| User | Post |
|
5:18 am
June 18, 2009
|
JD
| | |
| New Member | posts 2 | |
|
|
This passage on p 70 took several readings before I understood it (maybe it's just me!):
A player who begins floating your flop bets frequently or
raising with position either on the flop or on a later street.
|
|
|
6:43 am
June 18, 2009
|
GeleHaas
| | |
| Member | posts 4 | |
|
|
Post edited 1:55 pm – June 18, 2009 by GeleHaas
Page 122.
“this is a terrific situation for a value bet. If the big blind held a queen, he usually wouldn't checkcall the TURN then check the river.”
In the example, he checkcalls the flop. Checks the turn (there is no betting on the turn) and checks the river.
|
|
|
7:19 am
June 18, 2009
|
mash.tun
| | |
| Member | posts 4 | |
|
|
On P. 141, under "if your opponent 3-bets light frequently, but is selective with flop continuation bets:"
The 1st and 5th bullet-points are essentially the same, but are worded slightly different?
|
|
|
11:37 am
June 18, 2009
|
Ed Miller
| | |
| Admin
| posts 112 | |
|
|
Thanks guys for all the errata. I appreciate it. Another one found by a reader.
On P. 141, under “if your opponent 3-bets light frequently, but is selective with flop continuation bets:”
The 2nd bullet-point seems to be contradictory…maybe I'm missing something? It states “Tend to 4-bet with strong hands and sometimes with weak hands. Since 4-betting is mostly a bluff…”
|
|
|
4:48 pm
June 18, 2009
|
vpbob2000
| | |
| New Member | posts 1 | |
|
|
Post edited 1:54 am – June 19, 2009 by vpbob2000
|
|
|
9:21 am
June 19, 2009
|
Greyzy
| | Germany | |
| Member | posts 19 | |
|
|
footnote on pg. 62 "bounded-rationally players"
Shouldn't that be "bounded-rationaLITY players"? Or "rationally-bounded"?
I'm not a native English speaker, but the term sounds extremely odd to me (but on the other hand: it's math…  ).
|
|
|
10:02 am
June 19, 2009
|
Matt Flynn
| | |
| Admin
| posts 114 | |
|
|
could be. it was "bounded-rationally" in the emails i exchanged with Professor Stole, but bounded-rationality is the wikipedia adjective. any game theorists wanna chime in on terminology?
left to our own devices we'd have just said dumb. but game theorists are polite folk.
|
|
|
1:17 pm
June 20, 2009
|
Anonymous
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
p. 138
The third bullet:
If your opponent tends to call your opening raise and call bets frequently with weak hands all the way to showdown:
Shouldn't this bullet be formatted as a paragraph? It seems like this bullet has a different context from the two immediately preceding it.
|
|
|
7:59 pm
June 20, 2009
|
Anonymous
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
p 148
First sentence
The problem here is that not many opponents, even aggressive ones, will not push all-in as a bluff, particularly if _the_ don't know your tendencies well.
|
|
|
10:29 am
June 21, 2009
|
Larrondo
| | |
| Member | posts 8 | |
|
|
P. 47 – 48. in the footnote about button raising– it lists 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs-54s, J9s-64s, A9o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo-54o as 30% of your hands. In the raising from the cutoff section on the same page, which is also called 30%, it looks like there are many fewer hands, specifically the offsuit connectors (although oddly K9s and Q9s are added to the cutoff raising range.)I think the range listed in the footnote has about 88 more hands, though, overall.
And now I am going to be super-annoying: As I was going to sleep last night I was glancing at p. 49. Noticed that the last paragraph contained the phrase 'gain insight' three times. I'd swap one of those out for a synonym: 'get a fix on,' 'figure out,' or 'understand.' OK, sorry. I'm a writer too. It breeds a certain kind of fussiness.
|
|
|
11:05 am
June 21, 2009
|
Ed Miller
| | |
| Admin
| posts 112 | |
|
|
Larrondo,
Please be fussy. We plan to fix everything you guys find (unless we don't think it needs fixing) and send out an update, so no matter how nitpicky it may seem, go for it. The more you find, the more awesome the book will be. :)
|
|
|
6:31 pm
June 21, 2009
|
Larrondo
| | |
| Member | posts 8 | |
|
|
P. 48, same footnote. "You are now raising an extra 50 percent of the time" is misleading. It makes it sound like you are raising fifty percent more than you had been (when in fact you are raising 167% more, or something.) It should be "you are now raising 50 percent more of the total possible hands," or "you are now raising almost 3 times more often."
I showed this to a professional editor who happens to be sitting next to me, just to make sure I wasn't being thick. She said, "this is all too big to be in a footnote. It's important stuff. It should be in the main paragraph."Of course, she brings an strict, English-headmaster-with-a-paddle degree of fussiness to the discussion, so take it for what it's worth.
BTW– I feel the book is very clearly and elegantly written so far. And it's nice to read a poker book that has a measure of style and wit. "…they blunder through the postflop streets looking for boneheaded and amusing ways to squander their buy-ins." Very funny.
|
|
|
5:37 am
June 22, 2009
|
erpel
| | |
| Member | posts 5 | |
|
|
Page 146, Example 1 (nitpickery in the extreme)
"Calling 3-bets from solid players with small pocket pairs
can be a major spew"
While I applaud the many well executed attempts to make use of current slang, I think the usage of spew I have more commonly encountered states: "This is major spew" – with no "a" to give spew the full noun treatment.
I'm not going to pretend the form is grammatically sound, but I think removing the "a" will make it more true to current slang and seem more natural to forum hardened readers.
Page 141:
Also like a previous poster I think bullet point 1 and 5 under "If your opponent 3-bets light frequently are so close to being identical that it's tempting to suspect an editing error. The only difference is that bullet point 1 includes "against a savvy opponent" and "You do not necessarily need a strong hand to 4-bet, however, just one that has some showdown equity."
|
|
|
9:01 am
June 22, 2009
|
Greyzy
| | Germany | |
| Member | posts 19 | |
|
|
erpel said:
Page 146, Example 1 (nitpickery in the extreme)
“Calling 3-bets from solid players with small pocket pairs
can be a major spew”
To nitpick even more: "CAN" it be (a) spew or "IS" it?
Well, that's actually a real question to the authors: Do you regard this as a general mistake or not?
My lawyer would answer: it "CAN" be, since almost anything a person does "CAN" be a mistake (at least in hindsight…  ).
Thanks for clearing that up!
Greyzy
|
|
|
11:21 am
June 22, 2009
|
Ed Miller
| | |
| Admin
| posts 112 | |
|
|
Larrondo said:
P. 48, same footnote. “You are now raising an extra 50 percent of the time” is misleading. It makes it sound like you are raising fifty percent more than you had been (when in fact you are raising 167% more, or something.) It should be “you are now raising 50 percent more of the total possible hands,” or “you are now raising almost 3 times more often.”
I showed this to a professional editor who happens to be sitting next to me, just to make sure I wasn't being thick. She said, “this is all too big to be in a footnote. It's important stuff. It should be in the main paragraph.”Of course, she brings an strict, English-headmaster-with-a-paddle degree of fussiness to the discussion, so take it for what it's worth.
BTW– I feel the book is very clearly and elegantly written so far. And it's nice to read a poker book that has a measure of style and wit. “…they blunder through the postflop streets looking for boneheaded and amusing ways to squander their buy-ins.” Very funny.
Hi Larrondo,
Thanks for the general style praise. It was one of the perks of not working with 2+2 to be able to add a little levity to the book.
If your editor friend is still there, ask her if she thinks a sidebar would be more appropriate than a footnote. IMO the discussion in that footnote is probably too involved to be in a footnote, but is too mathy and tangential to be in the main text. So maybe a sidebar would be a better solution.
|
|
|
7:04 am
June 23, 2009
|
ErikTheDread
| | Minneapolis | |
| Member | posts 18 | |
|
|
There are indenting glitches on pages 138, 140, and 142 in the Basic Outline For An Open/3-Bet/4-Bet/5-Bet Strategy section where "If your opponent…" conditions are followed by bullet points.
On page 138, what's shown as the third bullet point ("If your opponent tends to call your opening raise and call bets frequently with weak hands all the way to showdown:") shouldn't be a bullet point, it's one of the conditions that shouldn't be indented.
On page 140, "Same as above. Fold. Your opponent is entitled to work…" should be an indented bullet point.
On page 142, the "Consider 4-bet shoving as an alternative…" paragraph should be an indented bullet point.
|
|
|
8:51 am
June 23, 2009
|
Greyzy
| | Germany | |
| Member | posts 19 | |
|
|
Ed Miller said:
So maybe a sidebar would be a better solution.
Ed,
my 2 cents regarding the layout:
- A sidebar would be great, but I'd prefer it for bits of wisdom that should stick to the reader's mind, but aren't a full concept or rule yet (i.e. like on pg. 63 when you explain the river betting, but turn and flop are yet to be explained to give the full generic strategy). Basically all the stuff that the reader would underline or highlight with a marker so that you see the key infos right away when you flip through the book.
- The layout for the "rules" (i.e. pg. 66) is awful IMHO. Instead of using a bigger font I'd prefer keeping the regular font, but putting the words in a (shaded) box. (In this special example the generic rule you refer to is not even "highlighted" (printed in a stand-alone way), but the advice not to deviate from it is…)
- Personally I don't have a problem with the footnotes, but that's just me.
- The 4 color deck is cool!
Great book in any case!!!
Greyzy
|
|
|
8:50 pm
June 23, 2009
|
Syck Wyck
| | |
| Member | posts 5 | |
|
|
Ok, you said to be nit-picky. So near the top of page 152 (154 of pdf), second paragraph (example 1 of Isolation in Practice):
"Once again, you should stay on the attack. A two-thirds-pot or full
pot-sized bet will take the it down often."
This sounds like a cross between 'take it down' and 'take the pot down.' Maybe it was intentional. It's kind of catchy. I'm gonna 'take the it down' alot more now!
|
|
|
|
|
1:31 am
June 24, 2009
|
Greyzy
| | Germany | |
| Member | posts 19 | |
|
|
Syck Wyck said:
I'm gonna 'take the it down' alot more now!
Have you never heard of the IT girl Paris Hilton??? 
Enjoy taking her down alot more now… 
Greyzy
|
|
|
7:46 am
June 25, 2009
|
ErikTheDread
| | Minneapolis | |
| Member | posts 18 | |
|
|
Post edited 3:30 pm – June 25, 2009 by ErikTheDread
From page 162 (164 of the PDF document):
“Here you have top overcards plus a backdoor straight draw and backdoor nut flush draw.”
Granted that your AKo are the “top” overcards but “two” would seem to be more fitting. And if “top” is intended, why not say “the top two”?
|
|
Login
Search 
Home
Print this Post 
Add a New Topic
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Topic RSS 
