I know that a few times, a 2+2 book would get miss-quoted then the poster will tell you whats wrong with the information that never existed.

Are you cwoc on full tilt? If so I will ship you a free copy of my book. You are my target demo.

NO, no and no. I know ur messing but he made his comments and should have to stand for them.
Hence, put ur name out here! Show us why you can be so criticial of this book and Greg! prove to me ur not a phantom, losing player!
Cheers,
Billl

skimmed tl;dr thread. where can we see zsums results?

I specifically play under zerosum79. Full Tilt, PS (although I still contend that they do not have all my results, and think that they may only be tracking from when I unblocked my results) and recently Merge.

I am sure you will have specific comments. Most of it has all ready been discussed to death.

zero

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=7250

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=7258

Well this should be fun. I can't wait to see what racist slur cwoc was using as a screen name. He also was resistant to sharing his SN in that thread so I am guessing he will not here either.

zero

i'm not super familiar with tournament tracking sites (am i supposed to sharkscope you?), and if they're inaccurate, couldn't you just post your own DB?

Yeah, sharkscope. I had thought of trying to sort out the database issue but its spread over 4 computers some of which are not exactly operational. I had a massive hard drive crash last year which among other things delayed this book.

Anyways, to me its probably more hassle than its worth. Even if I produce a couple thousand more tourneys on stars, its not like it really changes anything. As I have said before, I think that the book is something that stands on its own and can be judged based on its own merit. Its not marketed as a book that will teach you to play like some famous high stakes or high volume player.

Regards,
zero

I think Sharkscope is pretty accurate but might have a few missing games/wrong information but overall it's pretty spot on.

If a person has a legit concern about a product then fine but this guy hasn't shown us why he can be so critical. As far as anyone knows he is just a guy/girl on 2+2 that has been hypercritical without ever showing anyone why his expertise should be valued.

So again, Why should we value his opinion over other WINNINGS players? If he/she can prove his merits and prove he isn't a breakeven player who has a man crush on Greg then I'll take his opinion into account BUT until then he is just a SUPER FORUM WARRIOR with NO crediability to his name.

Cheers Bill

He played as zerosum79 on Full Tilt and Pokerstars. It looks like he beat the $12 games until 2010 but his volumes are very low. I am concerned by his inexperience as well his results.

All superturbos

zerosum
1,463 -$0.18 $12 0% -$270 N/A N/A Global Alias E9-9 Spd=ST SNG Onlyzerosum79 (PS)
zerosum79 (FT)
x

By year excluding superturbos

zerosum
2,075 $0.58 $12 7% $1,194 N/A N/A Global Alias Year2008 E9-9 Spd=NoSuperTurbos SNG Onlyzerosum79 (PS)
zerosum79 (FT)
x
zerosum
823 $1.21 $12 10% $994 N/A N/A Global Alias Year2009 E9-9 Spd=NoSuperTurbos SNG Onlyzerosum79 (PS)
zerosum79 (FT)
x
zerosum
726 $0.38 $18 1% $280 N/A N/A Global Alias Year2010 E9-9 Spd=NoSuperTurbos SNG Onlyzerosum79 (PS)
zerosum79 (FT)
x
zerosum
56 -$7.33 $20 -29% -$411 N/A N/A Global Alias Year2011 E9-9 Spd=NoSuperTurbos SNG Onlyzerosum79 (PS)
zerosum79 (FT)
x

Put up your stats! Stop dodging my pm and requests!!!!

0:58:05 in the Charette 18 man vid. All the examples are taken from the same vid. Hero has AQo on A25r "Our equity in this pot isn't terrible, we're at least break even to a little bit ahead but it's hard to feel real comfortable playing a big pot because as this guy is willing to play a big pot with us (4x pre at 15/30, no action on flop, $3.40/$3.50 game) it skews his range towards at least AQ if not AK"

Are these YOUR STATS? I pm'ed you 2 times and requested to see your qualifications 3 times in this thread!!!!

Can you produce your winning stats or not?

Challenge: You and me: We sign up for a 2 to 4 9 man games 1.50's and submit HH to 2+2. Any site that we both can play on! Community picks 5 judges to evaluate our games and those judges pick who played better in the same games. Loser leaves 2+2 and makes a public "i'm sorry."
Put up or shut up time,
Accept or Deny?

meh, i think this is a borderline situation, and i'll give zsum the benefit of the doubt given that there are probably similar coaches to him that are not getting criticized, and it's just bad luck (for him) that people are calling him out.

2 constructive critiques would be to not use crushing in title (seems like you realized this earlier ITT), and to include your results somewhere visible on your website.

other than that, it's not like he's making false claims (100K system) or being absurdly aggro w/ marketing (). $100 is kinda pricey IMO, but there's a money back guarantee. overall, kinda meh, and not a huge fan of the coaching industry right now, but doesn't seem like it deserves 13 pages.

Well I am up and running with the book.

I have read only the intro stuff and watched one of the video's included with the package. So I will wait to post a full review. I do have a few comments.

One thing that has not come completely through in this thread is the humility of the author.

Greg was put on the defense pretty early here, and that has not allowed his personality to come through here. The introduction of the book clearly shows what a true student of the game Greg is, and the effort he has put into this project. Greg's humility and how he has given credit to Collin Moshman and his book "Sit 'n Go Strategy" has greatly impressed me.

I can see why the posters that I called his "entourage" have defended him, based on reading about 18 pages of the book and watching one video. I am looking forward to spending time with this book more than ever.

How can you possibly quote folding A8o on the BTN for 10bb being a mistake, 6 handed, without any information on the calling ranges or stack dynamics? This is on the basis of a STT.

I can tell you this, if all stacks are equal six handed, and you give a calling range of 20% to the BB and 10% to the SB, shoving A8o on the button IS a mistake - stick it in any ICM calculator - 77+, AT+ upwards is standard. This is with an edge of 0.5. Stick in a greater edge of 1, and it is 99+, AJs+, AQo.

I have no issue with you - but I've seen a few posts on you from in other book threads getting quite angry at authors charging "$x" for a book and questioning their ability to write, when you HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK.

Just read Greg's book - take up his offer of a free copy.

Your comments in this thread are base upon your pure hypothesis, and one that is based on assumption and not fact.

Read the book, then make a decision.


EDIT: It seems you are talking about an 18 man MTT, 6 players left. Again, if all players have equal stacks, approx 10bb, you are still not shoving A8o on the button, based on a calling range of BB10%. You are shoving 66+, AJo+, ATs+. So A8o is still a fold (0.5 edge).

You are criticising without that info but it's all in the vid. I remember that one because it's a shove in either format. Here are Nash shove ranges

18m
47%, 22+ Ax+ K2s+ K7o+ Q2s+ Q8o+ J4s+ J8o+ T6s+ T8o+ 96s+ 98o 86s+ 75s+ 65s 54s

9m
39.8%, 22+ Ax+ K2s+ K9o+ Q4s+ Q9o+ J7s+ J9o+ T6s+ T9o 96s+ 86s+ 76s 65s

Inaccurate. I questioned how "Let there be range" could be worth the money being asked for it (I can't remember the price but it was a lot) but I did actually read volume one of "Easy Game" before criticising it. I notice the 3rd edition is more realistically priced. The original price was $950.


I am basing my comments on his results and his vid. Tbh I would have lost interest ages ago but his posts and those of his "supporters" have been rather disourteous and this has prompted me to continue replying.

Again, I want to make it clear that I am not attacking you (really!) - but I have to say, you are quoting Nash as the basis of saying that Greg was incorrect when he said that one should not shove A8o on the button, in the example you gave.

As I recall, Greg was not basing his decisions on Nash in that video. Do remember, that whilst Nash is unexploitable (if the villain also plays Nash), it is not the most profitable - particularly in the lower stakes, which Greg's video was about, where players simply do not understand Nash shove and calling ranges etc - and thus shoving Nash is arguably not, in +$Ev terms, profitable long term.

Further, in relation to the other books - I cannot comment further on what you have or have not read, but it does seem that you have not read Greg's book - and thus your comments are based on pure assumption and not on fact.

It therefore means, given that your comments are not based on fact, that a number of the readers in this thread feel a bit bored of reading dismissive sounding posts from you, when you quite simply have not read the book.

Can you imagine how laughable it would be if one were to read a review in The Times, for example, from a critic reviewing the latest novel, but where he says "I have not read this book, but I imagine that it is simply not worth the money, the author has no history for writing good books, and therefore it is very likely to be rubbish". Such a review just wouldn't be printed!

It also just wouldn't be fair or just to the author to print such a review.

Give the book a go, and then post a fair and honest review - that's all this thread (or any book thread) should be about - facts and fairness - not hyperbole based on assumption.

I think that the title of the book is misleading. After reading SIQs review i would call it "Basic Sng Strategy" or something like this. "Crushing Online Sngs" sounds like "Instant success with women" or "Loose 10 pounds in 2 days" kind of Books. He just used already available information and put it togheter in a book. From a "Crushing online Sngs" book i expect:
- what are GTO ( gametheory optimal) Ranges in early,mid and lategame both stealing and defending
- how much should i deviate from these ranges to exploit specific player types
- what is the ev of Raise/folding vs. Raise/calling vs. openfolding in a specific spot
- against what players it is better to raise/fold with 10bbs sb vs. bb than to shove; what is the ev of raising here and what is the ev of shoving?
- when it is more +ev to raise/fold a hand as the chipleader on the bubble than to shove? Against what players is the ev higher than shoving?
- how can i design a hud that shows me the most relevant information that i need in an sng?
-etc.

All these things would be new information that you can not find in any other book so far in this form and it will give the reader a very big Edge against players, who just play a basic strategy.

@pagination1: An Edge of 0.5 is far too high. In 99% of cases it is very bad to fold A8o for 10bbs from the button. The only situation where you should fold is if you are on the bubble and there is a very shortstacked player who already folded and some loose bigstacks sit in the Blinds.

You are quite right about edge - I was going off into la la land - about 0.1 is the most I usually ever use - 1 or 0.5 is indeed ridiculous!!

This quote alone shows that you really have no idea what you are talking about. If you are simply using nash to determine shoving ranges without taking your opponents into account you must be this guy...

cwoc 36 $0.07 $2 -4% $2 LLLLLLPL 54 Pacific

cwoc 522 -$1.36 $4 -21% -$711 LPLLLLLL 51 FullTilt

The second one has a nice fish bowl next to it. Where have you been playing lately? What is your SN? Or is it too racist to post?

zero

An edge of .1 is slightly less than a 1% ROI shove in a 9 man. Shoving 12BB or 10BB in a game where your opponents are unpredictable is not really bad IMO. It allows for some room for slop in the assumptions and makes all recommended hands clear shoves. Using an edge of 0.1 in this case makes the decision very black or white for the hands recommended.

I can understand that if some people accept thinner edges that it is perfectly reasonable. If you want to play a strategy where you simply stick the edge to 0 for every SNG wizard decision I guess I can't really argue with that although I think its a mistake for the majority of players and games.

A recommendation of 0.1% edge for 10 and 12BB shoves is somewhat of a "do no harm setting." It is admittedly conservative. However, it is also a setting that I know a lot of successful players stick to, and similar to settings that I was given when learning the game by successful players.

Another example of this is demonstrated with the PBJ sheet that comes with the course. The ranges are basically designed to be profitable but also "do no harm." It is the best compromise I could come up with since I figure people should learn through the course how to adjust their ranges and tune their sheet to their own taste. I even provide an excel spreadsheet for that purpose. They are a bit tighter than I personally play but close enough that if you compared the two PBJ sheets side by side you would see they are not drastically different for any positions.

zero

PS. After reading this comment I realized you were talking about 1% and 0.5% edges. These are ridiculous and I have never recommended something that high. I think pagination just put the decimal in the wrong spot.

I was just illustrating how far wrong you were when you advised that A8o was a fold in that situation as pagination1 was waffling on about opponent ranges and how it might be a fold.

cwoc is not my screen name but GL to the guy whoever he/she is. And I don't take kindly to you constantly repeating defamatory remarks to the effect that I am racist. I complained about others getting racist in the chatbox. Not the same thing is it zero ?

Yes, that's correct - as I mentioned in a post above, I meant to refer to .1, not 1 - drastic difference between the two!