Log-in members only
MALMUTH and SKLANSKY... stop "big bet" hatingThis is a discussion thread · 65 replies Mack Truck: I recently purchased Poker Essays by Mason Malmuth, and all in all its a real good book. I like how all the essays are short and get right to the point, because of this its easy to read and put down without having to go back and recount you steps. But it seems to me after reading half a dozen or so Malmuth and Sklansky books that all of their literature although helpful seems to be riddled with anit-NO LIMIT propaganda. In addition, even though their tournament advice seems to be helpful, they cant seem to help themselves from letting their readers know how horribly most tournament pros play. Now Im not saying I agree or disagree, Im just curious to why their teaching agenda always seems to include big bet bashing. DOES IT REALLY MATTER?-mack ps. Some funny quotes from the book to prove my point. (written in the early 90s, and recopy righted in the late 90s) it appears to the uneducated eye that tournaments are the wave of the future. I suspect that as the years go by there will be fewer and fewer major tournaments the great poker tournament boom is, past its peak. Its not easy to figure out what the best limit strategy is, while in no-limit holdem, its much more obvious. Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Linda K Sherman: [nq:1]I recently purchased Poker Essays by Mason Malmuth, and all in all its a real good book. I like how ... disagree, Im just curious to why their teaching agenda always seems to include big bet bashing. DOES IT REALLY MATTER?[/nq]Status is very important to David and Mason. Lin
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Paul Phillips: [nq:1]But it seems to me after reading half a dozen or so Malmuth and Sklansky books that all of their literature although helpful seems to be riddled with anit-NO LIMIT propaganda.[/nq]You are dead-on. I suspect this is more Mason's influence than David's, but their examples of how no-limit is much easier to play well than limit are specious. Mason makes it sound like just because you can move all-in when you flop top pair and shut out the draws, that it's an easy game. Try that strategy and see how far it gets you. There are definitely aspects in which limit is a more interesting and challenging game than no-limit, but the reverse is equally true, and no-limit is vastly more demanding and unforgiving in the area of reading other players. That's part of poker too. [nq:1]Now Im not saying I agree or disagree, Im just curious to why their teaching agenda always seems to include big bet bashing. DOES IT REALLY MATTER?[/nq] I think they partly oppose no-limit because limit poker drives their book sales, and limit poker also moves money around less quickly and thus keeps more people in action for longer (also presumably driving book sales.) Plus, they just understand limit better, and we mock what we cannot understand. [nq:1] it appears to the uneducated eye that tournaments are the wave of the future. I suspect that as the years go by there will be fewer and fewer major tournaments the great poker tournament boom is, past its peak.[/nq] Heh, that does appear less than prophetic. (Incidentally, after I won at the bellagio, Mason sought me out and we finally had a conversation. He was about as reasonable as could be expected given some of the things I've written about him, so I'll stop taking gratuitous shots at him. This post, however, is not gratuitous. I'm convinced S&M have an undeniable anti-no-limit bias that is worthy of comment.) Paul Phillips > The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly Future Perfect > the way a bowling ball wouldn't. Empiricist > up hill, pi pals! > * http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
beanie: There are many people who would love it if mathematical probability were all it took to play poker well.[nq:1]I recently purchased Poker Essays by Mason Malmuth, and all in all its a real good book. I like how ... from the book to prove my point. (written in the early 90s, and recopy righted in the late 90s) [/nq] Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
John Harkness: [nq:2]But it seems to me after reading half a dozen ... although helpful seems to be riddled with anit-NO LIMIT propaganda.[/nq][nq:1]You are dead-on. I suspect this is more Mason's influence than David's, but their examples of how no-limit is much ... and no-limit is vastly more demanding and unforgiving in the area of reading other players. That's part of poker too.[/nq] Well, if you've ever read any of Sklansky or Malmuth's posts to r.g.p., you know that they both have terrific people skills. That was sarcasm, in case anyone was wondering. John Harkness
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
TD Lowball: [nq:2]But it seems to me after reading half a dozen ... although helpful seems to be riddled with anit-NO LIMIT propaganda.[/nq][nq:1]You are dead-on. I suspect this is more Mason's influence than David's, I think they partly oppose no-limit because limit poker drives their book sales[/nq] I actully think it has to do with Mason being unable to play no limit well. In the first edition of Mason's first book "Winning Concepts" there is a chapter on how to play "No Limit lowball as it is played in Bicycle Club in Gardena CA." This chapter was removed from the second edition. The NL Lowball advice in the first edition is horrible, anyone who played like that would go broke quickly, it's obvious that Mason didn't play NL lowball at all regularly. Mason gives a example of Making a big raise before the draw with a good 2 card draw, as a semibluff. If you are called, he reasons, you have the 2 card draw as an escape hatch. Mason seems to forget, that those times in which you are called, you are screwed, either the person is pat (and you case are anywhere from 6-1 or worse the underdog), or they are drawing in which case you are 2-1 or more the under dog, or they are pat with real monster, and they raise you back. Either way, you should expect a really big bet after the draw, especially if the person is drawing 1 card, and with a 2 card draw you are very unlikely to be able to call it. TD Lowball Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Diane from Green Bay: [nq:1]There are many people who would love it if mathematical probability were all it took to play poker well.[/nq]Thank goodness poker success is not predicated solely on math skills. I would be in deep trouble. Reading people has certainly served me better than my sub-par math skills at the tables. Diane
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Robert W. Rooney: Not only that, but I think "the System" is an attempt to spite all the NL tourney pros. If enough people take this "all-in, all the time" approach, it would greatly increase the luck factor and decrease the skill element in NL tournaments.While not being a very good strategy for an individual (you tend to win small pots or get called by excellent hands which will eventually bust you), if a large percentage of tourney entrants took this approach, you might as well be playing bingo. [nq:1]I recently purchased Poker Essays by Mason Malmuth, and all in all its a real good book. I like how ... from the book to prove my point. (written in the early 90s, and recopy righted in the late 90s) [/nq] Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
North Shore Mike: [nq:1]Well, if you've ever read any of Sklansky or Malmuth's posts to r.g.p., you know that they both have terrific people skills. That was sarcasm, in case anyone was wondering.[/nq]Sarcastic? YOU? ADB North Shore Mike A++ G++ PKR+ !PEG++ B++ TB ADB+ M http://www3.telus.net/northshoremike/northshoremike Photos, trip reports, quotes, and other lame crap. Last updated about 12 years ago. First time I lose, I drink whiskey Second time I lose, I drink gin Third time I lose, I drink anything 'Cause I think I'm gonna win - Gram Parsons, "Ooh, Las Vegas" ** Take out the trash in my e-mail address before replying. Spambot bait: abuse@localhost postmaster@localhost **
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Iceman: [nq:1]Not only that, but I think "the System" is an attempt to spite all the NL tourney pros. If enough ... eventually bust you), if a large percentage of tourney entrants took this approach, you might as well be playing bingo.[/nq]While better than nothing for a complete beginner or someone outclassed by the field, it's far inferior to actually being able to play NL, and now that people are aware of the System it will be much less likely to succeed. The System's success depends on people playing too tight when the System player is in the pot. Now that people are aware of the System, they'll call a System player more often than if they instead saw the System player as a player who folds all the time and suddenly just made a huge all-in raise. Very few people would pay thousands (or even hundreds) of dollars to enter a tournament and then play the System. Even if there were large numbers of System players entering NL tournaments (and I don't think there would be), they would basically all be at a disadvantage to the better players in the field. It would make NL a much less interesting, less strategically complex game, but it wouldn't eliminate an expert's advantage. To counter the System, you just have to be fairly loose in calling the System player's all-in bets.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Show more
| Have a question? People are waiting to help. Interesting stuff |
All RSS Feeds