I've not read the most recent Mehta/Flynn/Miller book and have nothing to offer regarding its value, but wanted to add that amulet has a long and healthy track record of making very thoughtful posts in the books/pubs forum.

...and I don't think amulet is Dan Harrington.

I think i agree - my post was a little tongue in cheek. However his coyness regarding his "association" with Sunny is strange. I'd guess there's some connection to Dan from his many posts on HOC.

This reminds me of an old Ray Zee article called "Evolution of a poker player".

It basically said
1) people start out playing way too loose.
2) Then they recognize that tight play is better and play very nitty straightforward.
3) Then they find out that this play is easy to exploit by good players and add more aggression and deception to their game.

I believe that the authors of SSNL have a "phase 2 player" as their target audience and amulet might have a "phase 1 player" in mind.

To say bluffing/barrelling/stealing etc is no good (or overrated) at SSNL seems ridiculous. Easy to see why Mehta is pissed off. Having said that, its hard to properly take any concepts to task as that would basically mean giving the contents of the book away.

I think Sunny's last posts were very clear. He agrees that IF players never fold and never bluff, then the optimal strategy is to never bluff and to fold often. But he disagrees THAT the games play like that. OP and I both think that the games play more like that than the authors imply (or Sunny has explicitly stated in this thread).

Sunny asks for evidence, but unfortunately I can't give any since I don't have access to a large DB of hands, which would be the only way to demonstrate it. I did ask for Sunny to post some info on WTSD%, but I'm not sure if he has that info available or if he has the time to spare to look into it for me. I can post a bunch of dramatic anecdotes from the few hands that I do have, but he could easily say that those are isolated incidents and I could not refute that. So, ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The book is certainly well written (of course I would never disagree with cero!) and I'm sure it will sell briskly despite its hefty price tag. So we will get to see a lot more people's opinions eventually about whether the games indeed play the way the authors say.

My students and I have had a lot of success playing as if they play more the way I think they play, but I'm sure Sunny and his students have had the opposite experience. So maybe our views are not really as opposed as they seem, or maybe we play on different sites or at different times of day, or maybe my students make more money from fish than his do and his make more money from regs than mine do, or maybe there is some other answer. In any case, I wish the authors the best of luck, but I won't be recommending the book to my students (at least without a large grain of salt).

That being said, I could easily believe that there is no better book available. In general, I find poker books to be pretty bad.

Who cares.....this is really a non issue. Any strategy can be optimal at any stakes, it just depends on the players and table conditions. I did not read your book but I assume you explain when to apply your bluffing strategy and when not too. I guarantee that some 1/2 nl tables will have players that are "bad and will call". It does not really matter if your advice would work at 99% of the other tables.

QFT.

By the way, these same bad $1/$2 players who call too much with any pair are often the same bad players who check fold every time from the blinds when they miss. Or call your light 3 bets too loosely and then fold every time they miss.

So against people who won't rebluff you, the best way to play is bound to involve loads of blind stealing. There are loads of aggro lines which basically print money at $1/ $2 that nits like Action Amulet will be missing out on.

This book is really excellent imo, and the chapter on 3, 4 and 5 betting is a really good summary of pre flop theory that hasn't been widely published before.

IMO, Small Stakes No-Limit Hold’em is way ahead of any other poker book in its readability. Maybe Super System is comparable, but the strategies discussed in SSNL are more complex, so its flow is more impressive. But backhandedly using sic on a message board is uncommonly douchey. It's a toss-up.

Sunny,

I have been traveling on business and therefore, I have not looked at the 2+2 forms until today.

You are trying to get into a discussion that I don't have the time or desire to engage in. It will be numerous posts back and forth and I am too busy with my work. I also think the process you are trying to engage me in is misguided. If someone reviews your book you don't usually have a debate with them. You read the review, know there will be other reviews, and move on. Even if you think my review was incorrect - it is only one review - one opinion. A debate is entirely different.

Again, I am sorry, but I didn't like your book. Others have liked your book. I have liked other books Ed has authored.
I know all 3 of you. I think you are all good writers, but unfortunately wrote a book I didn't like. I know Harrington and Robertie too, and while I like both guys, I am not close with either one.

Regarding my review, I agree that stealing is profitable at 1/2 6 Max online, and I agree that bluffing is an important part of NL. One area where we disagree is that I think in general bluffing at 1/2 6 max online is problematic because the opponents call so often. This was not my only problem with your book, I thought there were many additional flaws (touched on in my review). Again, mine was only one opinion, clearly some readers liked the book.

I should give readers a little information on my qualifications or lack thereof to write a review, the choice is the readers. I have played poker seriously for over 25 years. I own a successful business, but still play at least 100 days (sometimes 150 days) each year. I have always kept good records.
I usually play in;
-- the biggest live NL cash games at either Commerce or the Bellagio.
-- the largest mixed games I can find both live and online.
-- online at high stakes NL games (but not the largest stakes since I often multi-table).
I am a winning player, and my only losing year was a year in which 2 months into said year I stopped playing poker due to a family emergency. The above doesn't make me the world's best player, but it qualifies me to have a solid opinion about a poker book.

I want to reiterate that I wanted to like your book. Furthermore, when authors devote so much time to a project I want it to be successful. I hope for the 3 of you that your endeavor is profitable.

Have a good day.

To readers who think I may be Dan Harrington, I assure you I am not, and I hate wearing hats.

That's one huge LOL.

I'm pretty sure you cannot even be a winning player at nl200 today if you never bluff. What are you thinking about man, nl200 '05?

Point me to a recent CR / deucescracked / whatever coaching video of 6max nl200 where there's zero bluffing...

This is essentially the old school/new school debate again, given the focus of the book on online games the latter approach has to be the most valid.

i don't like the authors' style in posting (and historically too), but i tend to agree with the above and that's how that level of no-limit poker plays. and if it's loose, it's usually only pre-flop. very few droolers around anymore (none??) so i think position becomes much more important.

No one is suggesting that position is not important or that the games play the same as they did 4 years ago. It is the extent that people are arguing about...

i agree totally....... the co-author's posting on here are absolutely the worst advertisement this book could ever receive.

I just want to chip in with my $.02 and say that unfortunately Sunny's responses have made it less likely for me to buy this e-book when I could've cared less about amulet's original reply. I also think amulet was not obligated in any way to "out" himself because this is not "amulet vs Sunny Mehta" and if people can't anonymously review a book on this forum then we might as well shut it down, right?? This so goes against 2p2's spirit.

fwiw I don't even like Dan Harrington's books and think his books are grossly overrated, nor do I know amulet and I generally like Ed Miller.. so this is a pity.