New Book Announcement

I'm just reporting what I've observed. That doesn't mean I have a problem with him at all. I've never had a positive or negative interaction with him and have nothing against him.

I'm not gonna treat him any differently than any other player at the table just because I've read a book of his. Surely you're not suggesting I go around to different players and tell them what I think of their games what they are doing wrong etc.

If he does play bomb pots I've never seen it. He's sat out every single time we did one.

I get you're trying to sell a book with him. You've mentioned before these books don't make a ton of money so it's more of a passion project for you which I respect. But I don't think it's unreasonable for me (or anyone else) who has played with him (or you ) recently to report what they've observed.

Anyway people can consider my opinion on this,ignore it ,think I'm a moron etc. I won't comment on David again in this thread as I've made my point.

Same measurements doesn't mean the game is the same. A basketball team playing like a team from 30 years ago would get destroyed today with the way the 3 point line is used.

A deck still has 52 cards. Flushes still beat straights. But the game has changed a ton in and if someone hasn't changed how they played from 20-30 years ago they aren't winning today.
What printed money in 2005 bleeds money in 2025.

I was reading from the Reuben/Ciaffone NL/PL book a couple of days ago after I learned in NVG that Reuben passed away earlier this year. In a hand quiz, they raise AJs UTG and get 3 bet and say continuing would be insane.

Yeah, the game has changed.

Opponent dependent no? If it’s a nit who you know is only 3-betting AQs+, QQ+, then yeah you’re in a world of hurt.

of course, but 25 years ago, it was only those hands, pretty much ever.

I wasn't playing bomb pots on dealer changes because their results swamp game results and would screw up my research. Actually, I love bomb pots because they are very mathematical and they entice live ones.

As to how the game has changed, logic hasn't changed. And since most of our stuff is of the If...Then variety it means that jf we got the logic right the conclusion is as right as it ever was. And I have no reason to believe that age has caught up with us when we show the best way to play against someone who plays like our initial assumption about them.

This whole exchange says to me that your skin is way too thin if criticism like this is going to bother you to the extent that it inspires you to make posts like the one quoted above.

I will write and address all the concepts & scenarios before then and therefore make your book title factually incorrect. DUCY?

I believe Mason has posted more than once about bomb pots, saying they are ripe for collusion, or similar.

But DS "loves" bomb pots so I read. Therefore I am now confused.

I personally don't play them because I hate that they swamp my results. It's not logical to give up an edge, I know, but I just don't like them.

Book was first published in 1997; Ciaffone writes that NLHE was his “bread & butter” when he was living in Dallas which iirc was in the ‘80s—he finished 3rd to Chan in ‘87 and wrote “I have played a lot of poker with John” regarding a key hand.

In the example hand, game is 5-10-25, H calls utg with AsJs, V next to act makes it 100, folds to H, no other info given. Let’s say it’s 9-handed, eff stack 5K.

Texas in the ‘80s it might’ve been 7-handed with 10K effective.

Mason, what are your thoughts on splash pots e.g. house splashes $50 after every score during SNF?

David, did you play in the the PLO DBBP event at the WSOP this year?

My only thought is that instead of doing stuff like this I would prefer a lower rake. Clearly this introduces more luck into the game and I'm not sure if that's in the best interest of the poker room.

Probably not what you wanted to hear.

I looked on Amazon, and your recent Small Stakes No Limit Holdem or whatever is currently ranked 878K in sales. By contrast Modern Poker Theory is ranked 22K. Classics like Brunson's Super System are 38K, Sklansky's Theory of Poker 44K, and Caro's Book of Tells 83K.

The sample is not impressive. Usually, players look at ranges, not how certain hands play against certain other hands calling a short stack push in a tournament.

The Small Stakes book had suggestion that are generally considered bad, like open limping Qxs in early position. The questionable content detracts from the good ideas in that book. It would be better to have players review the material before publishing it.

Also, 2+2 has been very successful publishing excellent books and editing and formatting them well. I think you would be better off doing that with other authors.

I’m always going for the lower rake, man!

I don't agree. Splash pots and high hand jackpots make the game more fun. Sure maybe most regs would prefer lower rake, but the promotions attract players.

I don't understand the sample at all. You obviously have no control over what type of hand you are up against going allin preflop in a tournament. Sure, you would prefer to have your opponent's hand dominated, but you have no way of knowing if he has an ace, high cards, or a pp.

The book was designed for games that feature several bad players and sometimes they are very bad. These games are usually, and often, found at the lowest stakes that the poker room offers. Against games with better players, things change.

From page 11:

This book should increase your profits because games with bad players present many opportunities to make plays that go against conventional wisdom, plays that are actually better in terms of expectation earned (in these games). And we’ll be describing these plays and when to use them. But we don’t mean to imply that most small stakes no-limit hold ’em players make a lot of bad mistakes. And when you’re in a pot against these better players, using some of the recommended plays in this book will not work as well as the recommendations from great players as to how to play against good players.

Good luck finding a game with multiple droolers to apply your ideas. You might as well write a book on how to mine precious stones in your backyard.

For this book I played a lot of $1-$3 no-limit at The Bellagio, and in that game it’s not uncommon to have tourists playing who don’t know what a blind is. Sorry to disappoint you.

I bet he is very sad now.... who reads books about the lowest stakes nowadays with all the info around in less dusty corners of the pokerworld ?

Show some Respect

When you post an excerpt that says nothing useful, why should anyone buy the book? You obviously didn't have anyone review the excerpt privately, because any decent player would have advised you against using that material or posting the excerpt.

The previous low stakes book had some good ideas, but really bizarre nonstandard advice. The said to maybe be the loosest player in a 1/3 game. It suggested limping Qxs and Axo in early position. It suggested open raising to 8 at 1/3, when raises to 12 usually get multiple callers. I don't need to explain why all that advice is considered bad.

It also gave some criteria for when it would be correct to make these unusual limps. I guess you forgot that part, or perhaps didn't read the book closely enough to understand what it actually said.

Most people think there is no table dynamics or make up where those hands are limps in early position. Anyone in the forums here would say to fold them facing 2-5 limps on the button. The usual approach is not to limp with junk thinking you have a skill advantage over the other limpers.

deuce, I didn't buy the book but based on what others said. I assume its a bad buy at all

I think the book isn't as terrible as you made it seem. however the biggest weakness of the book seemed to be the preflop section that people said was light and 3 pages. others said the book did have decent topics