I enjoy it. I’ve read a few books that I heard about on there, but they also tend to talk about news and trends in the publishing industry, which is kind of interesting. As you’d expect, they’re pretty snooty towards the folks who top the bestseller lists (Grisham, King, etc.).

Is that any good? I’d like to add some more podcasts to my workout playlists.

Heh, I don’t actually read the NYT book review, but I do listen to their weekly podcast!

But how would we know he’s smarter than us if he didn’t use “prolix” and mention Horkheimer in the same post?

Perhaps you should not spend so much time on arcane words like “prolix” and revisit the definition of “approve”. There didn’t need to be explicit irony in the usage since it was a simple (and funny) random gag.

You need to spend more time reading New York Times book reviews.

On second thought, maybe not.

I’m also for keeping position and isolation distinct. If you want the list to apply to any type of poker and not just NLHE, then I think you definitely have to put position-improvement bets/raises in their own category.

There’s going to be a lot of overlap. Don’t make yourself crazy.

I didn’t read the post, I was just responding to someone’s comment. Now that I have read it, I don’t detect any irony in your usage, but whatev. Was Horkheimer too unwieldy?

Oh yes certainly they are distinct as written. I’m just wondering whether they ought to be written that way- if they aren’t actually the same thing: improving your implied odds by folding out competition. So this would be counting not the immediate equity that you gain in the pot (that’s bluffing and protection) but rather the implied equity that you gain by improving your position and/or isolating a weak player.

I think your addition might fit the “pot sweetening” category. At least it is some combination of value betting, setting up a multi-barrel bluff, and pot sweetening.

I’m afraid I wasn’t smart enough not to have to google “prolix”. I hoped it was obvious that “misunderestimate” was deliberate.

If a fish limps MP and we raise OTB, we are isolating the pot heads up with this opponent. We have the BTN, so we are not forcing out players who have position on us.

This is ‘isolation’ not ‘position’

To earn rakeback/become a SuperNova Elite/earn Truly Free Poker training points/increase one’s fame (i.e., to earn value off the game not in the game).

I agree that Secrecy is just a subset of Image. You don’t want people to know what cards you just played that way only because you don’t want that image.

> Likewise I’m starting to wonder if Isolation isn’t too similar to position. In both cases you are trying to increase your implied odds on future streets by preventing other players from getting in your way. Does anyone else see what I’m getting at there?

They’re similar, but you may want to isolate against a weaker player with or without position. (Against a too-tight player, you may even be totally happy to be out of position so you can bluff him out before he’s committed more chips.)

The list looks very good now, although arranging them into related or connected categories (e.g., Bluffing with Barreling) would help.