Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

I've heard that Brian Townsend don't think highly of the book, why is that exactly? It's one of my favorite books and I respect Townsend a alot.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

Ask him. My guess is he finds it irrelevant to his game.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard that Brian Townsend don't think highly of the book, why is that exactly? It's one of my favorite books and I respect Townsend a alot.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's a mess ... the first 100 or so pages on theory are fine, but then it dissolves into an utter mess, when he starts to talk about the practice.

The order of the examples are a bit random and the examples themselves are incomplete .. The reads on the villians is in the examples are either "good", "tough" or "weak" and sometimes there are no reads.

Like you get advice to always fold a hand in a certain situation in vacuum.

Then there is the total ignoring of the mechanism that is raise pf then cbet ... apply pressure and live of the blinds especially if table is nitty (not the same as bad)

And also the wierd wish to limp on the btn if blinds are weak, most prefer to play raised pots in position with weak players.


Etc ...


This is some of the things I noticed rereading it a month ago ... the thing is, that it is not a bad book (just poorly written), if you actually know how to play and are able to fill in the blanks and what table conditions need to be in order for this or that to be correct. But I pity the noob who has to wrestle with it first time around.

I feel this is a book for new to intermiediate players, but the language and organization is such, that it caters very poorly to that player type. On the other hand, the established ssnl+ 2+2'er finds it to shallow.

In it's defence, it is rumoured to have been written for live games (1-2, 2-5 and 5-10) which usually play different (softer) than online games


PNL on the other hand show very great promise ... the first book being fairly simple tho as it should be for starters, but great promise, two thumbs up to Mason for signing on Matt and Sunny !!!


PS. Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of Sklanskys work especially TOP and 7CSFAP, but this one is imho a near miss [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

Have you read "Dominate...", Gelford? Just curious to know what you thought of it.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Have you read "Dominate...", Gelford? Just curious to know what you thought of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No ... I haven't, so I have nothing else on that, than the reviews and 2+2 threads, but I'm guessing you've read those as well [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

I am also among the several hater of this book.

Gelford touches on many of my concerns. I bought it when it first came out. I noticed many bad habits in players that I did not see in them before, and it was because of this book.

Many of the concepts are common sense, but then they are twisted on their heads and analyzed to death. Many of these conclusions are not correct in many situations.

The most glaring, obvious one being to shove all in on the river with the nuts.

I gave my book away. I didn't find a use for it, as I have developed a style that would be broken if I was to take many of the suggestions. I think that many of the higher limit players, and 2+2r's don't like if for this reason.

If a new player was to use this book, his strategy would be highly exploitable. Although many basics are correct, the player would need a ton of coaching. The most exploitable being the "balancing" concepts, as they open you up to making many more decisions than you would have to make if you were playing more straightforward.

I personally think that it is better to find your basics at Limit then learn No Limit. This transition would actually speed up the learning process, and forget about the No Limit books that are available (I haven't read the new crop).

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the concepts are common sense, but then they are twisted on their heads and analyzed to death. Many of these conclusions are not correct in many situations.

The most glaring, obvious one being to shove all in on the river with the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you remember more examples? Why is it so bad to shove with the nuts on the river?

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't find a use for it, as I have developed a style that would be broken if I was to take many of the suggestions. I think that many of the higher limit players, and 2+2r's don't like if for this reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this because the players are conservative or can you give some examples of how the book suggest something that seems awkward to incorporate into their game?

[ QUOTE ]
If a new player was to use this book, his strategy would be highly exploitable. Although many basics are correct, the player would need a ton of coaching. The most exploitable being the "balancing" concepts, as they open you up to making many more decisions than you would have to make if you were playing more straightforward.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you come with some examples of if a new players plays according to the concepts of the books, how he is exploitable?

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many of these conclusions are not correct in many situations.

The most glaring, obvious one being to shove all in on the river with the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you value bet, your expectation is:

P(You are Called) x (Amount you Bet).

So if you think there is a good chance you will be looked up with a big bet, your expectation is often higher betting big for value. The intuitive belief is often the opposite, namely that value betting is a "milking" process where you bet small to assure gain from a big hand. Keeping the above formula in mind will certainly benefit your value bets, and I think it was an excellent point made in the book.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So if you think there is a good chance you will be looked up with a big bet, your expectation is often higher betting big for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that you don't even need a "good chance". Using the formula, you only need a relatively small chance of being called to make the play more profitable than milking a small bet.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

I think the problem with the book is that most of the concepts apply to games where players have very big stacks. This is almost never applicable to online poker, especially SS.

For the same reason I think that shoving all in on the river with the nuts is definitely the right strategy online

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
When you value bet, your expectation is:

P(You are Called) x (Amount you Bet).

So if you think there is a good chance you will be looked up with a big bet, your expectation is often higher betting big for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the "intuitive" belief is often to milk the hand, the problem I have with the book is that essentially everything in the book breaks down to what you wrote above.

The "theory" of NL poker boils down to "do that which results in the highest EV".

Thank you very much, I think I already knew that. Granted, sometimes we milk, but it's not because we don't understand EV, it's because we might misjudge how much our opponents would call and how often. The book does not help very much at all with the judging part.

Compare your book with NLHTAP Collin, and you'll see the difference. Your book shows how to play, TAP doesn't. Some have criticized a couple examples in your book as showing the right decision without the correct reason being given. I don't know about that but overall I can read SNG and come away knowing how to play the game fairly well. The same can't be said for TAP.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many of these conclusions are not correct in many situations.

The most glaring, obvious one being to shove all in on the river with the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you value bet, your expectation is:

P(You are Called) x (Amount you Bet).

So if you think there is a good chance you will be looked up with a big bet, your expectation is often higher betting big for value. The intuitive belief is often the opposite, namely that value betting is a "milking" process where you bet small to assure gain from a big hand. Keeping the above formula in mind will certainly benefit your value bets, and I think it was an excellent point made in the book.

[/ QUOTE ]


That wasn't the point at all. The point made was that sometimes betting big has higher EV than betting small even if the chance the big bet gets called is very small.

Example:

Betting 10,000 and getting called 20% of the time has an expectation of 2,000 and is better than betting 2,000 and and getting called 80% of the time because that only has an expectation of 1,600.

The problem I have with that theory is you then have to make big bluffs or semibluffs as well or the big bets will never get paid except against brain dead opponents.

If you make reasonable sized value bets on the river (1/2 pot to full pot) then you can also make bluffs of that size.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]


The "theory" of NL poker boils down to "do that which results in the highest EV".

Thank you very much, I think I already knew that. Granted, sometimes we milk, but it's not because we don't understand EV, it's because we might misjudge how much our opponents would call and how often. The book does not help very much at all with the judging part.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff, this is spot on.

At this point the cookbook haterz will make accusations of needing to be spoon fed recipes rather than thinking through things for ourselves. But anyone reading NLTAP is going to have a hard time making +EV decisions without some cookbook help or context with the judging part.

The other big problem with the book is that it takes too long discussing those things that can be most easily reduced to math calcs (eg shoving the nuts), and ignores more common real money making stuff that can't be so easily modelled.

In other words the book ignores the NL forest, but provides good analytic discussion of some of the lesser known trees...

And of course, the book has no structure whatsoever.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

The reason i really like the book is because it explains the theory behind the game. It doesn't tell you what to do but it tells you how to think so you can figure out what to do.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason i really like the book is because it explains the theory behind the game. It doesn't tell you what to do but it tells you how to think so you can figure out what to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trouble is, it does try to tell you what to do .... that is where it falls apart [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (and besides some of the theory is dead wrong, like claiming that blindstealing (or actually just stealing) is not a reason to raise from the BTN)

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Trouble is, it does try to tell you what to do .... that is where it falls apart (and besides some of the theory is dead wrong, like claiming that blindstealing (or actually just stealing) is not a reason to raise from the BTN)

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had the book with me at the moment but would be shocked if it says that blind stealing in NL is never a reason to raise from the button. As I recall Sklansky mentions that in most cases is is not a reason to raise and explains some situations in which one might want to raise to steal blinds(which is true in a full ring game).

Correct me if I'm wrong plz. The book is at home and I haven't read it in a few months.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

You know with two 'weak' players in the blinds, if you look down on J9s, then you should prefer to just limp on the btn, in order to give the blinds the chance to make expensive postflop mistakes

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

The book feels like it started out as a pure theory book, but then Sklansky either ran out of things to say, or lost faith in that approach, and the compromise is a bunch of random concepts in practice tagged on at the end. This ends up pleasing neither those who want a pure theory book, nor those who want more help making +EV decisions in practice, since both sections fall short.

And it's annoying there is so much left unsaid even from the perspective of pure nl theory. I'd love to hear DS on for instance the theoretical trade-off between planning hands hands around commitment versus stealing, but the lack of any meaningful SPR discussion just suggests he didn't really play much (or enough) NL before writing the book.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You know with two 'weak' players in the blinds, if you look down on J9s, then you should prefer to just limp on the btn, in order to give the blinds the chance to make expensive postflop mistakes

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that I am not sure if you are being sarcastic about.

This is a raising situation because weak player may call and fold on the flop, which even if he does this once every 100 hands, is higher EV than open-limping.

I am more concerned about raising a strong player's blind, because I am not sure about calling a re-raise, or what is going to happen when I miss on the flop. I will make more mistakes. A this point it is not worth waisting chips at all if you know that you will be out-played.

A loose player will likely call. If I miss, I can take it down, maybe. Or I can hit, hoping that this player will call with incorrect odds or on the hopes that I am bluffing.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many of the concepts are common sense, but then they are twisted on their heads and analyzed to death. Many of these conclusions are not correct in many situations.

The most glaring, obvious one being to shove all in on the river with the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]


Can you remember more examples? Why is it so bad to shove with the nuts on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this has already been mentioned, but it is not inherently bad, per se, but you certaintly can't make it a habit, for all the reasons previously written.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't find a use for it, as I have developed a style that would be broken if I was to take many of the suggestions. I think that many of the higher limit players, and 2+2r's don't like if for this reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this because the players are conservative or can you give some examples of how the book suggest something that seems awkward to incorporate into their game?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't remember specific examples. I think I already mentioned the concepts of balancing strategy. I don't identify with the pre-flop raising chapter at all. There is nothing wrong with raising similar amounts with various hands, because you do want action, it has a higher expectation than taking the blind because you "defined" your hand with a 20x bb raise. A pot sweetener bet can be inviting disaster, especially at a small stakes full ring game.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a new player was to use this book, his strategy would be highly exploitable. Although many basics are correct, the player would need a ton of coaching. The most exploitable being the "balancing" concepts, as they open you up to making many more decisions than you would have to make if you were playing more straightforward.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you come with some examples of if a new players plays according to the concepts of the books, how he is exploitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is little need for deception in poker, attempting to randomize your play at the beginning, you will be opening yourself to mistakes. The biggest problem with the book is that you would be attempting to play randomly, but in a total vacuum. There isn't enough consideration to how your opponent plays, and how they react to your bet.

For example, and hand I played recently:

I have AJ

I raise whatever, I have one opponent, I presently have 100 BBs in front of me.

Flop comes down A45 rainbow

I bet and villain check-raises me. Okay, the guy was sort of a donkey, I guess, but do you really think that I am convinced that I am beat and drawing dead to 23? Check-raising with a draw is so cliche, (it was plainly obvious to me that he had exactly 56), it is sickening. The book says, that if your opponent is likely to lay down his hand, then attempt to check-raise with a draw. It would imply that you would do this with a tight player. I play tight, but most players cannot distinguish the difference between strong and weak. Learning to address these opponents are vital in this sort of situation. I, of coarse, shoved all in, destroying his pot, effective, and bluffing odds. (He did beat me, to runner runner flush, if you must know).

The chapter on Loose Aggressive opponents is terrible. A LAG couldn't care less if he gets value on his good hands. Yes, it may feel good, and it is a part of the strategy, but they are just trying to take down pots. It forces the bad players to play more honest, diminishing the chance that a good LAG will make a mistake.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard that Brian Townsend don't think highly of the book, why is that exactly? It's one of my favorite books and I respect Townsend a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play live, 9-handed NL 5/5 1000 max buy in. I'm rereading this book for my 3rd time. And applying just about every bit of advice I can manage in that book I've gone from a break-even player to a $23/hour player. So, I'll obviously keep my day job. But I know from first hand experience that it is a solid book. I think it's as good as any, and better than most.

People accusing the book of being "cook book" didn't read it very closely. The examples are included to illustrate a concept, not to promote a certain play or style of play in every similar situation. Without the illustrations, the concepts would be very difficult to understand. And in most cases, the illustrations include EV calculations to explain why a particular move in particular circumstances would be better than others. The "all-in with the nuts" calculations is one example. That section is nothing but a math problem. It doesn't say, "Always go all in with the nuts." It says that you should consider going all-in with the nuts because it will often have a higher expected value than milking the nuts with small bets that might get called more frequently. And all throughout the book's examples, the authors include multiple caveats to "mix up" or "randomize" your play vs. observant opponents.

The overwhelming theme of NLHETAP seems to be that NLHE is a game of implied odds in which you seek to manipulate your opponents into making big mistakes in big pots while seeking to avoid being manipulated into doing the same yourself. The tools for that manipulation are laid out fairly well: calculating pot odds and implied odd; basic hand reading and EV estimation; adjusting for position, both relative and absolute; bet sizing both pre- and post- flop; pot control; deception and multiple level thinking; the concept of trading small mistakes early in a hand for an opponent's potential big mistakes later in the hand; occasionally risking free cards to manage pot size and induce a bluff; etc.

Many of the criticisms I've seen, like "Who would ever limp on the button" are missing the point of the "limp on the button" section. If you have a good drawing hand, deep stacks, and week players in the blinds who will stack off with top-two pair for 500bb if you have J9s, and flop a Q8Tr straight vs. BB's QTo top-two, then you would be silly to raise 4bb pre-flop and fold out the guy with QTo. Instead, you should let the QTo player have enough rope to hang himself. Now, if you are playing a TAG/LAG 6-max table with 100bb or less effective stacks and only 5 guys at the table, all of whom are never going to stack off with Q8o from the BB, then obviously this particular tactic in this one example doesn't apply to your game. But the larger concept of playing for implied odds and creating situations in which weaker players can hang themselves OOP is still relevant.

I also think the pre-flop bet sizing section is particularly good. Stack sizes, position, starting hands, and whether you want to play a big pot or a small pot should dictate whether and how much you raise. Blindly raising 4xbb+1/limper is less useful than raising big when you want to play with few players in a big pot (for whatever reason), or small if you want to play with many players in a medium pot (for whatever reason), etc.

The principles in the all the examples are true in all games: play for maximizing your EV. Sometimes that means playing for small pots. Sometimes that means playing for big pots. Sometimes you bluff. Sometimes you slow play. Often that means trading small mistakes when the pot is small for your opponent’s big mistakes when the pot is big. Sometimes that means folding what is most likely the best hand because bad position + marginal hand = reverse implied odds. Etc. Etc. Etc.

No other book packs as much relevant and useful information about how to think about NL play than this one. It is not cook book. And those who think it is didn’t read it very closely.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't identify with the pre-flop raising chapter at all. There is nothing wrong with raising similar amounts with various hands, because you do want action, it has a higher expectation than taking the blind because you "defined" your hand with a 20x bb raise. A pot sweetener bet can be inviting disaster, especially at a small stakes full ring game.


[/ QUOTE ]

Both NLHETAP as well as PNLHE advocate raising different amounts to achieve different objectives from different positions and different hands vs different opponents.

Standardizing your raises is less useful than raising a wide variety of different amounts to manipulate the pot to be the size you want it with the number of players you want in it.

In short, I think you would make more money mixing up your pf raise sizes than always making them the same size artificially. And pot-sweetners with good hands OOP are only disasters if you can't find the fold button when you know (or at least should know) that you're beaten.

[ QUOTE ]
There is little need for deception in poker, attempting to randomize your play at the beginning, you will be opening yourself to mistakes. The biggest problem with the book is that you would be attempting to play randomly, but in a total vacuum. There isn't enough consideration to how your opponent plays, and how they react to your bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

This really isn't true at all, especially the bold part. It just isn't. Maybe you play with enough random, on-line fish where you can bet good hands fast and get called by worse ones, but most tough games have good players who won't give up much money unless you mix up your play enough to trick them into making big mistakes in big pots. But you need deception in your game to do that.

Moreover, NLHETAP is very careful to consider what range of hands your opponent might have, and what range of hands your opponent might think you have.

And I bet you will occasionally open raise with a hand like 89s. That is a raise for deception, not for value. So, you have deception mixed into your game already.

[ QUOTE ]
I have AJ...

[/ QUOTE ]

In many games you should fold this preflop. In others, this is a reraising hand or even a push. It depends on a lot of factors, and your hand with your factors aren't specifically covered in the examples, nor were they meant to be.

No book will tell you every thing about every thing.

Moreover, the section you quoted about drawing is not the only relevant section of the book. There is also a section that vs. aggressive opponents when you have a 1-pair hand with deep stacks that sometimes it's better to risk a free card for pot control and to induce a bluff than bet and risk getting raised or c/r'ed. And there are other relevant sections, as well. Once again, each section illustrates one concept. In a real hand, you may have to consider several concepts and alternatives before finding a play that you conser to be max-EV. Don't blindly say, "Opponent drawing = me c/r'ing." That wasn't what the authors meant. That's not how readers should interpret it.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

I enjoy your thoughts, but you are misinterpreting my post.

In general, you should be playing straight-forward, boring poker, especially when you first start. Open limping with Aces on the button is a flimsy attempt of deception. I don't discount the value of bluffing and bet merging. The second is not so much deception as it is a quality of betting several similar hands with similar values. If that is deception, then yes, I am guilty. Bluffing and game theory was covered in TOP. I don't remember if NLTP even mentions GT and Bluffing.

I did not talk about my position or table conditions. I did not say how much I raised, how many players where in the pot when I raised, blah blah blah. If you are talking about "trading mistakes," this hand illustrates. Against certain players I may raise, but I have the discipline to fold when he bets. I would know better than bet. I said in my example that the person drawing is check-raising, that is a play that is becoming so cliche it is down right irritating. I play tons of hands a day, because I play heads up poker. I can attest that the over all story is not based on deception. I play uber-LAG, and I am telling you that I am not deceptive.

Yes, there are good sections in the book, and I am sure you can find great advice even in "Play Poker Like the Pros." Among the sections that are good is the multi-level thinking. The weak-tight section had me laughing so hard I almost fell out of my seat. I simply wish that the book focused more on "playing your opponents hand," not in the sense of deception, but by configuring an optimal strategy for facing an implied range of hands. It needed to focus on level 2, i.e. what does my opponent think I have. I can't imagine playing poker without this consideration.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I play heads up poker

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I don't know much about heads up cash games. I suspect the fundamental principles are all the same, but many of the tactics in NLHETAP probably don't apply since they are mostly written for full ring games with generally good FR cash players.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember if NLTP even mentions GT and Bluffing.


[/ QUOTE ]

GT is mentioned briefly, but not in detail since the authors felt that was covered in TOP. However, "Concept No. 58: Any strategy relatively close to a game theoretical strategy is at least almost as good as the optimal strategy, and sometimes it's better," has an excellent, short discussion of just how much "mixing up" you need to do in order to avoid being exploitably easy to read.

As for bluffing, the "Hammer of Future Bets" section, and the importance of timing a bluff to reserve the credible threat of big bets on later streets (particularly the turn and river) has improved my in-position bluffs considerably against weak-tight opponents and good LAGs who will go 1/3 their stack w/ TPWK, but not the whole stack OOP. That whole bluff timing and planning section was the best I've seen on that topic.

[ QUOTE ]
It needed to focus on level 2, i.e. what does my opponent think I have. I can't imagine playing poker without this consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an excellent section on this topic, p. 168-175, "Multiple Levels of Thinking." Basically, it explains that you need to think one level ahead of your opponent. That seems pretty obvious, but I hadn't thought of it until I read it. For example, what good does it do to act on what I think he thinks I have (2nd level), if he only plays his cards (0 level) and doesn't think about what I have (1st level). In that instance, thinking on the 1st level is optimal, and 2nd level thinking will give you problems. Against a 1st level thinker, you need to think on the 2nd level. And so on. It's a really interesting concept that seems well explained.

Furthermore, many of the examples that depend on 2nd level thinking include that in their analysis. For example, in "Concept No. 6: It can be right to call with decent hands that have little chance of improving even if you plan to fold if there is a bet on the next round," there is an example in which the authors ask, "What does your oponent put you on? You called twice ..." In that case, you need to think about what you think your opponent thinks you have. Now, that isn't in every example, because the tools illustrated in each example don't need it. But they are there when needed to explain the concept in the example.

I really think that you might be undervaluing the book because the interpersonal dynamics and subsequent choice of tactics in a heads up cash game are so much different than the interpersonal dynamics and subsequent choice of tactics described in NLHETAP's full ring examples.

I do know that at live, medium stakes, NLHE this book rocks.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is an excellent section on this topic, p. 168-175, "Multiple Levels of Thinking." Basically, it explains that you need to think one level ahead of your opponent. Which seems pretty obvious, but I hadn't thought of it until I read it. For example, what good does it do to act on what I think he thinks I have (2nd level), if he only plays his cards (0 level) and doesn't think about what I have (1st level). In that instance, thinking on the 1st level is optimal, and 2nd level thinking will give you problems. Against a 1st level thinker, you need to think on the 2nd level. And so on. It's a really interesting concept that seems well explained.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll say it until you're all dead, Sklansky knows nothing about levels. There are two: game on and game off*. Making the right moves at the right time is purely about multidimensional pattern modelling, not the pseudo-rigourous Sklanskian logic of 'levels' ffs.

Who actually thinks "What does he think I'm thinking?"

I bet Sklansky doesn't. He couldn't explain the process he really uses, so he rationalised a load of 'logical' crap. I'm certain of it.


* Truly enlightened ones see only 1 level, of course. Maybe less. I don't know. They won't tell me.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know with two 'weak' players in the blinds, if you look down on J9s, then you should prefer to just limp on the btn, in order to give the blinds the chance to make expensive postflop mistakes

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that I am not sure if you are being sarcastic about.



[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure if I being sarcastic or not either. I is just an illustration of the general wierdness of the book.

A 'weak' player, where you prefer to limp and see a flop instead of raising. So basically you have some dude, that will fold pf if you raise with your J9s (which is obv less EV than playing a flop with him (them))

It is hard to envisage such a player, and simply the description 'weak' as all there is to guide us does not cut it. Is it weak as in someone who folds too much, but if it is, then why does he suddenly start to commit too much post? (or do you want to let him hit something of medium strengt and then bluff him with a big bet on the river, since he is laying every thing down when faced with really big bets, ei. the the weak-tight chapter ...)

Or is it weak as in fish, but those guys call with a far to big a range both pf and post flop, so you prefer to pad the pot pf, so that if they call post, their mistakes will be even bigger

And finally, what is it exactly that J9s is supposed to flop, that will allow us 'punish' this weak player, most likely is some sort of (combo)draw, which is fine is you are planning around stealing, as that is what gives your strategy an extra bit of punch, your pounding away and flopping draws gives you extra leverage.

But here, where the previous section clearly states that planning around stealing is not really desired in NL ??

I am not saying Sklansky is clueless .... but his book at times seems so or maybe not clueless, but very confused, it lacks the rigor of an expert player teaching, the organisation is just shot from page 100 and onwards.


Luckily Flynn and Metha seem to have that rigor, so in the end 2+2 still brings home the bacon [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know with two 'weak' players in the blinds, if you look down on J9s, then you should prefer to just limp on the btn, in order to give the blinds the chance to make expensive postflop mistakes

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that I am not sure if you are being sarcastic about.



[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure if I being sarcastic or not either. I is just an illustration of the general wierdness of the book.

A 'weak' player, where you prefer to limp and see a flop instead of raising. So basically you have some dude, that will fold pf if you raise with your J9s (which is obv less EV than playing a flop with him (them))

It is hard to envisage such a player, and simply the description 'weak' as all there is to guide us does not cut it. Is it weak as in someone who folds too much, but if it is, then why does he suddenly start to commit too much post? (or do you want to let him hit something of medium strengt and then bluff him with a big bet on the river, since he is laying every thing down when faced with really big bets, ei. the the weak-tight chapter ...)

Or is it weak as in fish, but those guys call with a far to big a range both pf and post flop, so you prefer to pad the pot pf, so that if they call post, their mistakes will be even bigger

And finally, what is it exactly that J9s is supposed to flop, that will allow us 'punish' this weak player, most likely is some sort of (combo)draw, which is fine is you are planning around stealing, as that is what gives your strategy an extra bit of punch, your pounding away and flopping draws gives you extra leverage.

But here, where the previous section clearly states that planning around stealing is not really desired in NL ??



[/ QUOTE ]

The point he is making is that implied odds are more important than pot odds. If you raise preflop with J9s in the example, then you cut down your implied odds whether you get called or not.

For example, If you have a good drawing hand, deep stacks, and players in the blinds who will stack off for 200bb if you have J9s, and flop a Q8Tr straight vs. BB's QTo top-two, then you would be silly to raise 4bb pre-flop and fold out the guy with QTo. And yes, there are players in many of the live games I've played in who would fold QTo to a raise, but call/bet all-in with top two-pair on a Q8T flop.

So, in this instance, the book recommends that you should let the QTo player have enough rope to hang himself.

Now, if you are playing a TAG/LAG 6-max table with 100bb or less effective stacks and only 5 guys at the table, all of whom are never going to stack off with Q8o from the BB, then obviously this particular tactic in this one example doesn't apply to your game. But the larger concept of playing for implied odds and creating situations in which weaker players can hang themselves OOP is still relevant.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who actually thinks "What does he think I'm thinking?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually heard a good regular at a live 5/5 NL game last Wednesday consider calling an opponent's all-in say to himself, "The question isn't really what you have so much as what do you think that I have..." Then he thought, and folded.

So, he does. And I do.

Asking myself questions at the table about "multidimensional pattern modelling" doesn't help me nearly as much when considering an action in response to a possible bluff by a very good regular as asking myself, "What does he think I put him on, and would he bluff here more often as a result of that belief..." (3rd level).

Nor does pondering the phrase "multidimensional pattern modelling" help me when considering making a bluff vs a good, but straight forward player nearly as much as asking myself, "What would he put me on if I push here, and how much of the range I think he has would he fold based on his read of what I probably have..." (2nd level).

The "levels" thing just makes it easy to consider the right questions. Skill and experience vs a particular opponent will tell you how many of those questions to ask.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is an excellent section on this topic, p. 168-175, "Multiple Levels of Thinking." Basically, it explains that you need to think one level ahead of your opponent. Which seems pretty obvious, but I hadn't thought of it until I read it. For example, what good does it do to act on what I think he thinks I have (2nd level), if he only plays his cards (0 level) and doesn't think about what I have (1st level). In that instance, thinking on the 1st level is optimal, and 2nd level thinking will give you problems. Against a 1st level thinker, you need to think on the 2nd level. And so on. It's a really interesting concept that seems well explained.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll say it until you're all dead, Sklansky knows nothing about levels. There are two: game on and game off*. Making the right moves at the right time is purely about multidimensional pattern modelling, not the pseudo-rigourous Sklanskian logic of 'levels' ffs.

Who actually thinks "What does he think I'm thinking?"

I bet Sklansky doesn't. He couldn't explain the process he really uses, so he rationalised a load of 'logical' crap. I'm certain of it.


* Truly enlightened ones see only 1 level, of course. Maybe less. I don't know. They won't tell me.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you come to this conclusion?

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Asking myself questions at the table about "multidimensional pattern modelling"

[/ QUOTE ]
I should have clarified: you don't ask questions about it, you just do it. Whether you want to or not. So you may as well pay attention and get good at it. Maybe 'levels' will help train you. I think they'll only slow you down and should only be used in descriptions after the fact, or when relating to David Sklansky.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is an excellent section on this topic, p. 168-175, "Multiple Levels of Thinking." Basically, it explains that you need to think one level ahead of your opponent. Which seems pretty obvious, but I hadn't thought of it until I read it. For example, what good does it do to act on what I think he thinks I have (2nd level), if he only plays his cards (0 level) and doesn't think about what I have (1st level). In that instance, thinking on the 1st level is optimal, and 2nd level thinking will give you problems. Against a 1st level thinker, you need to think on the 2nd level. And so on. It's a really interesting concept that seems well explained.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll say it until you're all dead, Sklansky knows nothing about levels. There are two: game on and game off*. Making the right moves at the right time is purely about multidimensional pattern modelling, not the pseudo-rigourous Sklanskian logic of 'levels' ffs.

Who actually thinks "What does he think I'm thinking?"

I bet Sklansky doesn't. He couldn't explain the process he really uses, so he rationalised a load of 'logical' crap. I'm certain of it.


* Truly enlightened ones see only 1 level, of course. Maybe less. I don't know. They won't tell me.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you come to this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]
Acid trip.

'Levels' crumble when you realise that you can't get into your opponent's head. He isn't a rational, shallow thinker. He may be a deep thinker, that isn't the point, because his head is full of weird angular junk and he'll check-raise the turn just to piss you off. I would. Against good opponents, of course, levels average out into game theory. You can apply that directly. 'Levels' are a totally ass backward way of thinking.

Sklansky, the autistic, the android, slowly working it out...

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
DATA
Counselor, Commander Riker will
assume that we have made this
analysis, and knowing that we know
his methods, he will alter them.
(a new equally bad
thought)
But knowing that we know that he
knows that we know he might choose
to return to his usual pattern.

TROI
You're over-analyzing. Human
nature cannot be denied.
(a beat)
What kind of man is Commander
Riker?

DATA
He is a fighter.

TROI
Yes.

DATA
The weaker his position, the more
aggressive will be his posture.

TROI
And he won't give up.

DATA
Then despite whatever logical
choices he is offered, he must
be --

TROI
-- The man that he is. Yes.

DATA
Is that a failing in humans?

TROI
(rising)
You'll have to decide that for
yourself.</pre><hr />

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

Maybe ass backward is harsh. 'Levels' are level 1 thinking. There.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

I tried reading it a while ago but got so frustrated with the writing style after the first 100 or so pages that I just put the book down and never finished it. Maybe one day....

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who actually thinks "What does he think I'm thinking?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I do. I would wager the majority of good players do to. Really comes in handy on a bluff move.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Who actually thinks "What does he think I'm thinking?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I hope you're kidding, either that or you're playing a different type of poker than I am. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who actually thinks "What does he think I'm thinking?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I hope you're kidding, either that or you're playing a different type of poker than I am. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I just play the patterns. I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who actually thinks "What does he think I'm thinking?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I hope you're kidding, either that or you're playing a different type of poker than I am. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I just play the patterns. I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that when you play the "patterns" you are doing the same thing as the "levels" of thinking is explaining, it's just that you don't articulate it very clearly for a new or intermediate player to understand what you're doing.

For example, if so-and-so makes a bet in a certain situation, and your experience recognizes the pattern of play up to that bet as typical of a steal attempt when you are representing weakness (i.e. you check the turn after a cb on a low flop), then you might treat it as a steal attempt and act accordingly. Etc. But that is not too much different than, "I have a good hand that raised pf, and cb'ed the flop. He called the pf raise and cb with range {x, y, z, ...}. When I check the turn he must think I have {a, b, c, ...} against which he'll most likely bet the turn expecting me to fold {b, c} because he'll think that I'll put him on a range of {x,y} even though I know his range is wider. So, when he bets representing {x, y}, but I know his range is most likely {x, y, z, ...} I can take advantage of my knowledge of the fact that he probably has a much wider range than what he is representing to raise/fold/call...

It gets wordy when you write it out. And over time and experience it become second nature. So, my guess is that what you call "patterns" is just an intuitive way of performing multiple levels of thinking that isn't easily expressed in writing, and isn't easily learned without gaining lots of first hand experience to recognize those patterns.

The "levels" thing is a fairly simple concept that a new player can read, digest, and apply to build experience more quickly so that that kind of intuition becomes more second nature than deliberate questions and answers at a table.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that when you play the "patterns" you are doing the same thing as the "levels" of thinking is explaining, it's just that you don't articulate it very clearly, and therefore others can't emmulate your methods without either watching you play, or taking lots of time to build up first-hand experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good guess, that's what I said half a thread ago.

Maybe a pole is in order. Who thinks in levels versus thinking in patterns. Unfortunately I don't care.

Note that a weak process you can explain well isn't superior to a strong, more abstract process. This failing is evident in much of Sklansky's writing.

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that when you play the "patterns" you are doing the same thing as the "levels" of thinking is explaining, it's just that you don't articulate it very clearly, and therefore others can't emmulate your methods without either watching you play, or taking lots of time to build up first-hand experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good guess, that's what I said half a thread ago.

Maybe a pole is in order. Who thinks in levels versus thinking in patterns. Unfortunately I don't care.

Note that a weak process you can explain well isn't superior to a strong, more abstract process. This failing is evident in much of Sklansky's writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

What stakes do you play?

Re: Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who actually thinks "What does he think I'm thinking?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I hope you're kidding, either that or you're playing a different type of poker than I am. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I just play the patterns. I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be ridiculous. Patterns are important. In fact, online I rely mostly on patterns and only worry about what my opponent is thinking if I know I am playing a very good player.

Live, I find that playing the player and thinking about what your opponent is thinking, why he/she is making a certain play against YOU comes into play more often. Betting patterns are still important...in fact patterns will be your first piece of information you get about an unknown player.

But no way would I rely on patterns alone when playing live. You have to pay attention to how your opponent perceives you, and that requires thinking about what he/she is thinking, don't you think?

All this is important online too, however I find it much harder to read players online. Live, especially in weekly casino tournaments, I make plays/calls that I would never do online. And this is due to understanding how my opponent is thinking.