hand help for MLHE quizzes

Eponymous · #1 10-02-2007, 10:24 PM

I know there is a books and publications forum, but this question is more about hand play, though in the form of problems from a book. I've read Ciaffone and Brier's MLHE, and have worked the hand quizzes. I've gotten 75% of them "correct" and have been studying the ones that I got wrong. For many of them, I see what I neglected to consider, but for many others, I don't necessarily agree with their explanation either. From what I've been reading on these forums, many might say that's ok, the advice in MLHE can be too weak-tight for today's game.

My question is, should I study these hands further (possibly by posting them in this forum or some other), or is it not worth the time and I should move on to some other book? I've read SSHE, but I think it might be worth a re-read. Even though I disagree with some of the hand quizzes, I think MLHE really got me to think about what my opponent might have based on all the action more than SSHE did. Maybe the best thing is to start following the threads in this forum and posting some hands of my own from live play. I've been playing 10/20, although I mix in a lot of 5/10 while I build a better bankroll for higher games. I appreciate any thoughts.

Crusher19 · #2 10-03-2007, 01:09 PM

books only take you so far i would study the well respected posters hands(death downkey or how many) everyone i know that plays that has alot of respect for their games, but the best way to get better is build the bankroll and try to play in the softer lineup of a game and move up.

SNOWBALL · #3 10-03-2007, 01:34 PM

the problem with the hands in MLHE is that they make certain assumptions about the way your opponents play, and those assumptions probably do not apply to your games.

cgrohman · #4 10-03-2007, 01:44 PM

I generally enjoy this book and I too got about 75 % "correct" when I read it. Howeve,r I think the game has changed signifcantly- become more agressive - since they wrote it and they don't value bet enough. I founf that they checked lots of river setc that I would have bet and still think is correct to do so.

Eponymous · #5 10-03-2007, 07:32 PM

Thanks for the responses. I'll limit how much time I spend trying to figure out where I differ with MLHE and start spending some time in the strategy forums. As far as live play goes, I play almost every weekend in AC and will continue to do so. I'll post hands I have questions about.

emerson · #6 10-04-2007, 09:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the responses. I'll limit how much time I spend trying to figure out where I differ with MLHE and start spending some time in the strategy forums. As far as live play goes, I play almost every weekend in AC and will continue to do so. I'll post hands I have questions about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read Malmuth's review of this book in the rear of Gambling Theory and Other Topics.

jfk · #7 10-05-2007, 12:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the responses. I'll limit how much time I spend trying to figure out where I differ with MLHE and start spending some time in the strategy forums. As far as live play goes, I play almost every weekend in AC and will continue to do so. I'll post hands I have questions about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the unmentioned benefit of MLHE is that for new players, the wealth of hand histories was very useful.

MLHE predated the internet poker phenomenon and there weren't vast pools of players who had hundreds of thousands of hands under their belts and had seen, considered and had data on how to best handle the countless tricky situations found in MLHE.

The the book was oriented around hand histories was useful to players who could only gain experience at 30 hands an hour.

If you are one of these players and if you only or primarily play live, MLHE will still be of some use to you. Other books (SSHE, HEFAP, King Yao's WTO) will all provide better strategic advice, but none give you the wealth of hands to consider as does MLHE.

The games have changed drastically since MLHE was written. Much of the advice in there will get you killed, especially if playing online. It would be helpful to have a solid grounding in solid play before reading MLHE as some of the time you should be mentally disagreeing with the authors' play as you read.

Also, John Feeney's "Inside the Poker Mind" is very helpful for a player transitioning to live MLHE games. That was the purpose for which it was written. I'd rank it well ahead of MLHE for usefulness.

Eponymous · #8 10-05-2007, 10:31 PM

Good inputs. Thanks. I do find the comments on the hands a good way to learn personally, which is why I found the book useful even if I disagree with some of the advice. It seems like I would be getting run over by LAG players if I follow what they say for some of the hands. While MLHE hasn't opened up my game like I hoped it might, I think it has done a very good job of getting me to think about flop textures and betting action better than I used to.

I've been meaning to get King Yao's book. Thanks for the reminder. I'll check out "Inside the Poker Mind" as well.