value of something is based on how many people are willing to buy it at a certain price. unfortunately for you , some people are happy to buy it at that price. if that changes, the price will fall. simple economics

What are you basing this on?

If these economics are so simple, how come hardly any other comparable book out there follows this model?

Yes, 'some people' will be happy to buy it at that price. That does not mean it's a good price and one that will give the most profit overall.

Due to 2+2 rules, I cannot discuss anything regarding kindle. Sorry. I don't want to get banned.

Amazon sets their prices. The publishers have little say in what they charge other than agreeing to what wholesale price to accept.

Being aware of this book reminds me of this idiotic thread I made in MTT 5 years ago after winning the Stars Sunday in which I basically claimed to know the secrets of winning MTTs. Positive variance can make you feel like a god. It can make you think, at the age of 26, that you have some sort of deep insight into the game and need to share it with the world. If I could visit 26yo Brendan, I'd shake him by the shoulders and say, "you don't know what the **** you're talking about you ****ing noob. Sure, you have a general grasp of the game, and maybe even some interesting insights, but positive variance has colored your thinking WAY too much!" Oh to be 26 again.

Awesome.

Once more I'd like to thank poster MLG for helping to teach me humility in this stupid game.

Have you read the book? If so, can you give any criticism? Most of the books under the publishing company are titled "secrets of..." We just stuck with that name. Volume 2 of the book will have an entire section on how to continue learning. As soon as you think you are the nuts, you will fall behind. I think every professional poker player knows that.

like jonathon states, you can never stop learning. I picked up the book last week and would highly recomend it. Started playing texas holdem about 5 years ago and I try to read as much as I can, what better way to learn.

Yeah, I was drunk when I wrote that, my apologies. I've not read your book, but was going off of your comments earlier in the thread like, I think that having had a lot of success with a looser style of play will color your perspective. When you go all in with a flush draw, get called by top pair, but then get there, you get positive reinforcement that even though you got your money in bad, it was the right decision because he could have folded, you had plenty of outs, and a HUGE stack is so much better than a little stack so you NEEDED to take that gamble. What I'm saying is, that BECAUSE you won these tourneys playing a little looser, you think that that is the way to win tourneys.

I also think that your theory that cash game players don't know how to play a short stack is silly. It is much more common to see the reverse: tourney players don't do well with a deep stack.

Meh? If people are getting something out of your book, and it sounds like they are, that's great.

I am not a professional player; I'm just a player who loves poker :-) Be that as it may, I read all the books as they come out (I may miss one or two here or there, but most of 'em I have read). I agree with Little's assessment that HOH is on the verge of being outdated in the sense that it is great for fundamentals, but good players have moved past it and have become a lot more creative in their play. But, I also agree that hubris will fry your ass! Just when you think you know it all, it'll bite you in the butt. So good points all around!

FYI: I also listened to some of Little's trainings, and I think he has some really good insights. He explains himself well and I like his logic. I think he is an awesome teacher and I like that he is trying some new things (with his live training sessions/webinars).

I do not know him at all and my reviews are certainly not going to change his life, but I think he has some real good ideas

Basically all plays suggested in my book are based on math. I dont suggest ramming and jamming with draws all the time because that simply isnt the way to win at poker. I do suggest risking small amounts preflop to try to steal the blinds. If you call that super loose and crazy, so be it. I dont suggest ramming and jamming hands like J8 unless your opponent is a maniac.

I talk a lot about variance in volume 2. Poker is a math game and the math isnt all that tough. Obviously you will get it in bad from time to time in tournaments. When good players get lucky, they win tournaments. When bad players get lucky, they lose.

Cash game players are generally bad at short stacked play while mtt players are generally bad at deep stacked play. This is well known as well. This is one of the main reasons I talk about deep stacked play so much in the book. Also, cash game players try to get thin value much too often in mtts, which is a pretty large error because the chips you gain are worth less than the chips you stand to lose. I assume all good mtt players know this but I still talk about it in the book quite a bit. The short stack section is much shorter simply because there isnt much to be said about that game.

Once everyone has read a book, like HoH, it becomes standard info that you have to go beyond if you want to have an edge. I think it is pretty well known in the poker comminuty that you simply have to play a somewhat loose aggressive style to have a large edge in today's game. In the future that may change, but for now, that is simply the way it is.

Just ordered this two days ago and got it today. First impression is that this thing is 265 pages and I loaded with text on each page. By that I mean the text is single-spaced and there is a lot of it packed on each page. Therefore I imagine there is a lot more info packed in than 265 pages may lead on to believe. Will post review after I finish.

Bought the Kindle version from Amazon, read 42% so far and I like your book.

Thanks. I hope everyone else likes it too.

Argh, wish I knew there was a kindle version coming, I would have got that. Anyway, some good reading so far. One comment, in the future the author could think about formatting a little bit more. Some of the information would be easier to understand / reference if it was done with tables also (augmenting the text description). For example 77-79 could be summed up pretty well in table and also allow for easy comparison based on position.

Sounds good. I will try to use more charts in the future. My problem with charts is that they usually make people think there is only one way to do things. I want to make it well known throughout the book that your plays depend greatly on your opponents' ranges and not just your cards.