In case you are serious I will answer you seriously. And then I am done with the subject especially because the advice is actually the opposite of most other advice in the book.

If the rake is high, the stacks are too big to get all in fairly early, the players near the button play tricky, aggressively. and close to GTO, and you are in the game mainly to take advantage of the really bad players not the good ones mentioned, you are making a very small error if you immediately fold AQ in first or second position. If you play the river well, the upside for this play and a few similar ones, is a reduction in volatility. If you don't play the river as you should against good players, either because you are inexperienced or because you would prefer not to deal with the required occasional big bet calls with one pair, then we are almost sure that zero EV of immediately folding (given the rake, the stack size, and the good playing opponents near the button) is actually better than what we think it would be playing those cards with one hand tied behind your back.

But most of the time you would play the damn hand.

I think you're supposed to raise 1/4th of your stack and if anyone calls just muck before the dealer can even put out the flop.

I would be interested in other comments / reviews by people who have read the book.

I like the book because it discusses the adjustments to playing against low stakes donks that other books really do not.

There is advice like you make an 8-high flush on the river in a 4-way pot. It suggests betting smallish and folding. Presumably hard to get a big bet called by a hand without a flush and lose less if you get raised. Players at this level are so unlikely to bluff in that situation. Whether or not you play it exactly that way, it gives you good ideas about avoiding losing too much with hands like that.

There are some other weird seeming aspects. For example, it suggests limping in with Q6s / Axo. The Miller book recommends almost the exact opposite. Miller recommends never limping even behind, and suggests that will help you play good hands. The postflop action seems weird and loose in these games and I prefer having a solid hand. I remember stacking someone who had A7o and he said "I had aces up and he had a set", like there was nothing he could have done about it.

Even if the authors can profitably play junk hands against bad postflop play, it seems like questionable advice to some losing recreational player who is looking to improve his 1/3 game or whatever. It is good advice if you consider loosening up your ranges and be willing to over limp sometimes, and don't literally try to follow it and play junk.

Deuce Review Number 2, a Christmas present for 2+2. I will wait to comment on your particulars until you have fully reviewed the book with 150 more posts and 9 more decent reviews of the subject matter.

**** you

I don't understand all the hate...

In general I respect your poker comments/knowledge. And Deuce has good points also. But if you disagree with someone why not keep it respectable? Unfortunately you come off as some type of bitter old man just looking to attack someone. If this is true you can't actually be a contributor here who expects others to respect your advice/comments.

Let it go...You'll be a better person (and poker player) for it.

I am not a good poker player. Mediocre maybe. I am an above average 1/2 and 1/3 poker player. Kind of like saying Im above average at 3rd grade math. In my last 30 sessions I have three losses under $100 each and 27 wins averaging $500. Played twice this week. $480 in 7 hours and $410 in 1.5 hours. I really have no care whether anyone respects my advice. It is doubtful anyone here will ever know me. What I have realized is that different generations are sensitive about “hate” they receieve from someone online they don’t even know. The younger crowd is very soft to criticism. Its a forum of Vertuccis in here. Which is funny because Deuce came in here firing away 200x at a book he had not even read. Did you say Deuce I don’t get the hate? Of course not.

As far as the book, the topic of this thread where Deuce has graced us over and over again with his expertise, I have yet to see something that the authors have posted that isnÂ’t at worst ok advice. The KK whatever. I doubt the EV is that different based on what GG has shown over the past ten years. The fold AQo from early. Whatever. AQo from early position might be worth a couple bbs at most. I know that the people I pay off who have KK are not the decent players 3b and 4b it.

Thank you for the life advice I haved placed Deuce on ignore and can no longer read half of the thread. Merry Christmas.

We admittedly push the envelope with some of these hands. But I think we made it clear that the worst of them are reserved for the games where players play terribly on the later rounds.

You should just fold Q3s pre.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good god, has 2+2 sunken so far as to do this? Christ. Continue on not adapting to modernity. This place should be the Vatican for degenerates, now look at it.

Everything I'm reading In this thread points to the book being two old guys justifying their cookie cutter, 100% stereotypical weak nitty loose passive old guy tendencies that fit in perfectly with the OMC stereotype and failing to keep up with the times, hence why they're playing live 1/2 or 1/3. Wonder how much solver work these guys have done (I'm guessing zero, they're old men). Does Sklansky have a graph of his results posted anywhere? Like a few thousand hours?

Sarcasm aside, We are seeing in real time why the talent should never run business. Thank god they sold it to even more inept people.

It’s amazing how much a book that focuses on exploitive poker at the limits where exploitive is the way the go angers the nerds.

It’s fair to disagree with the advice, but don’t pretend like they don’t know what GTO is or think they need to be in a lab running Pio sims all day.

I just assume that any people insinuating that the math guys have never heard of game theory are trolls/idiots/both. With that said, does anyone really want this take? If we are going to get the old school math guys to write something wouldn't it make more sense to be their take on current meta/post solver world than "How Do To The Obvious but by Meeeeeeeee (I wrote the theory on this but let's minimize it to the lowest common denominator because things and stuff!"?

Most of the advice is of the if-then variety. That may not be clear from this thread. And since I am still good at if-then questions, almost all the reasonable disagreements will be about how often the "ifs" occur. As a simple example, if it is the turn and your opponent, who usually bets half the pot, bets into you when your hand can't improve and IF you think there is a 30% chance you have the best hand, you have a call IF you know he almost never bluffs the river. But IF you think that one tenth (or more) of his river bets will be bluffs you fold the turn. Don't think most "OMCs" think like this, not sure how many of the new breed does (as opposed to merely relying on their solvers) and not even sure that most are typically inputting stuff like this into their solvers.

I spent 30 pages confused if this is a mastermind troll or not, and then I saw that we openfold AQo and im just getting more confused. At least meet us halway and openlimp it.

Well since you quoted that one guy I’m throwing you into that category. So in you go and you haven’t stated anything for me to consider taking you out.

These guys enjoy writing so I presume they chose a game where you don’t have to play like a robot

If they had chosen anything higher the nerds would be shaking their fists ”they should be writing about $1/$3!”. But since they did Lewis and Gilbert are shouting “yeah no wonder they are playing $1/$3!” Lmao

Congrats, on top of entirely missing the point you have now earned the new name in my head "StrawmanOnDaRocks." Pretty sure it isn't so much about the stakes but more about the methodology.

We have you limping with a lot worse hands than that.

To explain another way:

If you are a semi beginner or risk averse non beginners, you can still beat good games by accentuating your reliance on sets, pat hands, being in late position, and outplaying those who play worse than you do. If none of those things are true you may very well STILL have a small edge with AQo in early position. But if some players behind you play tricky and well and stacks are large, you not only may not have even a small edge but you have to be willing to sometimes lose a lot of money to realize that small edge. If none of those things dissuade you from playing then I think its close between calling or raising depending on the proclivities of the opponents and perhaps the size of the rake.

I look forward to pirating this book to confirm and mock how god damned awful it is. Would pay for something worthwhile from you though.

For those interested, the kindle file has been loaded into Amazon and we expect it to be up in one or two days.

Mason

If it's interesting I'll buy. Please tell me it is I want to be happily surprised.

Guys, AQo isn't some monster hand. Why don't some of you with big online databases show us what your long term results are with AQo in EP and see if it would have caused any significant drop in your win rate if it had been folded every time.

Well of course it barely effects your hourly rate since it only occurs about one in every six or seven hours and at worst is only a few dollars EV mistake to fold it. But as to how much of a mistake it is, let us first ask a preliminary question that I think will not get a unanimous answer.

If you and your opponents have a $300 stack and you make it ten to go with that AQo under the gun and get two or three calls from decent players, and at that point you were able to declare yourself all in for those ten dollars, would it be correct to do so even if if you were a good player, or would you rather have that 290 available to bet?

AQo definitely seems like a RIO hand to me, and any dominating hand would usually have reraised, so I would be happy to raise myself all in, rather than playing it multi way OOP.

Maybe some experts think they could do better playing 3 more streets of poker though.