I should qualify this by saying that those who play at the highest of the high nosebleed games against the biggest whales are probably maximizing their time EV (literally Macao at the bubble) versus what they could achieve in other fields, but those are the rarest of the rare exceptions to what I said

The problem with roulette is there isn't any way not to be an expected loser. In poker you can at least avoid being that expected loser. And a dollar not lost is a dollar won.

Like in soccer, there are different leagues. You still want to be a winner even in the sixth division.

Incorrect. It will not help them profit, but it may very well improve their results.

Only way it can help is if the system makes them play less.

Are all roulette bets the exact same house edge? If so, you’re right. If not, it absolutely can help.

36 is divisible by 18, 12, 9, 6, 4, 3 and 2, all giving even money. The 37th number, the zero, gives money to the house. Yes, the expected losing is constant.

I never played below 2/5 because I just always assumed you couldnt really make a living at it given avg stack sizes I had seen. However I have seen a few 2/5 regs sitting on 400BB+ stacks every time I come into the room and seem to employ almost no raising preflop. Strange as it seems my memory of their ranges is difficult to recall. I feel they were just being extremely stationey with literally any possible draw, TP, and sometimes slowplaying monsters. Because they're in so many pots it seems like they still get action despite their reputation for only having the nuts at showdown. I dont know if these guys are winning a few big pots or numerous small one's. Nevertheless I will be interested in this new book to see what it might expose me to. Personally I try to play a wannabe GTO inspired live strat. If I could have a more comfortable easy-go autopilot style with less rebuys I would.

Silly argument, people don't play poker to maximize money, most people that get world class (literally no one in this thread) enjoy the game for the sake of playing it.

Also there is massive diminishing returns on money wrt to lifestyle.

You've never played in California, apparently.

The book content aside, I’m surprised they even went with a book. Who buys poker books anymore?

The owners of 2+2 missed a huge opportunity in starting their own video training site and attaching it to this forum. They would have already had a sizable customer base to draw from and could have turned this book into a flagship course for the site to draw people in.

Anyways, I’ll probably buy the book because seeing different perspectives wont hurt.

Lol asks who buys poker books

Then announces probably buying the book

I’m a dichotomy.

Right, I like books still. And while I only play nlh sparingly to get diamond card I’ll probably get it myself. I like the nostalgia of a Sklansky/Malmuth book too.

Mason, please use the same paper that you used for split pot game book. That book smelled fantastic

I think books still have great merit. Whenever I study video content I always keep my notes app split screen so I can quickly jot down important parts / screenshot slides. I need the written version specifically for reference. A book is like a giant version of that.

i have no doubt you are writing a good book that will help people. i have many doubts that its worth anyones time or energy.

yes, it would be like reading a well written book on the best and proper way to organize desk chairs on the titanic. we all know the ship is going to sink. we also all know micro live is a rake trap and the people trying to "grind" it are miserable and will never get the lost years of their lives back. PLAY BIG, PLAY FAST, MOVE ON!!!!

Obviously, you're not going to get rich playing $1-$3. But, based on these posts, it's my opinion that's it's possible to do much better in these games than what you think. This could have something to do with location and amount of rake/drop.

Mason

Most people who play poker lose. I think anyone trying to be a long term pro at 1/3 is absolutely wasting their time.
But if someone enjoys poker and is basically playing for fun then good for them if this book turns them into a winner at their hobby.

Aside from hobbyists, there are people who play part time as a source of income. There are also people who want to start out at something playing professionally and pros who want to play something less risky after losing etc.

Most 1/3 grinders cannot beat 5/10 and are not that good players. I agree that playing 1/3 NL fulltime longterm is generally not a good idea.

If a good pro concentrated on playing 1/3 NL and made the right adjustments, he/she might make more than the $1K/week mentioned, but that player could do better at mid or high stakes.

Big difference between wanting to go pro and starting at 1/3 and wanting to be a 1/3 pro. The first makes sense, the second doesn’t.

Sure, you can get good and grind out 20 - 25 an hour at 1/3 but why? Move to 2/5 and only play 1/3 when you are waiting for a seat at the 2/5 game.

Posters like Limon are arguing that trying to grind out a living at 1/3 type stakes is a futile effort and a waste of time. Malmuth and Slanksy are arguing people who do play 1/3 in whatever capacity will improve their game from the book.

One argument is almost certainly correct. But it's also irrelevant to this book and just attacking a strawman.

Maybe I missed it but I don't see Malmuth and Slansky saying buy this book and go pro playing 1/3.

It is an interesting topic, because you need to make adjustments. The situations are so far from what a solver can provide answers to.

You also don't want to decide to be a pro player and start out playing 2/5NL or some comparable PLO, limit game, or tournament buyins and lose money. Much better to play something low risk and then move up.

As Sklansky implied, the 2/5 games in Vegas are generally not good, particularly during business hours. However, the 1/3 games are filled with tourists. I don't think this is true everywhere. Often, 2/5 games have more and better regs, and less completely clueless fish, but they also have more splashy amateurs who don't care about the money.

Yes, we could also do without the “Mason can’t beat 200NL online” crowd and others like them, Pincha Loaf etc

As a side note, the “he/she/it can’t beat 200NL” thing gets trotted out often as if it’s some Machu Picchu thing to do in your life.

It's a poker forum, what are you even talking about.

And you can pick any stake wrt to your statement, it just show's a certain level of dedication to poker as a craft. And it also cuts out all the charlatans, since there are a ton in this game.

Of course there's nothing wrong with being bad at poker, but please don't act like people that have worked hard to get good need to cater to your sensibilities.

Not many can beat 200NL online now, except bots etc.