This is silly. I think anyone who has followed this thread, realizes that you posted a bunch of baseless criticism (which I guess is typical for you in most book forum threads) then when it was pointed out that you were off base, you started to dig for reasons to continue to believe you are right about your initial snap judgements.

I realize that this thread has gotten way off topic and some of my students were more offended by your comments than I have been. I believe this is only because I expected this kind of treatment from a subsection of 2+2 and was prepared for it.

However, for you to play the victim now is pretty ridiculous IMO.

zero

PS. I am still grateful for all you have done to push this thread into a third page. 200 posts is pretty solid.

This shows your ignorance - sorry - but opponent ranges can drastically change whether a hand is a shove or fold - this is basic primary school stuff, and yet you seem to think that my "waffling" on hand ranges is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant - it is absolutely critical.

I'm actually laughing to myself about how ridiculous your comment is - in your 6 men remaining (18 man STT), 10BB btn shove example, there is a HUGE difference to what you can shove in that spot on the BTN if the BB is calling 1% or if he is calling 100%.

Lol! Quite right - if it's Nash, then it must be right in ALL situations, and villain hand ranges are completely irrelevant. Why would anyone ever need to consider range?!

Everyone plays Nash too! Ahh, I see where I have been going wrong...

/sarcasm.

pagination1

"In 99% of cases it is very bad to fold A8o for 10bbs from the button."

Make up your mind. Either it's a long way off or it isn't.

If they were baseless you would be able to rebut them. Unfortunately there were other mistakes in your vid together with some poor advice. The A8o fold seems to be agreed as a mistake by everyone after a bit of mudslinging from you and pagination1. You haven't commented on the AQo hand and why you thought there wasn't much equity on an A52r flop.

Honey Badger said you showed humility in your book. This humility was not at all evident in the vid. You offered to do instructional vids on other formats you seem to have hardly played. Is that a baseless criticism or a justified one ?

Are you trying to quote me? I have not said that - ever.

Are you making quotes up? If you are quoting from a training video, provide the timing reference, so it can be looked at and thus have context.

I really hope you are not making quotes up.

I'm actually bored of these random back and forths.

Cwocwoc, there are two conclusions:

1) Read the book. Stop making allegations about how terrible the content is, or how unqualified you think the author is, without having read it. Without having read it, your comments are laughably unimportant and irrelevant.

2) You have been asked to present your SN, and there has also been a challenge by one of the posters here to play. The point being - present some evidence that YOU are a winning player and thus that YOU should be taken seriously by the readers of this thread.

You are happy to spend all your time saying that zerosum79 isn't qualified to write a book (without having read it) - well, let's look at this from another perspective - why don't YOU present some evidence - anything at all - to suggest that YOU are qualified to comment?

I bet you can't.

If you are unable to do either or both of the above, then I don't think you are adding anything further of use to this thread.

It is clear you think, if I may summarise, that zerosum's book is too pricey and will not be worth the money.

Fine - have your opinion, although your repetition of your opinion is dull.

But let all readers of this post know - CWOCWOC HAS NOT READ THE BOOK.

And that is the ultimate point.

It is baseless.

How good do you think an instructional 45 man vid from you is likely to be if you've only played a very few of them ever ? Good enough for people to pay good money to see it ?

zerosum doesn't appear to be qualified. This was pointed out on the very first page of the thread by someone else. His results aren't good enough and he was no better in the vid I watched. I have cited some of the clear mistakes in the vid I saw. I am not asking for money for coaching or vids or books so my results are not of consequence. If I ever do any of these things I will ensure that I have a solid set of results behind me to justify the asking price.

Oh wait did you say something?

The way to crush SNG's is with a Basic Sng Strategy. Sure expert players can make adjustments but I can tell you from personal experience if you stray to far from Basic Sng Strategy you will have no chance of crushing them long term.

Spent more time with the book today and I am at a point that I don't care what the author called it, it is a very solid book. Is it for a guy regular playing $500 sngs against a top lineup of regulars? Maybe not, but applying what is in the book actually would give a person a chance to cash against a tough lineup, unlike many other less fundamentally sound strategies.

@honey badger:
What i described as advanced strategy is to recognize every +ev spot on your own after doing Equity calculations. In the "Basic strategy" the coach or a book tells you what spots are +ev most of the time. They just give you a general approach, but it would be better if they would tell you to find the optimal play in every spot for yourself. I dont say that the Basic strategy is bad. Its is good for beginners to learn how to play, but at a certain Limit/Buyin you will miss too many +ev spots with this strategy to play +ev overall. I also used Books like Moshman to learn the game, but you have to try to see the Game from a more gametheory perspective if you want to beat higher Stakes.

Can you tell me why you're so qualified to be so critical?
Here's a list of why NOBODY should listen to you:

Losing player
Hasn't read the book
hasn't read the book but still very critical.
Won't show us why he can be so critical or prove he is even slightly knowledable

These 4 things all add up to 1 thing for me: Troller

Agree 100%. It all comes down, as you say, to the fact that he hasn't read the book, but is yet astonishingly critical. He's an arrogant, biased (for some reason) and unreasonable chap. His comments on the book are simply not based on fact, yet he bangs his drum regardless.

I think most readers of this forum got bored of his little tune a long time ago.

lol at the arguements. TBH with training sites, forums like this one and poker programs its made books almost total useless, not sure why anybody buys them these days

This might be the case in other forms of poker. Deep cash; for example, but sound SNG strategy is more based on mastering the exact topics covered in this book, not having a huge sample size as a self run Monte Carlo simulation to prove your correct before teaching the topic to others. This package has convinced me that is nice, but not required.

I think the type of questioning of volume and results actual applied to Tri "SlowHabit" Nguyen for example who seems to be more interested in building a publishing empire rather then being a winning poker player may have merit, but I don't think it applies here to this book.

Does an author/coach need to shove 250,000 hands in actual sng games he played and enter them into Wizard to prove his ICM Calculations are correct? I have seen a ton of good SNG video's on training sites and am convinced that learning fundamental sound play is exactly what is needed to beat SNG's. That is exactly what is covered in this book, and it's presented in an easy to learn format with someone that clearly has the intangibles of being a good teacher.

I think you could find someone with low volume that could teach a solid math based short stack cash strategy and would not have to actually play hundreds of thousands of hands to prove the system is sound.

This book is not perfect and when I post my full review I will point out my issues.....Maybe it could have had a better title; for example, because there seems to be focus on that. Maybe Zero should have called it "The Anatomy Of Winning SNG Play"; as an example. Interestingly there is another book from: Carl “The Dean” Sampson called Crushing Online Single Table Tournaments, Which has always looked like a scam to me. But, this book has good material who really cares what it's titled.

Greg, in the first video hero has AA in late position with blinds at 15-30. There are two limpers and you suggest the standard raise of 3x the Big Blind plus raising 1 Big Blind for each limper, making it a total of $150 to go with $105 in the pot before the button and blinds act. I agree with this line 100% at the $6 sng level.

What adjustment if any do you recommend if any at a higher buy-in with solid aware winning regulars that probably have tight HUD stats on you?

You would have to put these villains on small pocket pairs often to set mine. You don't want to give odds as you will likely payoff a set and play a big pot on a low dry board with AA. Are you happy to take $105 and move on? Or do you bet less hoping to draw some action?

Aware winning players will fold most of the time with this raise as you are turning your hand face up to AA, KK, QQ and AK where lower level play you might get multi way action like you generated in the sample hand, and not define your hand so narrowly to your opponents.

Honey Badger, you are completely missing the point and, IMO, wrong about your view on being qualified.

Let me make sure I totally understand the question. Are the limper's the winning regs with good stats on you? Honestly I think that is a bit of an unusual situation because winning regs at higher stakes simply are not often limping like in this example. I mostly run on the philosophy of, "if the player is limping rather than making a standard raise they are bad."

If I see a player limping like this and respect their play I am most likely thinking they have a monster, not so much trying to limp in low pockets. I have seen some players advocate limping some low pockets to balance limping monsters. I guess if you had this read on a player that they are either limping low pockets or monsters, then raising larger would reduce the implied odds on the low pocket pairs (if they call) and make it easier for them to 3bet shove their monsters allowing me to snap off KK?

Again, I think its kind of an unusual situation you describe. I am not sure there is a "standard line" for this situation.

Oh and I don't think raising limpers really turns your hand face up because you can assume a limper's range is pretty wide so your raise (if in position) can be quite a bit wider than the range of QQ+, AK. Even if I thought the player was only limping low pocket pairs I think you can raise them significantly wider. You might just want to be careful if they are willing to stack off post flop.

Regards,
zero

This is an excellent point.

I have seen limping in middle limit sng's $10 to $50 on low blinds with both big pocket pairs to trap and limping small and medium pairs to set mine with decent opponents with winning sharkscope stats. It seems to me you still advocate the standard raise (3x the Big Blind plus raising 1 Big Blind for each limper) would still be best with AA here, and look to play a big pot. If they get lucky and hit their set you are generally going to pay them off and GG sir and fire up another sng. If they all fold you put another $105 in your stack and move on.

What if you have QQ here instead of AA and you get either smooth called or 3 bet??? AK can show up often here, but so can KK and AA and even JJ. Do you smooth called the 3 bet and stack off if an ace or king does not come on the flop? If the villain checks do you check behind in position trying to play pot control, or do you bet hoping the villain thinks you're making a standard c-bet and try to play a big pot knowing you could be in a great deal of trouble?

Again these are opponents with tight low teen VPP/PFR stats that probably have similar stats on you and in the first level or two with low blinds and large effective stacks compared to the blinds.

I've given you facts. What qualification is needed to post sharkscope results or to highlight clear mistakes which everyone agrees are mistakes ? zero acknowledged his vid was of a very poor standard and said he'd get it taken down. You are not doing your fellow Team Moshman member any favours with these attacks you are just drawing attention to his poor sharkscope results and all the mistakes in his vid.

On a personal note you don't know whether I win or lose but I'm not selling anything so it's none of your business.

Shame on you for your consistent incorrect quoting. Zero did NOT acknowledge that one of his videos was of a "very poor standard". You, sir, are a liar and I do not say that lightly.

There was one error which Zero acknowledged, because of a Wiz slip up (it was something like Wiz automatically changing the structure to a 9 man, when analysing a new hand, when Zero was talking about an 18 man.). An innocent slip up which Greg has said he will rectify by taking down the video in order to replace it.

This combined with you making up a quote I said a few posts back evidences to me that you are a lying troll.

Shame on you - pathetic.

You have also given no facts about the content of the book, as you have not read it.

Or will you likely ignore my comment on this particular point?

Have you read the book? No.

You see, there are people like SiQ who are truly well respected, because he posted initial comments before reading the book, and they were of a strong view! But he was fair, because he then READ THE BOOK and then posted a fair review. THAT is how a decent and respected poster should behave.

Let it be noted that it appears that you have REFUSED to accept a free/$20 copy of the book (with a money back guarantee), in order for you to read it and post a fair review. Why is this?

You just haven't read the book. How can you possibly comment for this long on how bad you think the book is, when you haven't read it!

I am astonished at your biased attitude - it reeks of unintelligence, and this, combined with your misquoting/intentional lies, tarnishes you and your character irreparably.

I will no longer have any respect for any of your posts - not that this will matter to you, of course, but you are building a reputation that others are acknowledging too.

Note, Cwocwoc the crucial difference between you and someone like SiQ.

He was using icmexplorer for that calc and acknowledged that he was doing other icm calcs wrong whilst blaming sngwiz. This was just inexperience. Anyone who used sngwiz regularly knows that you had to change the format manually. I have given examples of other mistakes and poor stuff in the vid none of which he has rebutted except by claiming it was "fabricated". Unfortunately it's all in the vid and at one point I quoted him verbatim from the vid. He still hasn't explained why he said there isn't much equity with AQo on a A52r flop.