I think it’s ok for people with statistics degrees to write statistics books.

But I think poker books should be more heavily scrutinized

Well if I were claiming to be highly successful at poker, to the point of bragging about it on an open forum... No proof/evidence/heresay whatsoever? Were you born yesterday? Ask any objective expert to decide if their claims are substantiated...

This announcement went well

It's about time people called this out without fear of being banned.

It doesn't really even belong in NVG.

Right but isn’t this a stats book?

I'm talking about their overall refusal. I'm not going to start a dedicated thread to my criticisms of them so it' s in everyone's best interest to limit it to a few posts in the most recent thread (this one). I have no intention of trolling, etc and have said what I have to say.

Okay, this is not the thread in any event for that inquiry.

When did the original version of the book come out? I would have been sure I had at least heard of all 2+2 books (and read most of them), but I had never even heard of this one.

If this is basically an updated version of an older 2+2 book, why isn't it being released by 2+2 now?

ITT Mason's claiming to be "very successful" at poker, but I can't ask for what the proof is? Or is Mason just someone who writes books without actually being good at the game?

I've played with Mason, and he seemed like a good player to me. I also credit most of my large lifetime profit in poker to be based on things I learned in 2+2 books more than any other source, and some of the books are ones that he co-wrote. If someone writes books that help others to win at poker, I think it's very likely that the author is a big winner. Of course, even if he weren't, it wouldn't really matter. Theoretically, there could be someone who understands poker at a deep level, is very good at explaining winning play, but whenever he sits down at an actual poker table he somehow loses his mind and always plays poorly. I would still want to read books written by that guy, because I can implement his ideas without losing my mind.

edit - all the above is still true, but I just reread the post of Mason's that you responded to, and I'm pretty sure that he meant he was "very successful" as a book publisher, not as a poker player.

I have read books from both David and Mason and I don't think they would get you very far in the year 2024. I feel I am probably due a refund actually, but don't care enough to request one. The recent books, including the this thread is about, seem like money grabs to me. I think Mason has a very poor understanding of game theory. I'm guessing you are not referring to NLH when you say you think he's a good player?

It's too bad that there are coaches out there who can skate by seeming like experts when really they lack understanding of relevant subjects like game theory. Playing with a guy and him seeming good is a really weak testimony. Like I said, I would be satisfied with a screenshot of an excell sheet. But I think their results are not very good and that's why they are evasive about them.

I think he wants to create the impression that he's more successful at the game of poker than he actually is, which is why his comment is ambiguous and he never shows any results. But yes I read it wrong to assume he was talking only about the game and not the business side.

I've played with him at 20/40 LHE, not in any NL games, which I usually just play when I'm waiting for my preferred game, although I did play it a bit more often in the past.

Even though only playing it sporadically, I'm also a significant winner in small NL games, and I don't think one has to know anything about game theory to beat them.

I have read books about game theory in general, and a number of books that included some game theory with regards to poker. I find game theory interesting, and I'm sure it could improve one's poker game, particularly at the higher limits, but that's not what the recent book is intended for, and I don't think knowing a lot about game theory will necessarily even improve one's EV significantly in lower level NLH games.

I agree you don't need it to beat many games, but I'm talking about knowing enough about theory so that you don't mislead beginners with bad advice that involves jumping to conclusions. I linked to an example earlier ITT.

Also, GTO is the default strategy from which you can divert in an exploitative way. If you don't have a firm understanding of GTO, your baseline strategy is arbitrary, and your diversions might not make sense.

Aren't you talking about examples from this recent book, which is aimed at playing very exploitatively in small games with bad players? If you agree that you don't need to know game theory to beat these games, why would you think the authors of the book would need to know much about it?

Your baseline strategy can be what you learn from books; you don't need to base it on game theory.

Yes the example I gave is from the recent low limit book. If you understand theory then it's clear why that advice is bad. It's a clear example of jumping to a conclusion (which is probably also the wrong conclusion). A beginner will think this guy's an expert and wouldn't be jumping to conclusions, but when they find out that's not the case, they might think they are owed a refund, as he purports himself to be an expert.

Are you referring to the limping KK after a few limpers? If so, that was something David Sklansky did, not Mason, so it would be better to ask about his poker results.

I did think it sounded like an unusual example, but I don't think any theory could show that it was a bad play, I can easily think of ways that it could obviously be the best play available. For example, if you knew that the guy just to your left would be raising nearly every hand (say 90%), and everyone else was likely to call his raise, but whenever you raised yourself, the guy almost always folds, as does everyone else, as they take your raises far more seriously. If that were the case, it would be a very bad play to raise, even if you had bad luck and the guy behind you happened to have one of the 10% of hands he doesn't raise.

If you meant another example, I'm sure I could come up with a situation where that would be the best play as well.

Yes that example, I quoted it earlier ITT (quoted PointlessWords, who quoted that example). They are coauthors on the book and thus are both responsible for what's in it, and I already asked for both of their results.

I don't want to derail the thread any more and this has already been addressed multiple times in the other threads. You can justify any terrible play with super specific reads and half-baked logic. He presented the info (geared towards beginners) as though he proved the EV was higher than a traditional line, which is laughable.

Have you read the book? I haven't yet, but it was claimed that a specific situation and reads would be given to justify the play. They specifically said that they weren't recommending the play as a general rule. If you haven't read the book, you don't know how it was presented, and I don't think you can say whether or not the advice would be good for the situation described.

In the situation I just described, I certainly don't think I used "half-baked logic". Feel free to say how my logic wasn't valid though.

The authors admitted to making stuff up with regards to EV.

In fact one author said if you double the bet you double the EV of the hand… when pressed about this, the author said well that’s what he thinks would happen, sometimes


So yes they were just making things up

Why would I buy/read a book if there's no proof offered that they are beating the games? Do you think all coaches should be able to offer no results/proof, and just get customers regardless based on "trust me bro I was a statistician decades ago"? I have to ask, are you a sucker?

I have read that excerpt of the book. There's no context where it makes sense to jump to a silly conclusion like that.

I don't really care about your analysis because you didn't write the book, I was referring to the excerpt. Have you read the one I am referring to? Do you think he substantiated his claim that the EV is higher?

I have read many poker books, and I had never seen any proof that the authors were winning players before reading them. In fact, I've never seen proof that anyone was a winning player. I make my own judgment about how good the information in a book is after reading it, and I think having appreciated other books by a particular author is more than enough reason to read a new book with a similar subject.

Which excerpt are you referring to? All I have seen is the forward given by Sklansky which was posted here at the beginning of the thread. If the later explanation in the book was shared, then I must have missed it.

clearly you read the wrong books.

I have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.

But the books I have read have made me into a winning poker player who has never needed a backer.

You’ve never read books written by winners who show they are winners. I’m not insulted by being staked. I’m sure I’ve won more money than you at higher stakes so not sure what you’re bragging about. Oh you can beat 2/5 without a stake? Good job. Can you beat 5/10?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The original book is titled Probability and Statistics for 12-Year-Olds (and Maybe You): Plain English Simply Explained, Lessons and Ideas for Students, Gamblers, and Decision Makers by David Sklansky. It was published in October of 2020.

When the opportunity came along to do an expanded version with Justin Conrad who's a University of Georgia professor, because of other publishing work I could not participate in the project. So, 2+2 gave the book back to David and Professor Conrad.

Mason