New Book Announcement
I'm putting this both here and on the Books and Publications Forum.
David Sklansky and I are working on a new book tentat
I've played a fair amount of $1-$3 no-limit hold 'em and see this play come up all the time, and in general many players at these stakes don't know how to handle it. So, even if it has no value for you, it should have value for at least some of the potential readers. By the way, at $2-$5, I virtually never see this play.
The excerpt which you posted for your new proposed book was on short stacked pushes in tournaments, not about 1/3 or 2/5. No one liked it at all. You need to post some decent excerpts that get a favorable comment.
The excerpt which you posted for your new proposed book was on short stacked pushes in tournaments, not about 1/3 or 2/5. No one liked it at all. You need to post some decent excerpts that get a favorable comment.
The first sentence says:
It’s much more common in a tournament than a cash game but the criteria to use to call a pre-flop move-in are very similar.
You often don't seem to comprehend what's written, and the bolding is mine.
Sorry, I have poor comprehension skills. Yes, at 1/3 / 1/2 there are sometimes short stack preflop pushes.
However, you still need to post a decent excerpt. Everyone thought that excerpt was awful.
I am surprised you do all the editing. You are probably fairly wealthy, and editors and proofreaders are relatively cheap.
Sorry, I have poor comprehension skills. Yes, at 1/3 / 1/2 there are sometimes short stack preflop pushes.
However, you still need to post a decent excerpt. Everyone thought that excerpt was awful.
You either have poor comprehension skills or you’re doing it deliberately. If it’s the latter, you need to get over it. And if it’s the former, I suspect your book needed a lot of editing.
I am surprised you do all the editing. You are probably fairly wealthy, and editors and proofreaders are relatively cheap.
If you look at the end of the introduction to our book Gambling for a Living (and you can see this on Amazon without buying the book) you’ll see a thank you to Paula Cizmar who was the editor, and a thank you to Donna Harris for helping me with proof reading plus some other stuff. But by the year 2000, or there about, I began to do it all myself.
And the reason for this should be obvious. My standards are very high, plus aspects of our books use mathematical language, and most English editors are weak in this area.
As mentioned, might have been good to pay a poker player to make comments on the manuscript.
Isn't it obvious from this thread that poker players are willing to stick their oar in for free so why would someone pay them for their opinions? They're not exactly reticent until you pay them.
I think criticism is fine and good. But surely there will be parts of this book that will suffice, or might even be great. That's something Sklansky has been known for especially.
I think criticism is fine and good. But surely there will be parts of this book that will suffice, or might even be great. That's something Sklansky has been known for especially.
Yeah, I don't know if I should reopen this. However, I got a lot out of the low stakes book. There were ideas like it is OK to limp behind or maybe open limp and that you prefer to play some hands multiway. The limp behind with KK expecting a raise and multiple callers was probably a good play with reads. Bet/folding a small flush is probably good at low stakes where they will call with 2 pair and not bluff with the bare ace and nut flush draw much.
The problem is some of it was bizarre as stated. Maybe you can limp behind wide in CO or BTN with position and it not being raised much, maybe with Kxs, 75s, or A9o. But open limping Qxs, Axo etc. in ep is just awful. Also, there are some hands you might prefer multiway. However, with JJ/AK, etc. everyone thinks it is better to raise enough to maybe thin the field as well as build the pot more.
Then if you showed this excerpts to anyone privately, that person would have told you not to post it. It would be better if you got more feedback privately before posting or publishing. Also, better to be more aware of what other books, videos, forum posts, etc. are saying.
Yeah, I don't know if I should reopen this. However, I got a lot out of the low stakes book. There were ideas like it is OK to limp behind or maybe open limp and that you prefer to play some hands multiway. The limp behind with KK expecting a raise and multiple callers was probably a good play with reads. Bet/folding a small flush is probably good at low stakes where they will
Sounds like you're looking for a job.
One thing that absolutely needs to be done in this new book—and retroactively done in at least the Kindle edition of SSNLHE—is the elimination of shouting at clouds over algebraic chess notation & the designated hitter:
Spoiler
I could have made some comments on how to greatly improve the small stakes NL book. However, I wouldn't want to work with you all and wouldn't be the best qualified person to do that. It is just your material has potential, but you need younger players to look it over before posting or publishing it. If you had 3 people comment on that book, they probably all would have mentioned some of the questionable preflop advice.
#1 N VIP
im sure all 6 of ur accounts will buy a copy and keep bumping this dead thread up well done
One thing that absolutely needs to be done in this new book-and retroactively done in at least the Kindle edition of SSNLHE-is the elimination of shouting at clouds over algebraic chess notation & the designated hitter:
Spoiler
One fun fact about that book, which most won't care about anymore because few people other than me still play limit holdem....
Nick Grudzien didn't write it. He gave it to his buddy Geoff Herzog to ghostwrite. Grudzien was doing too well at the time between his poker play and his affiliate business, so he didn't want to put his nose to the grind and hammer out a limit holdem book. He gave a rough outline to his friend Geoff to write, then read each chapter and edited anything he didn't like, and voila -- Nick "co-wrote" the book.
The reason it wasn't just Geoff's book in the first place was because Geoff was a nobody, while Nick was a known winner in limit holdem.
How do I know about this?
They got drunk/buzzed at a party at Palms which I attended, and Nick walked up to me and introduced Geoff. I asked them the real story on the book, and Nick said, "It was him... it was all him. Well, I mean, it wasn't ALL him, but it was mostly him, and I kinda supervised it." Geoff made some joke about how Nick always takes all the credit for everything. I asked a few more questions without being too intrusive, then we changed the subject.
I don't remember if I ever posted this before, and it's pretty damn irrelevant at this point, but seeing that little excerpt made me recall that interaction.
Grudzien eventually left poker in disgrace when he was outed for multiaccounting and colluding on Pokerstars, so that pretty much did away with his rep. He should've stayed around, as it seems like everyone nowadays just bounces right back from whatever scandal occurs, unless it's gigantic.
Totally common in other fields for a big name to have someone ghostwrite a book for them. Writing the outline and revising the draft is being involved in writing it.
I don't understand why someone would quit poker because he was caught cheating. It isn't like you are banned from most cardrooms or online sites.
To clarify in terms of the book, you post an excerpt which basically says nothing. I thought the ideas in the low stakes NLHE book about it being OK sometimes to limp or limp behind and you don't need to raise huge and fold out all the junky hands preflop were good or at least reasonable points.
When you present them as limp Qxs, etc. UTG and raise to 8 at 1/3, those are considered donk plays and you don't indicate they are considered donk plays or explain why they are really good when everyone considers them donk plays.
Then suggesting you should be the loosest player at the table limping into everything hoping for an advantage postflop. Again, this appears to be donk play. There are lots of fish playing almost every hand, and you don't make a convincing argument that it is good.
So the good points you are making get lost, and most people assume these are two out of touch old guys writing really bizarre material and not many people buy the book.
Here's a long title: "NLHE by Two Old Guys, One of Whom Used to Have Brilliant Insights"
Here's a long title: "NLHE by Two Old Guys, One of Whom Used to Have Brilliant Insights"
We'll consider that. especially since you know so much about what we know and don't know.
By the way, how about the title: No-Limit Hold ’em: Important Topics Not Normally Addressed.
This can be abbreviated as NIT, which I'm sure you'll approve of.
First of all, a lot of our book titles, such as Poker Essays and Getting the Best of It are short.
https://www.amazon.com/Poker-Essays-Both...
https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Best-Davi...
But the reason for the occasional long title, especially if a sub-title is used, such as Cardrooms: Everything Bad and How to Make Them Better: An Analysis of Those Areas Where Poker Rooms Need Improvement is to help the potential reader to understand exactly what the book is about.
Nick Grudzien didn't write it. He gave it to his buddy Geoff Herzog to ghostwrite. Grudzien was doing too well at the time between his poker play and his affiliate business, so he didn't want to put his nose to the grind and hammer out a limit holdem book. He gave a rough outline to his friend Geoff to write, then read each chapter and edited anything he didn't like, and voi
This is just stupid. Lots of books are written this way where most of the actually writing of the words is done by one of the authors but the ideas that the book contains comes from both of the authors.
One section of the book is "Part Six: Hands with Stox." Are you saying that Geoff Herzog made these hands up and that Nick Grudizien (Stox) only looked them over. If that's the case, you're more foolish than I thought since you would have no way of knowing this.
By the way, our initial contract with this book had a specific royalty rate (which I won't mention because I think that's private information). But after receiving the final manuscript, I thought the book was so good that I raised the royalty rate, and this was something I didn't have to do since a signed contract was already in place.
Mason, will you finally join the rest of the poker book buying/website reading world, and adopt the lojack hijack cutoff nomenclature? It took me awhile but trust me it’s worth it.
From the History book, the Ali-Foreman fight was held on October 30, 1974–originally scheduled for September 24 but was postponed after Foreman was cut while sparring; Ali struck a huge psychological blow by loudly demanding Foreman not be allowed to “sneak out of the country”, and spent the delay rallying the natives to his side while Foreman holed up—not May 20.
The fight was HELD at 20th of May Stadium, which might’ve caused the confusion when the essay was first published over thirty years ago.
Lee is the GOAT poker player if not human being when it came to constructing & conveying a lasting image. What’s the poker equivalent to Lincoln not letting Grant & Sherman finish the job?
Mason, will you finally join the rest of the poker book buying/website reading world, and adopt the lojack hijack cutoff nomenclature It took me awhile but trust me it's worth it.
I don't think so. It seems to me that saying "two off the button" is more informative than "hijack."
From the History book, the Ali-Foreman fight was held on October 30, 1974-originally scheduled for September 24 but was postponed after Foreman was cut while sparring; Ali struck a huge psychological blow by loudly demanding Foreman not be allowed to "sneak out of the country", and spent the delay rallying the natives to his side while Foreman holed up-not May 20.
Ali did a number of things that may have helped in from a psychological perspective. But that wasn't the focus of the chapter.
The fight was HELD at 20th of May Stadium, which might've caused the confusion when the essay was first published over thirty years ago.
Okay.
Lee is the GOAT poker player if not human being when it came to constructing & conveying a lasting image.
I think a lot of the promoting of Lee was done after his death.
What's the poker equivalent to Lincoln not letting Grant & Sherman finish the job
This confuses me since all the Southern armies surrendered, and that implies to me that the job was finished. What exactly do you mean?
First, if you're going to release a book on NLH, you have to decide upon the audience. If it's beginners, you keep the advice fairly basic
To be fair, early 2+2 books have this problem also. Like in Theory of Poker right off they bat there is the Fundamental Theorem of Poker and call outs to the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra and Calculus..... but who is this for? If it's your typical poker player with no math background referencing theorems they don't know anything about adds nothing and might turn them off from continuing. If it's for the more mathematically inclined, they will know it makes no sense to call a naked, intuitive assertion that you don't prove a theorem. Why not say postulate, axiom or law? Or maybe better yet, just get rid of this unnecessary mathematical puffery in a book targeted to poker players at various skill levels that is not going to be very mathematical?
