[Albert Moulton]

[ 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.