lmao the first person I thought of when I read OP was you

You think that I said that $1-$3 was not profitable because of the "wide range of the players" ????

FWIW you are comparing apples to oranges if you think the Vegas rake structure is anything like a $1-$3 $200 or $300 max buy-in game with a flat $7 drop plus bad beat jackpot which is what I was referring to in the many YouTube videos I have made on the subject. I also said that a California structure might be beatable for a few dollars an hour but its no way to build a bankroll nor is it any way to get better at the game. That is why in such a structure any player who wishes to be profitable should race up to the $5 BB level as quickly as possible.

I was simply quoting the other poster. I have no idea what you actually said. Meanwhile your first sentence above is unclear.

I've never won consistently at any limit over 2/5, and even I know is bad.

Neither has Mason/Sklansky, you’re in good company

Are you saying that if you always bet $50 on the flop and move in $185 on the turn, you will have a higher EV if you do it against the one guy who called $25 (and probably folds on the flop) than if you do it against the four small stakes players (where it is almost four times as likely you will get called on the flop).

If so, you need to show your work. If not, the other criticisms are of no consequence as if I was writing very rough estimates.

Implied odds? Odd choice of words. Who thought that up?

We perhaps have not made it clear enough that we are trying to improve your results when there are players in the game worse than even the average 1-3 player. Players who you are likely to never see again. Players who will overcall on the river with hands that decent players know are one percent shots. Or make other ridiculous calls on the later streets (or facing a big raise preflop).

Lol ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark

Wreckage

Actually, David wrote "the rake and the wide range of players." Why did you leave the words "the rake" out?

While I agree that the rake is way too high, see my book Cardrooms: Everything Bad and How to Make Them Better, many $1-$2 and $1-$3 games in Las Vegas are $5+$2 and they can certainly be beat for more than a few dollars per hour.

If you go to the other thread you'll see this post:

There aren't books on playing 1-3NL etc. by good mid-high stakes NL cash regs. The crushlivepoker videos are mostly 2-5NL and above and Bart says you can't beat the rake at 1-2NL. Like he doesn't really want to deal with games where it is harder to put players on ranges etc.

You can find it here:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...0&postcount=32

I think this is where what you supposedly said, whether you said it or not, came from.

By the way, one of the chapters in our soon to be released book is titled "The $5 + $2 Rake."

Mason

If you progress past low stakes games with maximum buy-ins of 100 to 200 big blinds, do you still have to remind your readers over and over and over that the amount in the pot is after the rake?

The $2 for bad beat jackpots and high hand promotions is not really rake, because the players get it back.

As we say in the book the tighter players get back more than what they were raked in many cases because they are less likely to play hands that have little or no chance to win a promotion. Assuming that the cardroom is required to pay back all of those two dollars.

Also (1) a lot of promotions are targeted towards keeping the games alive during dead hours, which benefits nittier promo-chasers, and (2) the cardroom is usually allowed to take a management fee, which I've seen range from 15-30% of the promo fund.

While this may be true in some locations, in Nevada, all the promotional money must go back to the players.

Mason

Hey Mason and David are still alive good for you guys

Even if you're sure that you will eventually get your share, it still won't be in that particular pot, which changes optimum strategy (it should make you play tighter).

Introduction to writing crappy poker books: Help yourself giving Mason your money

It still often is. If you're not some high hand chaser who is going to play based on when the high hand promos are a good chunk of that money is money you can't win. The players getting it back is disproportionately the nits who chase such promos - if you're not one of them you're funding them.

In Vegas specifically the worst mis regs in the world are benefiting from this not the tourist in town for a couple of days.



BBJs you're technically right in most cases although the variance is super high.

I do remember when borgata included 5/10 nl in their BBJ which was absurd. It didn't bring any extra 5/10 players and almost nobody in that pool wanted it. I'm not sure how common BBJs include higher stakes games but those players absolutely are getting the short end up the stick since hands go super multi way way less off in 5/10 than 1/2 or limit games and games are way more likely to run short handed in 5/10.

And as others pointed out in some places the casinos can take a cut of these fees.

there isn't enough money to be made in these small rake trap games to make it worth anyones time unless they are immortal. players in games below 5-5 should be all broke droolers, vampires and highlanders.

No I'm not saying that, your play probably makes more money.

But this is not a good way to learn poker. You start with fundamentals, then you build deviations on top of fundamentals so you know WHY you are doing something. The audience that reads this book will be doing everything backwards, they will be deviating thinking that it is the default play, when it is the outlier play.

This is also an awful habit to get into. If you play online (I'm pretty sure neither you or Mason have played any meaningful stakes online, you know, where actual good players play) or higher stakes live, players will very easily see through this type of face up strategy and counter exploit you.

The target audience isn't a high stakes crusher. It is someone who splashes around in a random 1/2 game occasionally and wants a marginal improvement.

It can't be a high stakes crusher because neither Sklansky nor Mason are qualified, I doubt either of them could beat 200nl online.

But even people who splash around want to see some improvement, teaching exploits before fundamentals is the worst way to improve. As someone who has been in multiple CFPs, no current poker coach I've seen that is successful uses this teaching strategy.

Anyways, I hope this book sells out. The more faceup players the better.

anyone playing micro live will be a better poker player after reading any poker book written by sklansky and malmuth even if the book is somewhat wonky and gimmicky. lets keep it real.