[daveT]

Albert, once again you are taking what I am writing out of context. As far as I can tell, "pot sweetener" is defined as a raise made on the button after several players have limped. You want to build a larger pot to help you ensure proper odds and destroy other's effective odds. Not difficult math. Hardly OOP, as you accuse me of saying.

A weak player, by definition, is not going to call an ALL IN shove in the situation you describe. There is 15 dollars in the pot, and someone, especially a weak opponent, is not going to call 1000+ with anything less than a set here. If you are playing these kinds of players, well, quit your day job, you are guaranteed to make a ton more money.

You still haven't convinced me that deception is important. There are people who 12 table 200 NL and do just fine. I doubt that their play is deceptive. Yes, there are people who somehow play 4 tables of HU NL, they do just fine. There game is solid enough that they are able to overcome any weakness that is gained by lack of trickery.

I read this book when I was a full ring live player, playing at the 200s and the 3-500s at the time. So, yes, I am fully aware of how to play full ring. The hand that I used in my example happened recently, at a full ring game. I am not a one note horse. I already stated that I think it is important to learn Limit before playing NL. I say this because this is what I did.

And a thinking LAG is not likely to be fooled in your example. He is well aware that "by the book" says to loosen up in later positions, so your hand range will be broader. A good LAG will weigh the probability of your bluffing against your relative range in respect to the board, etc. When you are over-shoving bluffing at the pot, well, it is hard to be 70% sure that many hands are good, especially top pair with any kicker, not to mention weak kicker.

We can argue strategies all day, and heck maybe even publish this thread and make millions. I am saying that there are thought processes that need to be carefully examined before they are put into practice. Trading mistakes falls into that category. I also see that I wrote that the Multi-Level thinking chapter was very well done. It is hard to be specific about the book because I haven't read it for a long time.

Oh, and for your information. Strategies, math, and tactics are paramount in playing Heads Up poker. Yes, it looks wild, but every hand you play must be played for a reason. Every bet you make better be made for a solid reason, and you most certainly must be sure that every call you make is correct. Their is little need to say that the concepts of a good poker book would not apply to playing heads up poker. Calculating odds, implied odds, and the over all situation in poker must be very precise, because any small mistake is going to add up much faster than it is going to in a full ring.

With that said, to touch on the "trading mistakes" section, yes there is a time and a place for this sort of concept, but must be applied very carefully. A classic example is when such and such raises UTG, everyone folds to our hero on the button with pocket threes. Many people consider this an automatic call.......