Re: Thoughts on PNL?
[ QUOTE ]
A few weeks ago I read Professional No-Limit Hold'Em Volume I. At the time, I honestly thought it was pretty bad in its advice. Since then I've had some time to reflect on the subject matter and I've come to the conclusion that I was right all along.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's BAD??? I disagree, I think PNL is the best NLH book that has been published. Not close here.
[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who found this book reasonably unhelpful? I mean, who exactly are Matt, Sunny, and Ed playing against that let them get away with this crap? Sure, everybody limp-reraises KK from UTG on occasion -- when table conditions are perfect, when there's some aggro-monkey in LP who can't resist raising to punish limpers, etc. -- but as a general rule?? Where are these idiots who let you raise to 8 BBs with rockets and then don't turn around and recognize that something odd is going on when we minraise 87s?
[/ QUOTE ]
That isn't what they say. Those are some plays in certain circumstances which could work. Everything is contextual.
[ QUOTE ]
The main theme of the book seems to be this whole Pot-to-Stack Ratio stuff. Yes, it's very nice and interesting and all, but stack decisions are such a small part of my typical game that I can't imagine building my strategy around them. Given that 99% of the time you are fighting for a smaller-than-all-in pot, shouldn't we be paying a great deal of attention to these other hands?
[/ QUOTE ]
THIS is a great point. Basically, they are all about the "big" pot, where most pots (not 99%, more like 70%) are small pots. And yes, those affect your earn incredibly. That said, constantly thinking about SPR is vital.
**Fwiw, I have a small amount of SPR stuff in my book. What's funny is before PNL was published I sent a chapter to Matt Flynn to read, and it was all about playing draws; and incidentally, I based it all upon SPR. So, we both wrote about the same thing and came to similar conclusions without ever referring to one another along these lines. Does go to show how vital it is, whether you know it or not.
[ QUOTE ]
OK, I get the point -- "if it's all going into the middle, you should have a plan." Fine. But why are we designing strategies around my betting double-pot on the flop, pot-and-a-half on the turn, and then pot on the river? Do any of us play against opponents who will let us do that on a regular basis? I have a hard enough time getting the live ones to pay off pot-on-the-flop, pot-on-the-turn, let alone a river bet as well. Are your opponents so dazzlingly stupid that they won't notice that you've changed your usual "3/4ths-pot flop, 1/2-pot turn" into "double-pot flop, pot-and-a-half turn"? Mine don't seem to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this is fair. I think sometimes you can't aim to put your stack in there, but you should aim to get the pot as big as possible. ie, pot pot pot. if your opponents ARE dumb enough though, by all means charge them.
[ QUOTE ]
Look, I'm all in favor of planning and I'm a big fan of extracting value, but we've also got to be realistic. In the games we play, we simply can't get away with most of these moves. Our opponents are not blind and not unthinking; they actually pay SOME attention to our behavior. I really want to get something useful out of this book; if you liked it or found it beneficial, please let me know what it was that helped you -- I want to share in the intellectual bounty!
[/ QUOTE ]
reread the REM part, I liked that the best.
|