| ||||||||||||||||||
Produktinformation
|
In 1988, the first edition of this text appeared. Many ideas, which were only known to a small select group of players were now made available to anyone who was striving to achieve expert status, and the hold 'em explosion had begun.
It is now a new century, and the authors have again moved the state of the art forward by adding over 100 pages of new material, including an extensive section on "loose games," and an extensive section on "short-handed games." Anyone who studies this text, is well disciplined, and gets the proper experience should become a significant winner. Some of the other ideas discussed in this 21st century edition include play on the first two cards, semi-bluffing, the free card, inducing bluffs, staying with a draw, playing when a pair flops, playing trash hands, desperation bets, playing in wild games, reading hands, psychology, and much more.
Tags, die Kunden mit diesem Produkt verbinden(Was ist das?)Klicken Sie zum Suchen verwandter Artikel, Diskussionen oder Personen auf ein Tag.
|
I am mainly writing this review to point out a very misleading error made in a very popular review on this page, "Suggested play is way too loose..." by gambolero@prodigy.com. In it, assuming I am not misinterpreting something, the reviewer says that you will make more flushes when holding AQ unsuited than AQ suited, and the implication is that Sklansky's book is inaccurate or not useful in the current game. I was very skeptical of this, and did the calculation myself (it's straigtforward, even though a little cumbersome). It's flat out WRONG. You are a steep 53:1 to make a flush with AQ unsuited (i.e., get exactly 4 cards of either the A's suit or the Q's suit on the board) and only 16.3:1 to make a flush with AQ suited (i.e., get exactly 3 more cards of the A&Q's suit). And perhaps more importantly, with AQ suited you are always making the NUT FLUSH, wheras if you make the Q flush with AQ unsuited and four Q-suited cards on the board, there is a very real danger that someone else is holding the A or K and you're beat anyway!
Just to provide you with some confidence in my computing ability, I have a masters degree in electrical engineering and spent the better part of 6 years dealing with problems in probability and random variables. I believe I am correct, and I don't want anyone to be steered away from buying a useful book because of gambolero's specious statement.
That said, it could be very true that hold-'em has changed enough at medium-to-high limit levels that specific details of Sklansky's book are no longer relevant. gambolero sounds more informed on this subject than i am, an I can't address it until I have the guts (and bankroll) to play in those games. But I think that, regardless, this book teaches you how to solve problems in poker: to analyze the games you sit in and to decide what to consider in the plays you make. That will never become irrelevant, and for that reason alone I can recommend this book.
|
Das Forum zu diesem Produkt
Fragen stellen, Meinungen austauschen, Einblicke gewinnen Aktive Diskussionen in ähnlichen Foren
Kundendiskussionen durchsuchen
|
Ähnliche Foren
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|