|
|
#1
03-07-2006, 08:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
A critique of Harrington on Holdem Vol. II
I recently started reading through Harrington on Holdem Vol. II. I've currently read through two chapters, which is about 1/2 of the book. Although I can't say until I finish the book, I think that Chapter 9(Inflection Points) is pretty much the key segment of his book.
I'm sorry to say that I disagree with a lot that was written there. Now I'm certainly not on Dan's level as a poker player, but I do think that I've proven myself as a pro poker player for the past 3 years enough that I can question his advice. In order to keep things concise, I'll limit my critique to 3 generalities and I'll pick out 3 specific hand examples that I disagree with. I could post more, but I think that limiting it to these 6 items will best help the discussion stay somewhat coherent. I tried to pick 3 hand problems that I disagree with that showcase a difference aspect of Dan's philosophies that I disagree with. I'm going to be posting this on 3 forums, which I'll link to at the bottom of my post: Footballguys, the MTT forum at twoplustwo, and the books/publication forum at twoplustwo. Before I begin, however, let me make a few disclaimers: -I don't want to give the impression that I dislike the book. Rather, I have learned a ton from it, and I would indeed recommend it to anyone. One myth that I think we need to dispell in the poker community is that a book is worthless if it contains errors(to name just one specific example of this myth in action: Winning Low Limit Holdem by Lee Jones was widely critisized as having mistakes, specifically by the twoplustwo community and authors. However, I feel that many went on to make the mistake of dismissing its usefulness due to these mistakes). Our intellectual society has gained a ton from learning from past mistakes. And I feel as if a book that contains wrong information but makes you think and access your play in depth is much more useful than a book that is 100% correct but does not do so. -Speaking of Lee Jones, I recall that he recently critsized Harrington's work in a Card Player article, and he was bashed in certain posts on the twoplustwo forums. I certainly hope that none of this comes to that, and I hope that we can stick to the issues of improving all of our poker games here. I certainly do not enter this discussion thinking that I'm 100% right. I welcome the opportunity for better poker minds to enlighten me. Mason Malmuth recently wrote on twoplustwo: "Be assured that the process of possibly changing my thinking (or David or Ray or Dan Harrington for that matter) has already been completed before something becomes an official Two Plus Two book publication. For example, for both Harrington I and Harrington II we had many days of meetings where literally hundreds of points in the texts were debated." This statement, in particular, leads me to believe that there stands a good chance that I am wrong about these issues. -If I were to post my thoughts on certain hand examples and then critique Dan Harrington's answer, it would be totally unfair for me to not also include Dan's reasoning behind his answer which he provides in his book. Therefore, I am going to include a few direct quotes from the text and a bunch of paraphrasing of hands. I hope that I am not violating any rule here by doing this. I am probably posting less than 1 full page of text of a 450 page book, so I hardly think that this will be a big problem. However, if it is, then any mod may feel free to bring it to my attention, and I will edit the post accordingly. I just ask that they give me a chance to change it before editing/locking/deleting the thread. Anyway, on to my disagreements... <u>3 SPECIFIC HAND EXAMPLES THAT I DISAGREE WITH</u> Hand example disagreement #1: Example 6-6, pages 149-150 From the moment I read this, I disagreed with the advice given here. Dan Harrington advises to go all in; I think that the best advice is to fold. Before I sat down to write this, I reviewed the hands to make sure that I still felt the way and to see if I noticed anything different, and I was still in shock that he would advise an all in here. I thought that this was such an easy decision that I really didn't even know where to begin to critisize it. So I decided to see if it was just me. I posted a poll at footballguys and in the MTT forum on twoplustwo with the exact situation Dan describes. Combined, 203 people voted in the polls. Out of those 203 people, 13 agreed with Dan Harrington, a whopping 178 people agreed with me to fold, and 12 people either said to do something different or to mix up your play. What is even more staggering is that within the options I also let people chose whether or not they thought it was a tough decision, and out of the 178 people who agreed with me, 169 said that it was an easy decision! Links to the polls: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum...29178&st=0 http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ID=#Post4984871 (Please note that the numbers I quoted were as of this writing. It wouldn't surprise me if after hearing that Dan Harringon advises otherwise, some people voted for his position. Nor would it surprise me if some people chose to vote the other way simply to skew the results. However, those are the numbers of votes before anyone knew where I was going with the question) You all can read the complete details of the hand in those threads. Here are Dan's comments on it: "You push all in again. Again you have first-in vigorish, and now your stack is big enough to seriously damage anyone at the table except the big blind. In addittion, you're hitting the blinds in two hands, so your situation is worse than it appears. Notice that as you move from the low end of the Red Zone to the high end, you're theoretically less desperate to attack the pot, but your stack gives you much more clout when you do attack." Now this is a bit troubling. If you go to www.twoplustwo.com you'll instantly be greeted by a picture and an advertisement for this book. I don't think its a stretch at all to say that it is currently their "signature" book. And for those who are unfamiliar with footballguys, they are for the large part huge supporters of twoplustwo, and many of the members at the sites overlap. I am forced to conclude that one of these 3 statements must be true: 1. Dan Harrington and the rest of the twoplustwo staff who overlooked this book are wrong here. 2. They are correct, but they have failed to provide a convincing enough argument to change the opinions of all but a few of their followers. 3. The reader does not respect their opinions enough to change their views on this subject(I very much doubt that this is true). So which one is it? Hand example disagreement #2: Hand 9-15, pages 194-197 (A)UTG: 4000 (B): 1700 (C): 2500 (D): 1650 (E): 1500 (F): 1800 (G)cutoff: 950 (H) button: 1000 SB: 4300 YOU in the BB: 1350 Blinds are 50/100 30 hands into a MTT, active table with a lot of players calling, many slowplays, a few all ins- some called some not, you've been tight. C, E, and G all limp, and the SB completes. You have 9d-7h and check your option. Flop comes Js-9h-3s. SB checks, you check, C checks, E bets 100, G calls, SB folds. Your move. What do you do? Harrington advises you to call. Harrington writes: "With middle pair, 7-to-1 odds are very compelling. Call. I hate this move. I think that this is a clear case where you should move all in. Heres why: First off, lets look at why I advocate an all in move... What do you put everyone else on? I'll admit that player C concerns me a bit, as he could've nailed the flop and be ready to check raise here. However, I think thats a risk you have to take. But theres no way that E or G have a jack. E bet 100 into a 500 pot when the board contained a flush draw and a straight draw- does that sound like top pair to you? Personally, I think such a small bet is foolish no matter what, but I put him on a draw there or middle pair. Similarly, G just called his bet. I think G could have anything from the flush draw to simply 2 overs. However, I don't think G would flat call that bet with top pair. So we can reasonably assume that unless C flopped a monster like a set or 2 pair then nobody has top pair or better. Now what are the odds that C has a monster? Well I think its safe to rule out J-3 and 9-3. And I think that he would've raised with JJ and maybe even 99. So that leaves two possible holdings(33 and J9) out of every possible holding. I think its safe to say that the odds are unlikely that he has a monster.(Note: I guess I could also see the argument that he has AJ and is planning to check raise with that, so maybe add that in there too). Now, what hand do you represent when you check raise there? Well since you were in the BB and checked it, the only hands they can rule out are monsters like JJ, AA, AK, KK, etc. They have to respect the possibility of every other holding. I think there are 3 things that your opponents may put you on: a draw, a monster(2 pair or better), or top pair that is hoping like crazy that nobody has you outkicked.(I will note that an expert level player may reason through all of this and put you on a hand like the very one you have, but Dan had implied that there weren't any expert players at this table, and even if they did consider that possibility, I doubt the read would be strong enough to influence their decision). So since we don't believe that any player has Js or better, I think we can assume that any opponent with a hand other than a flush/straight draw will lay down if they put you on a monster or top pair. And since we don't think they have Js or better, I think that they would have to lay down their mid or low pair even if they were 60% sure that you were indeed on a draw because even if you were on a straight draw, for example, you'd still have the 8 straight outs plus the 6 over outs and it'd be a coinflip. Now there is a distinct possibility that a draw will call your all in, although since you're overbetting the pot and are all in(thus negating any implied odds) it would be a very tough decision for him. There is 700 in the pot, and you have 1250 remaining. That 700 is very important to you, and I think that theres at very least an 80% chance that you win the pot then and there. And even if you are called you most likely will have outs(if you aren't already ahead). So now that we've looked at why I advise the all in, lets look at why I hate the call... You do not have a spade in your hand and the 9 on the board is not a space either! That means that out of the 5 cards that will improve your hand, 2 of them will complete a flush draw, and it is extremely possible that somebody has that flush draw. So basically you have 3 cards that will make you feel good about your hand. If you hit one of those 3 you could check raise and take down a nice pot. However if any of the other 45 cards in the deck come off, then you're in a tough spot and most likely will have to fold. I simply don't see this as a +EV situation. I guess if an innocent card like the 2d came off then maybe you could check raise all in on the turn, but I also think its very likely that the pot gets checked twice behind you in that situation. Two other quick notes on why I don't like the call: Your position is terrible(acting first) and not ending the hand on the flop ensures that will continue to be a factor. 100 chips is indeed important to your dwindling stack. I guess if I had to say, I'd chose a fold over a call here. However, I think that the all in is clearly the best play. Hand example disagreement #3: Hand 9-7, pages 182-183 I don't necessarily disagree with Dan's advise on how to play the hand here, but I definitely disagree on part of his analysis. A (UTG): 90K B: 470K C: 580K D(cutoff): 740K E(button): 280K SB: 260K YOU in the BB: 150K Blinds are 15K/30K with a 1500 ante, so the pot is 55,500 preflop. Major tournament. Two tables with 7 players at each left. D has been on a massive rush the past hour, playing a lot of pots, and winning a lot with bets that havn't been called. No mention is given on how many gets paid, so lets assume that its a nonfactor and you're already in the money(since this is a "major tourney" I don't think this is a stretch at all). D and E limp and the SB completes. You have A-Js in the BB. Dan advises you to move all in. I agree with this. However, Dan then says: "You almost certainly have Player D beaten, and it's unlikely he'll call your bet." I definitely have to question that statement. Lets take a look at things from D's perspective: He now has 708,500. The pot is 249K. It costs him 120K more to call, meaning that he is getting about 2.1-1 on his call, which in turn means that if he thinks he has 1/3 chance or better of winning the hand then he needs to call. Since E and the SB did not raise, he can be fairly sure that they will fold, especially if he goes all in. He knows that you are getting fairly desperate and most likely doesn't put you on a monster. Furthermore, since there are only 14 players left and almost every "major tourney" I know signicantly raises the pay ladder once the final table is reached, he has great added EV by knocking a player out. And even on top of that, lets not forget that he most likely is a good player to have made it far in a major tourney, most good players can be tricky, and since he might have figured you to push in this spot he may just be holding a monster. I certainly wouldn't say that D would definitely call(or go all in, which is actually the better move since it most likely shuts out the two other opponents), but I have to take issue with Dan casually dismissing the possibility of it. <u>3 THINGS IN GENERAL THAT I DISAGREE WITH</u> General thing I disagree with #1 Dan seems to lend no weight to a limp by an EP player even UTG. I think that this is extremely dangerous, especially late in the tourney, as I think its very possible that an EP player will limp with AA or KK in the hopes that an aggressive player will go all in. This is especially true when the stacks are short as in many of Dan's examples. Reading through many of his hand examples, I was shocked at how often he went all in after an EP player had limped. If he indeed does play this way, then you can be sure that I would limp with any monster if he were at my table late in a tourney. At first, I wasn't going to make a huge issue of this, but he even takes it one step further on page 199. In this hand, the UTG player had 1830 and limped for 100(blinds were 50/100). Dan is contemplating an all in move from MP and he comments regarding the UTG limper: "Here you have three folders but a caller, and the caller seems to be a player that plays real hands. CALLING IS WEAKER THAN RAISING, so he may go away if you raise or raise all in, but you can't be sure." An UTG limp when he does not have a deep stack scares the hell out of me, and I give much more respect to that than to a raise, which may be trying to simply win the pot right there. General thing I disagree with #2 Ok, this is really nitpicking now, and it doesn't have a ton to do with the actual poker discussion. However I believe that it would make the book(and future books) better to change this... After Dan has advised the reader what to do on each hand example, he then goes on to play out the hand. For example if he advises you to push, he'll then write something like, "You push, the blinds fold, and the MP limper also folds. You win 2500 and are now in a much better position." I dislike this so much because I think it only encourages results oriented thinking, and I think that can be a problem for many beginning players. I even think that results oriented thinking can be a problem for advanced players when it comes to bluffs and/or pushing all in during tourneys. Most advanced players are good enough to not stick to results oriented thinking when deciding whether or not to make a call. However, I've seen many advanced players go on to think that a bluff was a bad play because it didn't happen to work out or that a push in a tourney was a good play simply because everyone folded to it. I think that including these "results" only makes people more likely to fall into this trap. And I really don't think that they add to anything. Even more confusing to me is hand 9-11(pgs 188-189). Dan presents a problem and advises you to "Call, and bet if your hand hits." Then in the results portion he writes "You actually fold." Huh?!! Did he just not feel like writing out a result for that one? The only possible explanation I can think of for that is Dan is providing hands that he witnessed or heard of from real tourneys, and that the player actually folded in that one, although Dan advises against it. That makes sense, but I still maintain that the book would only be better by leaving these results out. I don't think they serve any purpose whatsoever other than to encourage results oriented thinking. General thing I disagree with #3 I almost don't want to post this because its more of a personal preferce type of thing, but in general I don't like to go all in quite as much as Dan does. One example is that with a stack of 135K, UTG, and with blinds of 6K/12K and a 2K ante, Dan calls going all in the solution to an "easy problem." I'd probably fold there. Anyway, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on that issue, as I think I've presented enough for some good discussion, and I don't have a huge problem with aggression(its much better to err on the side of aggression in nearly all forms of poker imo than on the other end of the spectrum). In case anyone is interested in seeing all of the discussion in this thread, here are the links to the two other posts in the other forums: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum...0#entry4443962 http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post4985911 
|
|
#3
03-07-2006, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A critique of Harrington on Holdem Vol. II
I did a quiz of the hands you mentioned without reading your text before. And of course without reading Dan's text, except the previous action.
#1: I agree with Dan here. Actually I think it's an easy decision. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] #2: I agree with you 100%, I decided the same. #3: I thought the move was a no-brainer but then I saw it's not about the move. The analysis is not that important here, because you must do the right thing. I don't see much wrong in Dan's text there. D is more after 1 on 1 aggression probably and is not interested in dealing with probably much stronger hands than his.
|
|
#5
03-07-2006, 11:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A critique of Harrington on Holdem Vol. II
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on hand #1. Take a look at some of the links though, especially the link to this same thread in the MTT forum- we've discussed it a lot already.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
