My problem with the post, apart form the typo's as usual, was the blatant "borrowing" of bluff and equity analysis from any 2+2 book that everyone here shoudl have already read and understood and the fact that he switchs between proclaiming players should play small ball poker to keep pot-size controlled with small holdings and tha players should raise liberally and aren't willing to bluff anywhere near enough.

It is an inconsistency there, in the terms he uses...there is no denying that bluffing has a place in everyones arsenal and can fit in with either small-ball or big-pot poker styles but you can't advocate playing one style for everything but one facet of your game.

If he is trying to help players then be consistent and make your words and examples fit that consistency, don't not do it just because it is hard to do.

Pretty much everything I have seen from Shake has seemed to be designed to filter at least a small amount of misinformation into players game and if the credentials he gave in his "hi, new to ftr" post are to believed then it seems hard to believe that this misinformation isn't a litle intentional....or he is just reguritating Sklansky facts in his own words without really understanding them.

Guess it comes do to if you believe the old saying of "Don't prescribe to malice that which can be explained by incompentence"