Ya that makes sense. For a lot of players it's just not something they're emotionally capable of. Even if they could identify a good spot.

Did I inspire someone?

Would love to read a new one. Really impressed by all the old ones so far.

Still doing this.
But it'll be up closer to the end of the month so we'll just pretend that it's for June.
cAmm was kind enough to point out a few spots of terrible logic so I cleaned those up and I'm trying to make it more readable.

Please include cat memes.

Is this the first COTW in 2016? ...based on those linked in OP...

Also is the assumption the bet OTR is .5pot? Because at many tight tables that gets folds really often -- can u at least touch on a consistent .33pot as an alternative...

What happened to COTM for LLSNL?

Basically one mod created it and it ran for a while, then it died out. When Venice became a mid he reinvigorated it and it ran for a while and then died out. When I became a mod, the same thing happened.

I got tired of trying to drum up subjects and authors. If someone wants to take the mantle, suggest subjects and find authors, I'd love to see it return.

One problem is much of the basic "concepts" have already been covered either in the COTM or the COTW in the micro forum.

I do have two in mind that when I have some time I'd like to write. The first is on "Basic Poker Math." This has come up multiple times where even supposedly "elite" posters haven't had a clue about the odds to hit certain draws. The second is a 10 year retrospective on "Harrington on Cash Games." While not as ground breaking as "Harrington on Hold 'Em," it certainly moved me from being a losing player to a winning player. I plan to PM Mason Malmuth and see if he'll provide any insights on the conception and gestation of the books.

Venice. �� That would be very good, number two would be a particularly facinating analysis I'm sure.

Looking forward to the harrington one especially. Maybe will stir up more.

Basic poker math or Harrington would be good. The community needs a LLSNL COTM revival.

I thought Harrington on cash games was pretty weak. The worst thing about the book was the examples. Like, half the examples for the turn section were like “you have A8o UTG, what do you do?” and youre like fold, and the book says “you should fold, but you decided to raise.” and basically the book tells you how to play a turn where you misplayed pre and on the flop which seems like useless info.

Also, it suggested doing things a certain percentage using the second hand of a clock which is just terrible LLS advice, and the whole book is built around this concept that has no excuse being in LLS.

Basic math sounds good. I never know the math lol.

As far as suggested topics, I could see people writing about a very specific line. (like... raise pre HU IP, bet flop, turn, check back river.)

So youd go thru various board textures and villans and you would take the particular line with, particularly bluffing lines vs certain villans on certaing textures.

Harrington would be interesting, and even though it's a cash forum why not HoH?

I remember it as the book that opened my eyes to poker, introduced concepts I had never imagined and taught me how to think about the game in a different way.

I was surprised when I recommended it to a friend and he came back with some questions like "wait, the book says what? That's total rubbish"

I think there'd be some interesting analysis if you look at how knowledge has changed since its publication. Since that sort of thing applies to a lot of poker wisdom, not just that one book.

HOC was the first real NL book I purchased (perhaps after Little Green Book by Phil Gordon). Bunch of good concepts (that I think were taken to the next level by PNLHE) that I think are still relevant today. Course a bunch of things you can pass on too.

I think it would be an interesting retrospective but I'm far too lazy to do it. Kudos to anyone who does.

Lol, I was watching an old Live At The Bike recently and the table nit Russel Fox (who has also written a NL book) could be heard commenting that if you only got 2 really good ideas out of a $20 book, then it was well worth it. It's a good point, imo.

GcluelessHOCnoobG

If people want to suggest where the line is between "basic" math and math that's too advanced to bother with in a COTM, I could very easily write that one.

I don't think any claims that HOC was the perfect book, including the authors. Neither was the Lisa computer. However, it changed the way cash game strategy was thought about.

My tipping point with this was a thread where people were arguing about whether to call with a SC and none of the participants knew what the odds were of hitting 2 pair or better on the flop. I'd start with Rapid Evolution's COTW and go from there. I don't think we need through a Janda level exercise of playing balanced (the couple of examples I reworked for LLSNL full ring games pretty much lined up with how I played anyway).

Heck one good idea out of a $100 book is worth it

So how's this for a possible table of contents:

1) Basic Combinatorics
2) Probability
3) Expectation
4) Conditional Probability*

*Any COTM that I write about math needs to have a section on conditional probability. It's something I see people messing up relatively often on the forum.

Thanks for stepping up noce again, CMV. Expectation seems like something that's been covered a million times, but not in a long while and not in this forum. That would be awesome. Also, if you could include a short bit about how to convert odds to percentages and vice-versa, that would be great. Some people always talk in one, and some in the other, and being able to quickly convert to the one that makes sense in your head, rather than redoing the math if the person posting used the one you have trouble envisioning would be a real time saver.

Nice CMV
Employ your time improving yourself by other mens writings, that you may gain easily what others labored hard for.
- Socrates

Oh of course. Can't believe I forgot that.

So,

1) Combinatorics
2) Probability
3) Odds
4) Expectation
5) Conditional Probability

Sound right?

+1