Anyone read this book? Would you recommend it for a 100nl/2-5 live player?

While I still have read only a little of this book, i’m starting to have my doubts about it. You already saw this thread:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...layer-1751489/

And there are other funny little errors. For instance the author confuses odds and probability, and he treats a three-handed S ‘n G as if it’s a three handed regular poker game. Now these errors don’t really matter as long as you understand what the proper context should be, but it makes me wonder if the author isn’t confused about certain things which may show up as serious errors later in the book.

Anyway, I still have a lot more to read before my opinion is formed.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Everyone:

I’ve been out of town for three days but am now reading again and immediately came to another funny error. It’s in the example of the fold equity sub-chapter. Here the Hero has 8d7d, the BB has 3d3h, and the flop is AsKs5c. The author states that Hero has 29 percent equity, but if he bets the BB will fold 75 percent of the time. The author then correctly accounts for Hero’s fold equity when the BB folds, but then in the equation given shows that Hero still had 29 percent equity for the remaining 25 percent of the hands to be played. Obviously this is equivalent to having over 100 percent equity for the non folded hands which is not possible.

So, is this a careless error? And did anyone review his work.

In the equations for the very next example, the author has the fold equity equal to 4.19/8.82 which he then has equal to 51%. Obviously, this is not correct.

On the other hand, I thought the next sub-chapter on equity realization was quite good.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Mason,

I´m interested in this book and will wait for your review before making a decision as I already have the Brokos book and am going to order TOP.
AFAIK, equity calculations are based on the hand reaching showdown, in which case it is correct to state that Hero has 29% for the remaining 25% of hands. Hero wins 75% with the folds and 29%of the remaining 25%, which equates to 7,25%, giving him a total winning percentage/equity of 82,25%

Hi kid:

Winning 29 percent of the remaining 25 percent would be correct, but unless I’m misreading it, that’s not what the book says. Here are the equations from the book where the player in the BB is assumed to fold 75 percent of the time:

Fold Equity = (75%)(71%) = 53%
Total Equity = 53% + 29% = 82%

The 29% in the second equation should be, as you state, (29%)(25%).

I assume this is just a careless error, but i’ve already seen several of these which implies a lack of review before publication.

Best wishes,
Mason

Let me give another example of what I think is another error. (It also may be that I misunderstand what the author is saying.)

In the Under “Maximally Exploitative Strategy” there’s an example of a heads up game with 5 and 10 blinds where the button moves in all the time. The author works out that the aggregate EV of the BB MES is 13.77 chips from the 15 chip pot or 92 percent of the pot. The problem here is that the pot after the initial move-in is 110 chips and not 15. So, the EV of 13.77 may be correct but the 92 percent is not.

Best wishes,
Mason

The book got solved preflop range for 6 max cash & 40bb MTT.
To me, that alone justifies the price when it is quite expensive to get solved ranges on training sites.

Hi Mason,

I think this is best summed up as "All roads lead to Rome" or "There´s more than one way to skin a cat".

While I prefer the KISS method: We win 75% plus (29%)(25%) = 82,25% or alternately, Villain wins (71%)(25%) = 17,75%, it seems that the author comes up with a slightly more complex equation, which nevertheless, arrives at the same answer of 82,28%.

It looks like he may have a slightly different interpretation as to what FE is.

I´ve input different numbers into the equation and we always reach the same answer, whether we use the simple method or the author´s method.

I know from experience through all my work with books that these types of errors can get in a book, but I’ve already seen a number of them. At the very least, it seems to me, that there was little to no review of this manuscript. Also, I still haven’t gotten into the important material.

Best wishes,
Mason

I hope you will be able eventually to give a favourable review and if so, perhaps you could then do a comparison between the Brokos book, TOP and this one, mentioning the strongest points in each book.

Regards,

Chris.

Hi Kid:

I've been fooling around with these equations and think you might be right. The easy equation for total equity is

.75 + (.29)(.25) = 0.8225

Put in algebra the left side is

FP + (Eq)(PP)

where FP is folding percentage, Eq is playing equity, and PP is playing percentage. Now

FP +(Eq)(PP) =

(1-PP) + (Eq)(PP) =

(1-PP) + (Eq)(PP) + Eq - Eq = [Notice that Eq -Eq is zero.]

1- Eq - PP + (PP)(Eq) + Eq =

(1-PP)(1-Eq) + Eq =

(FP)(FE) +Eq, and [Notice that FE is Folding Equity]

(FP)(FE) + Eq in this case is

(.75)(.71) +.29 = .53 +.29 = 0.8225

So the author's equation is correct.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Kid:

I think when you say TOP you mean The Theory of Poker Applied to No-Limit by David Sklansky. Both David's new book and the Brokos book are strong works. As for the Acevedo book, I still have not read enough of it to have any sort of opinion.

Best wishes,
mason

Hi Mason,

Of course I was referring to TOP NL. I´ve had a look at the contents of Acevedo´s book and they seem promising. Now that you have clarified one of the math problems,if you give it at least an 8, I will order it.

Best regards,

Chris.

Hi Chris:

According to my kindle, i’ve read 17% of the book, and so far I haven’t seen anything that isn’t covered in a number of other books. Also, anything I give a rating of an 8 to is something I recommend. But with this book I’m still a long way from any sort of rating.

Best wishes,
Mason

Thanks.

Hi Mason, based on your comments, would you refrain from giving a book a higher rating based solely on the fact that the material can be found elsewhere even if the content is solid and valid? Wouldn't that criteria make it more challenging for future books to score higher ratings as it will be more and more challenging to come up with original work? Also, why can't a book still get a high score if it has great content even if it is covered elsewhere because it would still be useful for someone to purchase and study it if that person doesn't have a large library of other works?

Hi avatar:

It depends on how egregious I think the omission is. In this case probably not, and he does mention Tipton and pio solver. But in the Game Theory stuff it would only take one sentence to mention Sklansky, Janda, and perhaps Newall since they all covered the same stuff years ago as related to poker.

Again, I still have a lot more to read before I can give any sort of evaluation.

Best wishes,
Mason

Okay. I have now finished the Game Theory section and much of what I have read is quite good. But again, I still have much more to read.

Best wishes,
Mason

thanks for replies

will prob buy just for this.

the 6max cash is 100bbs? just opening range or 3bet/4bet stuff?

yeah 100bb, 3b/4b included

Hi Everyone:

I just started another thread in our Poker Theory Forum about something this book says:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1.../#post55426263

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Mason,
I noticed you are reading this book on Kindle. How does it read on the Kindle. Some poker books I have for the Kindle are difficult to follow due to issues such as:
1 charts split between multiple pages
2 Hand examples difficult to follow
3 Diagrams poorly translated to Kindle format
4 Frequent references to appendices at back of book

Can you please comment as to how the book reads in Kindle format?

Thanks

Hi Bonzo:

While I have seen these same problems with other books, none of them are occurring with this one, except that the equations are small but still readable.

Best wishes,
Mason

Thanks Mason

Mr Mason, as grown nonmillenial man, writer etc... you are very shortsighted.
nobody would oppose you if you said this book, any book at 2+2, is mine, if you explain your struggles and efforts to make it published.

furthermore, i believe in freedom of speech and i am not from usa, but i think it would be more fruitful if you connect with jon to make MPT better. reciprocity and not petty quarrals are my points. say your observations but also give back.

jonathan little can stand in his own right side by side with sklansky as a writer and player.sure,sklansky is a legend and a pioneer but little will be legend too. a winning player and a writting warhorse.

you turned him down, so what.life goes on. you are a big name in poker and imo an ambassador of poker. this she said he said and nitpicking.common.

jon more than helped making mpt book so he sees it as his baby and maybe he is a little 'overzelous' at promoting his fellow writters book.

surely as a writer you understand that.

oliver