not one that covered them all, because
1.He asked me too
2.To show that these aren't revolutionary in any way.


I'm not trying to cause any trouble, like all of you I have purchased the book and therefore am entitled to post my opinion on it in this thread, just because I don't agree with some of what's written and have questions about it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

FWIW: For Jeff & his publisher I did the spine dimensions myself rather than leaving it to the printing company like I do with 2p2 books. Based on when I received and worked on the exact spine width, there's just no chance any text could have been influenced by a video or anything else that appeared on 5/17.

This I don't get. No, I have not watched his videos, though I'd like to now that you mention it. The only videos I've seen thus far are the CardRunners videos.

I'll produce another point. My 7-part series on floating appeared in Card Player beginning last AUGUST. Moreover, the first five chapters (the strategy) -- including the Small Ball chapter, which was completed before I went back and finished Part II -- was done by December, with the book done in its entirety by March. Meanwhile, all of the hands presented in the book were hands that I played, unless noted otherwise.

So whatever you are implying, I hope you choose your words carefully.

Jeff

Now lets get back on subject. Here is a review from poker news for APLO.

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2009/0...omaha-6990.htm

Just ignore it. People who can't create often waste energy destroying.

I loved The Big Play Strategy. I tried PLO at micro levels without much success, but that all changed after reading your book. I thought it was very well written, clear, concise, a great investment in time and money.

I had built my bankroll up to 200 USD playing NL SNG's, then lost half of that trying to teach myself PLO. Thanks to your book, my bankroll is back up to almost 200 USD again. It's not about the money at those levels, of course, but the feeling of accomplishment (however small). I have just ordered your new book and look forward to reading it, as well.

Again, a huge thanks from a very satisfied reader.

--JC

assuming phydaux has captured the essence of jeff's strategy (i.e. less pre-flop initiative, post-flop game with position being very important), is that similar to the style(s) that top coaching sites teach for 6-max?. i'm thinking the young online gun style is LAG-ier. i thought they get it all-in pre-flop alot at nosebleed 6max PLO.

FWIW, when i play the "moderately tight somewhat passive" pre-flop style, i do well. when i go LAG, i get absolutely destroyed. surprisingly TAG isn't that much better. but i'm not really sure what TIGHT represents in PLO

If nosbleeed means higher stakes like 1000 PLO then i see them buying in for only 40 big blinds most of the time which is a . So they tend to get most of there money in preflop and for one more bet on the flop. Its a low SPR situation most of the time.

Jeff advocates more of a deep stack approach to the game were the SPR is going to be much higher thus making sure you don't get your money in deep were the SPR is high without favorable situation. Also with deeper stacks your looking to play smallball when you have non nut hands which Jeff teaches you how to play.

Jeff does has a good chapter on SPR and it teaches you how to and when to commit your stack in low to high SPR situations. Also His SPR chart is very nice as it shows for what strength of hand is required all the way from single pair to topset for when to commit your stack according to the SPR.

From the hand examples given that Jeff has played he seems kinda Laggy to me. If Jeff uses Omaha manager or pokertracker for online play i would be curious to know his VPIP, Preflop raise and aggression stats for 6max PLO.

quad, thanks. my copy is on the way.... i didn't realize the nosebleed levels were more short-stacked in general... i do think some of jeff's hands that he's posting in cardplayer articles do seem quite LAGGY.

Jeff makes a very good observation on p. 17 - Your post-flop play dictates your pre-flop strategy. I'm gonna say that again, 'cause it's good stuff:

Your post-flop play dictates your pre-flop strategy.

And once you get to the section on SPR, you realize that a lot of your post-flop play will be dictated by stack size.

Say you're on the button and you've got a hand like 9854.

A hand like that is a 25:1 dog to flop a wrap. If effective stacks are short, UTG limps and MP makes a pot-size PFR, then you can't call. Even though you'd likely be in position after the flop, you really wouldn't be able to play small ball because SPR would be too small, but not small enough to get all-in on the flop if you catch a tiny piece.

If it's just folded to you then you can make a small PFR from the button with this hand. Then you can play small ball if you get called or just win the blinds and be happy.

If stacks are deeper then you can call a PFR, or raise limpers, and play small ball in position after the flop if you think the pre-flop raiser is a weakie and will fold to a float most of the time. Position plus the leverage from a big SPR trumps the pre-flop initiative.

Or you could play for stacks if you happen to flop gin.

The alternative in a short stack situation is to not call but to 3-bet. Then, however, you're committing to either ram & jam after the flop if you catch any piece at all, or folding to a bet if you don't.

Jeff makes an observation that this is a good strategy for some players, because it allows them to play pot limit Omaha without actually having to learn how to play pot limit Omaha.

I see that as a not so subtle dig at that other Omaha author we've all been talking so much about lately.

Anyway, Jeff has 1-3 chapters on each of the ideas I just outlined.

As to what the video sites teach, I have no idea myself. I'm not a member of any of them. Nor do I claim to be crushing any level of PLO myself, 6-max or FR. This is all just what I get from reading Jeff's book 2-3 times with a little bit better than basic English language comprehension skills (thank you mom & dad for forcing me to go to Catholic school).