Quote:
Yeah, I'm at Deuces Cracked, been playing a few years, etc. Really just trying to get to whether there is enough unique info here to warrant $300 for volume one. Is that even possible?
I think it’s possible but it depends on your volume of play. The material will probably improve your game to some degree and we’re all familiar with the maxim that any improvement in your earn can be made up and then some quickly. My game has greatly improved due to reading the advanced material found in Bobbo’s book and I think Baluga’s will be of a similarly helpful quality. The cost of the material though is dependent on your volume of play and how advanced your understanding is prior to purchase.
IMO, a tendency people have is that they “think” they understand a concept pretty well, but oftentimes they understand it in only a generic blanket-statement kind of way and are unaware of the application of it in various scenarios or the logic behind it. Good books/discussions help with this.
Quote:
from what i read, volume one was so basic it originally didnt even cover 3betting at all, though after some discussion he agreed to add an "intro" to 3betting.
This isn’t true and borderline haterish. The exclusion of 3-betting material from the first volume probably had more to do with the target audience for the first volume (more SS, some MS, - but many concepts applicable to all stakes) rather than the simplicity of its material.
I was one of the ones who suggested in that thread that he should add the 3-betting material, but I wouldn’t hastily make some judgment about the rest of the first volume. The topics outlined in the TOC seem to be very relevant and applicable to online small stakes and midstakes games and they’re super important to master if you want to beat those games.
Also a nice selling point for me personally is that it is written in a conversational style and is edited by a professional editor. I think this is a nice change in style from other books (more textbookish) and having an editor just does wonders for readability obviously.