I didn't make myself clear. The declaration of all in would be for the ten dollars only. A 30 or 40 dollar pot. Changing wording now.

Sorry for my redundancy

Will keep my eyes open

If I missed it, then it’s your fault for being a ranting angry pencil neck that’s hard to understand. Keep playing that violin, Poindexter.

The book is now available and I suggest that those who are criticizing it spend $22 to read it. It is kind of amazing people are still saying how bad it is and have not read it. I am the only one who has made positive and negative comments based on reading the book.

I will not reciprocate Larry putting me on ignore, appreciating the benefits of his expertise as a winning part time 1/3 player.

The kindle is now up.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CQYQFX9P...=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Mason

I believe the kindle is $10.

So the answer is no? Sklansky doesn't have his graph/results posted anywhere and hasn't attempted to keep up with the times with modern forms of studying and knowledge almost at all? Seems he just dodged the question

You deal with me, no talking to the big man directly

The man wrote Theory of Poker almost 40 years and the two authors probably have almost 100 years playing against bad players that populate the games the book is about. They are qualified, plain and simple.

Doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with what they wrote but they don’t need to demonstrate squat to anyone

We have a long history of putting out top notch material, and in many cases were the ones who introduced very important ideas into poker/gambling. If you don't want to purchase/read this book, that's your decision. But I suspect if you play these small stakes live games, you'll be left behind by those who read and study this book.

Mason

I conversed with Sklansky over a few PM's and I think I finally understand my gripe. First let me preface this by saying both David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth are very intelligent/winning live players and I will be buying this book.

Okay so I reached out to a 3rd party (who will not be named unless he wants too) to confirm all of the math in my private conversations with Sklansky. This 3rd party is an expert in poker theory and formulas and I asked him to double check all of the math and equations in this example.

Here is the example:



Guess what? Sklansky's math is 100% accurate and correct.

But here is the problem: The only way to understand how he communicates this math, is if you are an expert yourself (this is a huge problem).

Problem #1

Statement from Sklansky: Your EV is 55% of the pot, whether you call or you fold. This is poorly worded and will confuse amateurs.

You can't win 55% of the pot by folding.

Translating Sklansky (this could be a book unto itself):

What Sklansky meant is that your EV is 55% of pot BEFORE they bet (because they check/give up 55% of hands) and 0% facing the GTO Bet.

Again, you can't interpret this unless you an expert and are well versed in theory------->the exact opposite of the target demographic.

My best advice for future books would be to use formulas and make the formulas as easy and accessible as possible.

Disclaimer: The above was relayed to me by an expert who assured me ALL of the math is sound and correct, the only problem is in the presentation and the communication of the content.

Happy Holidays!

I got the book and did a quick read. As expected, I enjoyed it because it presented some interesting ideas and thoughts on how to exploit the players at this limit and their tendencies.

I just didn’t like some of the preflop stuff and seemingly over emphasis on pulling in players. For example, I would not open-limp 44 from the cutoff.

I think it’s a little bit too much to ask for to let 92o play for free in big blind and then the flop comes 942. And then even if it does there’s $7 in pot so hard to win a lot.

I’d just open $10 and be fine with the $4, one of which I toss to the dealer. Everyone is happy to move onto the next hand. I’m always like ugh when it folds to late position and someone limps. And then three guys usually play out a tiny pot.

But this is quite minor and overall liked it and anyone who plays this often should pick it up.

Limping 44 in the CO isn’t bad at all depending on how deep you are imo. Folding AQo utg is also fine.


I wouldn’t recommend overlooking Q3s unless otb

$12 in my country, with tax.

Got it, began reading, will be interesting to look into the psychology. An investment, as I nowadays try to get my information for free...

Supposed poker expert but plays 1/2 live and taking 5 posting results to promote his brand and prove top notch results is beneath him. Real strange, impossible to take him seriously in 2023 even if he was a top expert in 1990 or whatever

Some of the tactics that we talk about are designed to make it easier for semi beginners to have an edge in easy games while avoiding tricky spots that they are apt to misplay. The KK, AQ, and 44 are examples.

This was a reply to a private message not an excerpt from the book. About a play that would come up once a year in these games. Namely raising someone on the river when you are the favorite, not because you want a call but rather because you think you will get him to fold some of those hands that beat you.

Do you think it would be better for someone to write a book about how to play 1/2 live but never having played it yourself, as it would be below your expert abilities?

It is possible the authors are not beating 10/20 NL or whatever, and I don't know of any book on low stakes by top high stakes NLHE players.

I read a book a few years ago by a 1/3 or 2/5 grinder, who talked about an aggressive approach. He said it was important to have everyone at the table covered, like at a tournament. He talked about raises 76s on the button against limpers. Sure you can do that, and sometimes represent AK or JJ+ postflop. I don't know if you need to be really aggressive. Bluffs don't work well on early streets, but maybe when the pot is big or when no one shows interest in it.

Scotch basically said the same thing I did, that the book is good, but some of the preflop advice is off. It should be more clear that limping junk in ep only works with a huge skill advantage, and it is unlikely it will be raised.

To NOT raise several amateur limpers with 76s is a big mistake unless stacks are small or there is a pretty good chance of a reraise. Not so much because you can represent a big pair postflop but rather for two other reasons. One is that the raise may get you to see the turn for free in games it is routine to check to the raiser. That probably requires a decent size raise, that might fold players. Or you can make a small raise that still may buy you a free card but more importantly has simply multiplied the original stakes by two to three times and thus figures to multiply your original positive EV by approximately that number (since everyone will call and since 76s suited obviously has plus EV multiway when you are on the button against bad players.)

Fish stacks on average are much smaller than reg stacks so stacks will very likely be below the buyin amount.

But even if stacks were big I'm pretty sure this isn't true. You would rather raise a hand like A4s to outflush someone or a pocket pair to hit a set. Suited connectors will get outflushed too often (because fish will call too many higher suited cards) and players will have you dominated as well with hands like A7s/K6s.

You also will have lower SPR (Stack to Pot Ratio) so when you do raise preflop and hit a draw (either OESD/FD) it will be hard to get away from your hand. Implied odd hands drawing to the worse flushes/straight's don't do well vs a fish's calling range when multiplied. You want pocket pairs and Nut Flush Draw type hands.

The one exception to this rule is JTs because every time it makes a straight, it is the nut straight.

The play with pocket pairs or ace suited adds more EV than 76s but that doesn't mean that the 76s raise isn't positive. Probably even if stacks are small. Actually, almost any hand that shows a profit if everyone puts in three will show a bigger profit if everyone puts in six and there is no reraise, regardless of stack size. Maybe not double, but bigger. You wouldn't fold that hand for a limp when on the button would you?

And the book says this relative to the raising and also explains some things about how these hands should then be played.

Mason

This statement is not accurate in the games I'm familiar with. The stacks of the bad players are usually large enough and they can get lucky at times and have big stacks.


There is discussion of this exact point in the book.

You need to read the chapter on pot-sweetner raises.

Mason

It's still positive but it's less positive EV than limping imo.

The problem is with the premise, because online a fish donks on average 11% of the time with sizing's anywhere from 30%-100%. I'm not sure about live but it's probably similar.

So if I raise preflop OTB in front of 4 limpers and they all call me, if on average they donk lead 11% of the time each. Then you actually get donk led into 31% of the time (check my math on this please).

Not only that but from studying online fish patterns, limp-reraises aren't only premiums hands. They are more merged. Again, I don't know about live as I haven't studied them in depth but continuing non premium hands vs a limp RR is a must if you are to maximize EV vs a fish. You also have to know 3bet pot tendencies for a fish.

Unless you know how to play vs all these extra variable that come from raising preflop, I'd prefer to just over limp.

First, if you are using internet experience to guess as to how live 1-3 players play, you are almost certainly overestimating them.

Second, you are not saying that they will bet into you more often if you raise than if you limp, are you? Yes, those bets detract from the added benefit of getting checked to when you raise. But it doesn't negate the almost purely logical conclusion that having everyone be in for six usually means about double the EV for three. You are saying that their reraises need not be with premium hands, but I have always said that as well. if you are in a game where that is frequently going on, you don't make the play (especially not with a high proportion of your hands since that might encourage lots of reraises. )