Have you read the first two chapters of the book?

I've read the whole book front to back and have taken very detailed notes (3 pages worth) on every chapter.

Are people really discussing a situation where folding and calling are both 0ev? Or am I missing something and should I read the entire thread?

what was the first glaring error you found?

The book is mainly a conceptual book imo. The weakest part of the book is the hand histories but in defense to the authors they only serve to reinforce concepts and are not to be taken at face value.

Conceptually the book is very strong and I enjoyed going through all the chapters. They use qualitative examples instead of quantitative examples which makes sense because it would take a lot longer to write a book using quantitative examples.

If you are looking for how to play a specific hand in a specific spot and be taken through step by step using real data then this isn't the book for you.

If you want to learn broader concepts concerning live play adaptions so that you can apply it to any situation then this book would be highly recommended.

The book's suggestions are not always passive. Especially when it comes to big bets with excellent hands preflop or on the river.

But I would not object to that title as much as you think. After all the present title is about helping them GIVE you money not so much how to TAKE it. The thing is that the taking style alone will probably be the style that wins less if there are quite a few bad players in the game and the player/reader who is trying to implement mainly that taking style, (rather than the one in the book,) is merely good, rather than expert. Non experts playing against bad players (who rarely bluff, enter too many pots, call typical bets with mediocre hands and big bets with pretty good hands that are obviously beaten) will most assuredly NOT win less that top players that are playing in a similar game and are not adjusting towards our book.

All the examples in the Introduction are fine in context, but not in general. The problem is the Introduction didn't explain they were player and read dependent.

For example, the overlimp KK play. It is true 1/3 players don't raise much. However, I played in a 1/2 game with this terrible LAG. He played better than the others by raising preflop more often and bluffing more. However, the was bleeding money, by playing to loose, etc. He was raising 60% of hands. He called an UTG limp/shove for 60 into a pot of 35 with 62s and make a straight versus AK. Another time he raised to 12, go two callers and the same player cold shoved for 200. Maniac called and lost to KK. So that maniac was never folding to a 3-bet except maybe a shove. In that situation, it made sense to limp/3-bet strong hands. If you know a player is raising 60%, and then there is about a 65% chance someone will raise, then limping behind with KK in late position is good.

Also, I agree it isn't a generally a good idea to grind 1/3 for years. However, the swings are generally much less, and you can have a high percentage of winning sessions. So it is good for someone starting out playing professionally or for profit part-time. Once you get comfortable, you can move up to bigger games.

The Introduction was deliberately written that way. It was designed to create interest in the book and I think it did do that. However, if you read the whole book, you would see that everything was explained, including when it was right to do so, as to why the hands in the Introduction were played the way they were.

Mason

There was some guy who promised a review, but I don't think delivered. I don't want to be the only one commenting on the book.

IMO, it is excellent as far as it goes. I don't care if the authors can beat 5/10 NL in Vegas. However, there is a lot of HH analysis in videos and in the forums here and elsewhere. It seems like the authors came up with their own impressions rather than examining the recent consensus. It definitely is not comprehensive in terms of how to play in many situations.

However, the point of the Introduction, which a lot of people missed, is that playing bad players you need to vary a lot by situation and reads, and just playing by formula is very suboptimal.

how do you compare it to course?

Oh, the Miller book. I like this one better. The Miller book gives too many rules, like never limp. That sort of thing is good for fish to keep them playing solid. The Sklansky book assumes you know how to play, and discusses adjustments when playing 1/3 or whatever.

There are a lot of regs and part-time players who have difficulty because of the games getting harder, etc. Online poker is a mess, and very tough. Limit games are much less played. 5/10 and up NL players are using GTO, copying how a program plays, etc. So there are a lot of people who want to try 1/3 (or 1/2 or 2/5).

I stopped reading once they posted like 10 facts about gto.


I think 2 of the facts were legit. The rest not so much

I’ll post them today

I really admire hjow different this book is, it really is play passive pre flop and limp and over cal a lot

they dont really want you raising too much pre flop. for instance there is a section in their preflop where they say with AA if you see a raise and 2 callers that if we wanted to raiise, raise it lightly so you get more callers. to me that's goes against everything on 2p2 for the last 15+ years as with AA with that much money i assumed you would want to be HU also a few times they say raise with QQ+ but at times limp from up front to get more peoplein pot and they say sometimes just call to see flop

again its very intriguing to hear about this since its fundamentally against what A LOT of people say but who am I to judge, its just fascinating. maybe im reading the context wrong too tho not sure if they get into handling 3 betting or not as not that far