HOH \"outdated\"
 

i've heard some people on these forums say that HOH is "outdated"

are they no longer considered the definitve source on NLHE tourneys? if not, why?

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

It could be due to the fact that it has been out for three years or so. Thus many people have had a chance to absorb what it said and started playing in a manner to counteract it.

Having not read it yet, I am not one of those who say it is outdated.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

I say no, but I'm more of a cash game player. I think HOH2 is one of the top 3 or 4 poker books of all time.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

It was superceded by Arnold Snyder's PTF.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

It isn't outdated at all, so long as you stay aware of table conditions. Even c-betting.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
It was superceded by Arnold Snyder's PTF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

To the extent that I have seen it described as outdated it is not so much that the strategy is outdated, but that some of the terminology in the book has been replaced by other terminology, often with slightly different meanings.

Basically, some of the terms coined in HOH that became popular in the immediate wake of its publication have since faded in popularity on the strategy discussion forums.

I think there is also some sentiment among much of 2+2 that books in general are an outdated way to learn poker strategy, and that even the really good ones are basically a cursory summation of concepts that were extensively discussed on the strategy forums a couple years earlier. I don't read the strategy forums much, so I could be completely off, but that is just the sense I get.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

Both HoH and Snyders book were effectively superceded by this book : http://www.amazon.com/Curious-George-Fis...2100&sr=1-2

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

You're asking if these books are outdated. My simple answer is no; nothing you can read about poker can possibly be outdated.

I've seen a few posts recently saying that SS is obsolete or that this idea or that idea is outdated. To me, this seems ridiculous.

Sure, there are new styles and new ideas, many of which have been brought on by the Internet and TV revolution that poker has seen recently. But here's the important thing to remember: not everyone plays (or thinks about) poker the same way. ANYTHING you can read that might give you some insights to how other play the game -- or just as importantly, insights to how others think YOU are playing the game -- is worth your time, and you should consume it like food, water, or air if you are a poker player.

As for HOH specifically, I recommend it for anyone. Many of the ideas in the books are timeless (ex: in general, play a smaller range of hands when the blinds are low compared to when the blinds are huge; always know where you stand in relation to others [inflection points: M and Q {if you don't know what M and Q are, read the books}]; pay attention to your table image as well as that of others; don't sell yourself short when it comes to making a deal).

These ideas, and many others, are extremely well illustrated through Harrington's "problems," where readers must put themselves in situations and determine the "correct" way to act in those unique circumstances. Here's the shocker: You and I might not agree with what Harrington says are the "right" moves! Of course we won't! But the value we gain in understanding different ways of thinking about the same situations is unsurpassed in poker.

Read the books if you haven't. You'll be learning poker for the rest of your life, and this little timeslice is well worth the ticks on our clock.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

JustCuz,

very well put. I definitly agree with you. But I would like to compare it to another game of strategy. Chess is like poker. When I was a tournament chess player, I read all the different openings to understand other players attack methods..etc. There's an infinite number of ways to think about chess and poker.

Chess openings have evolved over centuries and I would't seel poker short of the same type of trends.

Harrington's mathmatics depend on call/ fold variables that he arbitrairly sets. I've heard how television has affected poker profits. I'm sure books do it as well. That being said, the mathmatics of poker is constantly changing but the core concepts are still the same.