2+2 NLH Conundrum

[Senator7]

Recommendations please:

A. No Limit Hold'em: Theory & Practice
B. Wait for Professional No Limit Hold'em: Volume 1
C. Get both

[deacsoft]

[ QUOTE ]
C. Get both

[/ QUOTE ]

This should pretty much be the equivalent of having TOP and HPFAP for limit hold'em.

[SplawnDarts]

I have a mixed opinion of NLH:TAP.

On the bad side, I think it reads a bit like A Nit's Adventures in NL Land. One of the first things Slansky does is admit that you can learn and apply everything in the book and still get demolished by a player with a better grasp of "art" side of poker who doesn't understand the "science" nearly as well. In other words, Slansky's teaching the wrong things, but they're what he understands so they're what he teaches. That's weak sauce in my book, but fits very closely with the standard 2+2 publishing bias. There are also some sections of NLH:TAP that many strong players and theorists contend are just wrong. The preflop raise sizing stuff for starters. So you need to be careful.

On the plus side, it's the only book I've ever read that attempts a complete treatment of cash game NLTH. That's good. And some of the stuff is very insightful, more so in the postflop sections. There were places where I changed my game (somewhat) because what he had to say seemed to be more correct that what I previously thought. I learned NLTH from SS1 many years ago, and NLH:TAP was FAR more complete. SS1, however, and the advantage of being written by a real NL player, and as a result had the right attitude even if NOT always the needed info or theory explanation. In NL, attitude counts for a lot.

Executive summary: Buy NLH:TAP, but recognize the bias and that there may be errors. Think everything out for yourself before just accepting it, and make sure Slansky's assumptions really apply to your game. If they don't, then don't be afraid to work out new theory for your different situation.

[phydaux]

Easy answer!

Get NLH:T&P now, since Pro NL Hold'em isn't available yet.

[Senator7]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a mixed opinion of NLH:TAP.

On the bad side, I think it reads a bit like A Nit's Adventures in NL Land. One of the first things Slansky does is admit that you can learn and apply everything in the book and still get demolished by a player with a better grasp of "art" side of poker who doesn't understand the "science" nearly as well. In other words, Slansky's teaching the wrong things, but they're what he understands so they're what he teaches. That's weak sauce in my book, but fits very closely with the standard 2+2 publishing bias. There are also some sections of NLH:TAP that many strong players and theorists contend are just wrong. The preflop raise sizing stuff for starters. So you need to be careful.

On the plus side, it's the only book I've ever read that attempts a complete treatment of cash game NLTH. That's good. And some of the stuff is very insightful, more so in the postflop sections. There were places where I changed my game (somewhat) because what he had to say seemed to be more correct that what I previously thought. I learned NLTH from SS1 many years ago, and NLH:TAP was FAR more complete. SS1, however, and the advantage of being written by a real NL player, and as a result had the right attitude even if NOT always the needed info or theory explanation. In NL, attitude counts for a lot.

Executive summary: Buy NLH:TAP, but recognize the bias and that there may be errors. Think everything out for yourself before just accepting it, and make sure Slansky's assumptions really apply to your game. If they don't, then don't be afraid to work out new theory for your different situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you! This is the kind of answer I was hoping to (but wasn't sure I would) get.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
but recognize the bias and that there may be errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be so much more helpful if the critics of this book would include examples instead of generalities.

Could you provide what you think some of the major errors are? Specific examples please, not "pre-flop rasing section is bad."

As a reader of the book and someone with little NL experience in comparison to most others, it would be of great benefit to hear which specific advice advocated in the book experienced players have issues with.

Thanks!

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but recognize the bias and that there may be errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be so much more helpful if the critics of this book would include examples instead of generalities.

Could you provide what you think some of the major errors are? Specific examples please, not "pre-flop rasing section is bad."

As a reader of the book and someone with little NL experience in comparison to most others, it would be of great benefit to hear which specific advice advocated in the book experienced players have issues with.

Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to write up a standard blurb for this - I think I post it about once a week [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

The debate centers around how you vary your raise size preflop when you're the first raiser. There are three basic approaches you can take:

1) Constant value (ie 4BB)

2) Varied based on previous action (ie. 3BB + 1BB per previous limper)

3) Varied based on hole cards and previous action


Slansky advocates approach 3) in many cases. You should be able to pick them out by reviewing that section - the paragraph I highlighted on p117 in my previous post in an example.

A lot of players feel that approach 3) is very dangerous against good opposition because it reveals too much about your hole cards. Additionally, many people feel that the edge it gives you if you get lucky and your opponents are oblivious is small. Small edge & big danger = bad, or so the thinking goes. Most of these people advocate approach 2). Some advocate 1) against extreme fish because it keeps them from wondering why you vary your bet.

Those who advocate approach 3), including Slansky, usually suggest applying some randomization to hopefully hide exactly what you're doing. This of course reduces the danger, but also reduces the edge you're getting.

Another controversial idea from NLH:TAP is that Slansky advocates set farming (playing small PP to hit a set) with a big starting pot. I think this is wrong because set farming requires substantial implied odds and ballooning the pot preflop is contrary to that. I don't know I've ever seen much debate on that point.

[DMoogle]

[ QUOTE ]
On the bad side, I think it reads a bit like A Nit's Adventures in NL Land. One of the first things Slansky does is admit that you can learn and apply everything in the book and still get demolished by a player with a better grasp of "art" side of poker who doesn't understand the "science" nearly as well. In other words, Slansky's teaching the wrong things, but they're what he understands so they're what he teaches. That's weak sauce in my book, but fits very closely with the standard 2+2 publishing bias. There are also some sections of NLH:TAP that many strong players and theorists contend are just wrong. The preflop raise sizing stuff for starters. So you need to be careful.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you emphasize? I'm not done with the book yet, but I thought the preflop sizing section was pretty insightful. Although I don't think it applies as much to online poker (where people pay more attention to the size of preflop raises), it's something I keep in mind when I'm playing live.

[theBruiser500]

i've read david slansky's book on NLHe it's bad

[skillzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
i've read david slansky's book on NLHe it's bad

[/ QUOTE ]

hows your book coming along