Yes, thanks! I am almost finished with the book and look forward to rereading it with the notes (which I’ve proofread and lightly edited) while making my own.

Cliffs: I’m the rawest rookie at NLHE. I’m up $486 after 104 hours and it should be at least quadruple that if not for a handful of mistakes mentioned in the book and emphasized in the notes.

Herre’s a song for you DooDoo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqUiWpGGCmI



Was AJ’s “California Matisse odalisque daughter” as attractive as Alvarez implied she was in the book?

Only a sixth of the way through the thread and it’s delivering as spectacularly as any in the 22 year history of the forum, and I was here on Day One, though I’ve only recently returned from a thirteen year sabbatical.

Never change, 2p2.

This has been discussed since Biggest Game In Town was excerpted in New Yorker 41 years ago. Probably deserves it’s own thread. Fifty plus years ago that was definitely not the case.

Doyle, Chip & David all famously quit jobs for poker for the usual reasons. I don’t know if Mason has ever discussed his transition in depth.

Bobby Baldwin is probably the only person to ever leverage poker into serious corporate success. Phil has certainly made lots of contacts in the VC world. Stu couldn’t have held a straight job for thirty days for ten million dollars.

OK, so you were the first one to use weak-tight in print, but someone used tight-weak before that.

A lot of my transition was based on the idea that I could successfully write about poker/gambling. It wasn't just to play poker. If that would have been the case, I doubt if I would have left the very good job I had with the Northrop Corporation. So comparing me to some others who left their jobs just to play poker is not a good comparison.

Mason

Hi Mason, thanks for the feedback, I wasnÂ’t meaning to compare you to anyone. Obviously there was a huge untapped market for accurate information regarding gambling & poker, as Beat The Dealer, S/S, and DavidÂ’s first books proved.

David made his reasons for leaving the business world explicitly clear in BGIT.

My main point was that Doyle, Chip & Bobby almost certainly made far more money by the age of 30-40 playing poker than they couldÂ’ve any other legal way back then. This has probably not been the case for the last 30 years at least for a 21yo.

BTW has Dan Harrington ever mused about if heÂ’d been born into a gambling family or in Texas? No reason to believe he wouldnÂ’t have been hugely successful as an olÂ’ road gambler, though IÂ’m sure he has no regrets. Pure example of someone who excelled at everything he focused on.

Speaking of soft skills or lack thereof, AI will be doing all that within five years if not three.

FYP

Yeah, from 2002-7 I made $10-20K annually with a similar overhead playing 10-20/15-30 LHE w/overs 3+1 rake every weekend. We did get comped rooms/food coupons and the games were VERY enjoyable socially; large group of regulars and semi-regulars. Room was packed during peak hours and located right next to the pit.

After a 17 year exile, still get free room with ten hours play & $2/hr comps; 1-3 games are pretty soft 4+2 rake, room is on the far NW corner mezzanine. Most of the old regulars long gone. Still mostly friendly but the festival atmosphere might as well be like a Woodstock documentary.

$10-20K annual grind likely possible but the thrill is gone. But 4.5 months sober IÂ’m $5K ahead going there than to the local bar.

If youÂ’re good at something, never do it for free.

Dang, sorry I missed that, but thanks for this current freebie!

Time for a big stud resurgence, nay, a Resurrection! The $10K final table broadcast was wonderful. I canÂ’t believe people wouldnÂ’t enjoy having their own hand, especially kids whoÂ’ve only played HE.

What helped kill it were those terrible 1-4 1-5 games and dcking around with 50 cent pieces in 5-10. Dollar ante, $2 bringin, first to act completes to $5 would be a goldmine for good players and give the fish some bang for their buck. Overs buttons to ldo. Training dealers would be an issue.

'If you're good at something, never do it for free'

'Thanks for this current freebie!'

Hah

I’m definitely overlimping KK the next time I get it lol.

Just watched the replay of the $100K final table where KK on the button flopped a set and slowplayed JTo in the blind into a r-r straight and headed to the rail; made me think of thread and lol a bit.

Twenty years ago there was a long airport style ‘hallway’ connecting the hotel to the casino. I used to pump myself up with the Walk That Aisle promo while visualizing bands going from dressing room to stage on live DVDs. About 3/4 of the way down I’d hear that first slot WOOOO!

Imagine having a job you liked going to 1/10 that much.

Our book doesn’t say to make this play.

Mason

But it says to make very similar plays.

.

Obviously, you don't understand what the book says.

I have some problems with the book, but it didn't suggest slow playing at all.

The overlimp KK play is good in context. You have someone raising 60% of the time when it is limped to him, but maybe 3-betting 10% of the time. If you come in as the 4th limper and 3-bet, it looks like you could be bluffing with a weak hand or trying to build the pot with something like AQ/TT. Anyway, 1/3 players won't fold to 3-bets and have trouble folding top pair etc. It isn't like you should normally overlimp KK.

The way the Introduction was presented here with no explanations for plays based on reads was intended to create interest through controversy, but created too much controversy.

Overlimping KK is a slow play.

Care to show me where other coaches suggest limping the button with KK? I’ve never seen it suggested in a ring game. It sounds like a FPS play that was developed for low poker IQ individuals.


Should be easy to provide lots of other training products that advise limping the button with KK in a ring game

We don't say to do this.

If you, or anyone else, wants to discuss what the book says, I'll try to answer. But you need to quit making up things that the book doesn't say.

MM

It was overlimping from HJ I think with the expectation the pot would usually be raised. The idea was not to limp in and then get the money in on later streets. In fact, Sklansky controversially folded the overpair on a somewhat wet flop.

I said you recommended a similar play

Do you know what similar means?

The CO and the btn are similar position

Open Limping either is a similar play, from a similar position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you were to filter for hands where you limped Co/Btn with KK, both situations would arise. Sure it’s cute to think it’s makes a large difference if someone raises your limp or not, but it doesn’t. This is FPS plain and simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Umm….

This is an example that starts on the bottom of page 184:

Example No. 1: In a $1-$3 no-limit game, you’re dealt the

KK

two positions to the right of the button and the first four players limp in. You should usually raise to either $20 or $25. If this hand looks familiar, it’s the same hand that appeared in Example No. 1 on page 3 in the “Introduction.” Except that in that hand, David just called with the pair of kings. However, raising here doesn’t contradict the play in the “Introduction” because calling (with the kings) only becomes right if the players left to act raise a lot more than usual, the limpers are tighter than usual and will often fold if you raise to $20, and the stacks are fairly large.

Also, in the first paragraph of the Introduction we wrote:

These are just a few of the many types of hands which for the live small stakes games, usually $2-$5 or less, that we sometimes but not usually play differently from the way almost all other players in these games will play them,

I suspect you haven't read the book. You would probably learn a lot if you did.

It's clearly a good play if some maniac is likely to raise and you can build a big pot with a 3-bet. It looks so weird it won't be that face up. Just raising KK loses a lot of value in that situation.

I don't see what the problem is. Their point is to deviate from standard play based on the players and situation. Obviously, not overlimping KK from HJ as a standard play. What is the point on continually misinterpreting and twisting what they are saying?

The bit got old quickly but I’ll admit I lol’d fr over this one.

I know it doesn’t as I just read the Bird In Hand chapter, which is why I said it reminded of this thread (meaning some of the comments).

I don't think learning something and changing his mind is that guy's strong suit, lol.

you prob forgot but you told me to buy the book before I critiqued it. I did learn a lot but it was so frustrating learning how little you guys know that I had to put the book down

your chapter on GTO was the most eye opening thing I have ever seen. You basically spouted a bunch of thoughts and didn't use the scientific method to test them before publishing them

I mean, it was pretty hilarious. And youre right, I did learn A LOT.


I mean just in the hand you posted you said "calling (with the kings) only becomes right if the players left to act raise a lot more than usual, the limpers are tighter than usual and will often fold if you raise to $20, and the stacks are fairly large."

which just is blantantly false, there are other times it is correct to call with kings here, and it doesnt have to do with the limpers. It is quite easy to disprove "only" arguments.

here is a great example

"2. Since GTO is designed to beat all styles of opposing play from the tightest to the loosest, it should be obvious that it does not win at the rate of a good player who knows his opponent is much too tight or too loose and play accordingly"

pg 14, Dispensing with Game Theory (GTO)


I mean there is so much wrong here that its laughable but I was expecting as such

a) was GTO designed to beat all styles of play?

b)"It should be obvious that GTO does not win at the rate of a good player who knows his opponent is much too tight or too loose and play accordingly". Wut

c) Are you saying we should change our ranges after seeing opponents play an insignificant sample of hands?

I was talking about from the authors perspective.