hpfap review on amzon.co.uk

[skillzilla]

The ideas contained in this book are outdated and useless, even harmful. The concepts were developed by Sklansky in another era for another game. The modern game typically has two to three players seeing the flop for two to three bets. When Sklansky wrote his original book based on his experiences in relatively low limit games i.e the 10-20 game at the Gold Nugget) where a tight game was described as one where around five players saw the flop for half a bet or a full bet. Another section of the new book talks about games where no one at the table takes the game seriously. Those games just don't exist at levels high enough for the player to have a chance to overcome the rake (20-40 or higher).

Particularly dangerous is the book's oft stated theme of rating suited hands much higher than non-suited hands. For instance, 10 J suited is rated equivalent to A Q offsuit. Playing small suited connectors is suicide in the average high limit game (seeing the flop against one or two opponents for two to three bets). There is only a minimal difference between say A Q offsuit and A Q suited in this type of game because (1) you hit flushes very rarely (about 4% of the time when you're suited) and (2) you'll actually make more flushes with the off suited hand. Playing garbage hands in hopes of hitting a 1 in 25 flush is the biggest single error made by bad players and this book sytemically reinforces this error. This 1 in 25 shot is particularly ill advised when you play in game with lots of two or three handed flops.

The other problem is that strategy suggestions repeatedly encourage calling way too loose and raising way too tight, just the opposite strategy that consistent winning players employ. I suspect that Malmuth knows that the strategies suggested won't work in high limit games and are thus of no use (or even detrimental) to advanced players.

It is certainly true, however, that an amateur player could benefit from the book as long as they understand that the book will not turn them into a pro or enable them to overcome the rake in low limit games.

Finally, the authors discussion focused almost exclusively on structured limit games. There are only a handful of truly successful limit poker pros in the world. Anybody that can play, even a little bit, should focus on playing no-limit or pot limit. Even the authors admit that many of the really difficult situations are break even decisions in limit poker. In open limit games, however, these situations are extremely critical.

Psychology, tells, and betting strategies are so much more important in no limit that most working, practicing holdem/omaha pros refuse to play structured limit. Limit poker is great for the house, because they end up with all the money. If you have some talent (and some passion) for the game and you're trying to become a serious player, pass on this book and pass on limit poker in general.



how much of this review is true, is the book rally outdated or is this book amustread for any semiserious player

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
(2) you'll actually make more flushes with the off suited hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this is true or not?

[counterspell]

this is absurd.

[A_F]

[ QUOTE ]
you'll actually make more flushes with the off suited hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Hilarious.

[DiggerDog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(2) you'll actually make more flushes with the off suited hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this is true or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I decided to run this theory through Mike Caro's Poker Probe, a simulation program. I ran the test 3 times in order to create an average using the following conditions:

- Hold'em is the game
- 3 players
- Player 1 is always dealt A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
- Players 2 & 3 receive random cards
- 1,000,000 hands dealt

This resulted in Player 1 making a flush an average of 19,587 times in those 1,000,000 dealt hands.

I then re-ran the simulation making only one change:

- A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] became A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

This resulted in Player 1 making a flush an average of 65,749 times in those 1,000,000 dealt hands.

Let's review:

Unsuited starting cards making flushes - 19,587 times in 1,000,000 hands (averaged)
Suited starting cards making flushes - 65,749 times in 1,000,000 hands (averaged)

Final Result: I want this mook of a reviewer to play in my home game. Anyone have his phone number?

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
I decided to run this theory through Mike Caro's Poker Probe

[/ QUOTE ]Right. Thanks for workin' that out for us, I guess.

Skillzilla, that's hilarious. Is there any name or account given with the review? Can we at least read other reviews by the same guy?
-Sam

[hoopsie44]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you'll actually make more flushes with the off suited hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to remember Ken Warren espousing the same philosophy.

[PJS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I decided to run this theory through Mike Caro's Poker Probe

[/ QUOTE ]Right. Thanks for workin' that out for us, I guess.

Skillzilla, that's hilarious. Is there any name or account given with the review? Can we at least read other reviews by the same guy?
-Sam

[/ QUOTE ]

I've just been on the website now to find out, and there is no further link to see all the reviews made by this person. I'm devastated, I'd loved to have seen them! Btw, the reviewer awarded the book a 2 star out of 5 rating [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
The ideas contained in this book are outdated and useless, even harmful.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not something I say usually, but this reviewer is retarded.

[PJS]

I've just noticed something on the website. This review took place in 1999, so how on earth is it only reaching these forums now? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]