[kev]

I hope that a proper discussion group is set up. I feel this has got to be about the most controversial poker book ever written. When "How Good Is Your Limit Holdem?" came out some people said that you couldn't score that accurately for limit holdem. That was for LIMIT holdem, HOH3 is NL, and yet Harrington give out scores as if they are definitive answers but all the quiz scores are entirely based on Harrington's style of play: "3 points for folding...Raymer obviously feels differently, and he's had a lot of success playing his way, so score 1 point for calling. (Hey, it's my book.)"

You could be a good poker player with a different style of play and score badly. Or you could be a weak tight player and score well.

I don't pretend to be the worlds greatest tournament player or to have ever won the WSOP but some of the plays seem clearly wrong to me. For example Question 8F: "You don't like it, and you're probably beaten, but the 3.5-to-1 pot odds make for a call." - Given the way the hand was played your opponent is virtually guaranteed to have an Ace here. If you call off your money whenever you know you are beaten but are given favourable pot odds your opponents will just keep on giving you odds to call off your money whenever they have you beat.

There's a lot to be discussed about this book. If you learn to play like Harrington you could make a lot of money, but equally if you learn to play like Ivey, Raymer or Green Plastic you could do pretty well.