Honestly, I have not read the book .. and am in europe, so I am assuming that the copy that amazon.co.uk has is the faded one.

By gambling I mean putting opponents on a range and acting accodingly, thus ending playing a lot of pots instead of just waiting.

I have no idea, what your book is about apart from the descriptions above, but a statement that the two most profitable game types (whether you nit it up or decide to gamble it up) should be avoided is puzzling.

Still I only attack this one statement, I don't doubt that the book overall is better than most of its competition.

My copy is due to arrive in Canada tomorrow. I waited patiently for the new and improved copies to become available. I was concerned with having to return the book thru customs, etc...

I plan on spending the weekend reading so that I can make an informed comment early next week.

As I stated earlier, I witnessed the writing of this book on Sam's old website. It was shaping up to be a winner, I'm looking forward to seeing the finished package.

Three of you posters stopped by my signing booth today at the WSOP and introduced yourselves. That's nice. Thank you.

Sam

hahahahahaha. Dear God, I hope loads of newbies read your book cos they will remain donks for life

No need to worry about someone learning to play, Cat. For every one who learns three newbies are hatched.

Looking around for updates on the new book release dates and stumbled across this thread. It looked like an interesting read so I clicked on the book for more info. After looking at the book excerpts I noticed that you were the gentleman who took a bite out of my profit margin at Binions a couple of weeks ago. So I guess I'll have to buy the book and discover if I was correct in folding my top pair to your river bet...

received my copy today and had a quick breeze through it and so far it looks impressive. The print was pretty bad though but still readable.

Wow. I make most of my money playing in these types of games. What about using position and table image to our advantage in these games? Why not put these 'wild' players on a range and squeeze them for value?

It seems you prefer a low variance style, which is fine, but I don't believe it is the most profitable style. A good player is able to adapt his game based on the table conditions, recognize situations where he has an edge and takes advantage of that edge whenever possible.

I disagree that the only way to win at a wild table is to wait for a hand. I tend to play loose in position, read the board texture and get money in the pot when I have decent equity.

Limper tables are even easier to beat because you should be raising a lot in position and c-betting every flop. These guys fold without a piece of the board, which they will miss 60% of the time. The great thing about playing in a limper game is that when one of them plays back at you, he is almost never bluffing, which allows you to play perfect strategy against him.

The quote is unfortunate and intended in a different context. Further misfortune is that it has become the main topic of this thread.

4 2 it, you have stated the recommended procedures in these games quite well. The book actually addresses playing techniques under limper and wild games much as you describe them. The book further describes how to play in all kinds of games and against all kinds of players, making its style wide in variance and the very point of the book.

I appreciate your comments. I think you are probably a very good player.

Sam

One more item. Let's not forget we're taling about no limit here. Usually, the play technique which you describe will change a limper type game into a playing game. Wild games are harder to change and, as you have pointed out, we may not want to change it. Of course, we should be prepared with a very large bankroll for the stack swings.

Again, the quote was intended in that context. It's all in the book.

Sam

Sam - where did you develop your NL strategies? Did you ever use a forum such as 2+2 to bounce your concepts off of before publishing the book?

from what I read so far, I would wager the author developed his no limit strategies by strategies formed by his years plus experience.

I have no idea what kind of input two plus two could of gave him to make his book better, what would you suggest t and t?

I like the personal approach from an old school philosphy considering that a two plus two friendly no limit book is coming out in 9 day.

I would be interested in knowing what kind of books in the poker world sam advocates though

42it - There's a part of the book where Sam acknowledges that he's willing to take a slight edge on a marginal hand because there is a payoff in that type of play. So I think your view is not inconsistent with his. (Correct me if I'm wrong Sam.) Plus, I concur with Sam that you do seem like a thinking player and probably are pretty good. (I'm still learning unfortunately.)

By the way - what's with people coming on to these forums and hating on an author who's willing to discuss his work (not saying you did that 42it)? If someone doesn't like a book, they can say it and move on. No need for insults. Then again, this is an anonymous message board and some people have nothing better to do than make jackasses of themselves. Seriously, save us all the time.

I was just addressing what I saw posted. I was glad that Sam responded to my concerns and clarified his views.

No offense taken. I was just replying to a specific post that appeared to be advocating a type of play that I have found (at least in my experience) to not be optimal. I have no opinion of the entire book because I have not read it.

Personal attacks are lame. It's not that hard to disagree with people in a civil manner. Asking the author questions and/or challenging his views is why this forum is here. I commend Sam for being active in this thread.

LOL! Anyone ever notice that even Sklansky doesn't post here?

2+2 isn't kind to poker authors. That's too bad. Even worse for Sam, since the real "meat" of his book doesn't even start until page 225 or so.

[quote]
Good point. And I agree - unfortunately - that the books really kicks in around p. 225 or so.

Historically the 2+2 forums have always ripped to shreds any book that does not meet the communities and/or Mason's standards. This isn't a nice place, anyone who comes here has to be prepared to face the fire. If your looking for a nice happy forum where your not told the truth about the quality of a learning resource your in the wrong place. I actually think Sam is getting off easy, the majority of 2+2 qualified strategists who would be interested in his book might be ignoring it at this time since PNL is about to come out, they are focusing their efforts on the upcoming book. For example I am skipping Sam's book (nice guy by the way, we met last week) to focus on what the community believes will be a ground breaking title in 2 weeks.

TT -

My post was really one about showing a little respect (by the way, not that you haven't). I've got no problem ripping a book but there are productive ways to do that. I do agree with you that this forum is tough on authors, players, the universe, etc., and I'm ok with that. Maybe I should've just said kudos to Sam (and any other author who posts on here) for having the initiative to put his work out there for the world to consume and critique. Just seems silly to come in here and laugh at a man who's actually trying to help people improve at a game they find challenging and interesting (and yes, I know he's looking to sell books and probably make some money).

I've never met Sam and don't have a dog in this fight either way. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

I was speaking with 4_2_it who is the moderator of the Small Stakes NL forum, he and I agree that this book is not on the radar of the vast majority of respected 1/2 online or B&M pros at 2+2 (or guys who started there and advanced). In an odd way that might be better for Sam, the truth is always painful, if the masses chose to rip apart his book it wouldn't be pretty. Mind you I havent read it, and I wont because I dont have the time - but I am concerned about how the author seems to feel B&M play requires the saving of bets compared to online play in similar equity situations. Of course I might have misunderstood the comments in this thread, but thats how it came across to me by reading this thread.

Well this book hasn't really been ripped into as some might suggest.

Both 42it and I have made the same comment, tho 42it got a different answer than I, but on the other hand, he frased his critique more polite than I, even if the content was the same.

It seems that Sam wishes to get his own feel on the book, and has a way of playing that he is proud of, and this might be making the readability of the book less good.

I will read this book at some point, but it is not top priority and the chance of getting a bad print makes me wait.

Zero chance of getting a bad print with me.
Mike

Someone asked me what my style is. I told them that I am a chameleon. I can't just get up from a table because it is not perfect for my one set style. If I am at a loose table, I will adjust accordingly. If I am at a tighter table with thinking players (albeit incorrectly), I will play a different style. When you are playing live, you don't have time to sit around and wait for some specified table to sit down at.

This is a very true statement.

- LAGS are extremely destructive to the game - this part is not true for a good player, in fact it can make a good player's expectation greater but he will have to work harder to achieve it.

Okay, we're out of context again, driven mostly by people who haven't read the book, or at least the entire book.

In fact, at one point the book says we want, ideally, two LAGS at the table; we want a variety. More LAGS are okay.

In fact, the book says we have to change our game if there are a table full of LAGS. And we must have a large bankroll. (I've been in 1-2 blinds LAG games where $10,000 was a medium stack.)

In fact, the book says a predominantly LAG game is not ideal because the good player prefers to play variety, switching gears constantly. But we're not afraid of LAGS; the book only makes the comparison.

In fact, the book says we prefer to have control of the game. We know consistent winning is about control of the game and such control can be obtained best in a game with a variety of players.

That's what the book says.

Sam