USE THE BOOK FOR WHAT THE AUTHOR INTENDS!

[MicroBob]

Yes, there's a big difference between what deacsoft is saying and saying "learning different forms of poker can actually help you become a better limit HE player" or something like that.


In other news: I was paging through the Alan Alda autobiography "Never have your dog stuffed" and will be transferring that knowledge to my PL Omaha game.

And you can become a better Razz player if you incorporate concepts from Thomas Pynchon's "Crying of Lot 49" and Somerset Maughm's "The Razor's Edge". But if you only read one and not the other then your game will be negatively impacted. You have to read both...preferrably at the same time.

Warning: All of the benefits to your Razz game which you might have gained by reading these 2 books will be wiped-out if you read just 1 page of an Ayn Rand book.

[Peter666]

It should be noted that "Kill Phil" doesn't advocate open raising with these hands, but putting in a mild raise, or check raising to trap your opponents and killing them with the all in later.

[jct]

[ QUOTE ]
You try to adapt tourney books to cash games and then wonder why you're losing or not winning as much as you think you should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

In GSIH, doesn't Ed miller suggest HOH 1 in the suggested reading section of the NL cash game section?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi jct:

Not only does Ed make this suggestion, but Dan Harrington also thinks that Harrington on Hold 'em: Volume I has a great deal of value for cash games since the early stages of most tournaments have many similarities to cash games.

But Deac's point is also valid. There are many different types of poker and what works for one doesn't necessarily work for another. An example is image. Many years ago, to another writer's dismay, I began to argue that the right image for games where the size of the bet is often small compared to the size of the pot, like limit hold 'em and (limit) seven-card stud was that of a tight one. But I also agreed that for games where the bet is relatively large compared to the size of the pot, such as no limit hold 'em, that a loose image was best. (See my book Poker Essays for more discussion.)

So you always need to keep this in mind. What's applicable for one form of poker may or may not work well with another. But if you understand the theory and principles that govern poker, these differences should become apparent.

Best wishes,
Mason

[amulet]

micro, that was exactly what i was trying to write. ty. moving in with AA whgen your deep stacked and the blinds are low is not the way to get max value from the hand.

additionally, i don't think kp teaches nl, it uses a system, and i think there are a lot better ways to learn poker.

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
...Many years ago, to another writer's dismay, I began to argue that the right image for games where the size of the bet is often small compared to the size of the pot, like limit hold 'em and (limit) seven-card stud was that of a tight one. But I also agreed that for games where the bet is relatively large compared to the size of the pot, such as no limit hold 'em, that a loose image was best. (See my book Poker Essays for more discussion.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

This is the second time in a week you've brought this up. Being that "Poker Essays" is one of the few titles of yours I haven't read I wonder if you might expand a bit on this principle.

While I can see that a loose image can be optimal in NL, couldn't a loose image and tight play be more optimal in limit, than tight image coupled with tight play?

I ask this in the context that in limit play it seems there's a slightly greater likelihood among many players to make turn or river moves on a tight player (who may fairly be assumed to be more willing to fold a hand). This counter tendency of opponents to play in a straightforward way against the tight player can make for a more difficult set of decisions for that tight player.

If I'm not mistaken one of the aims of HEFAP is to make plays which heighten the chance that your opponents are more likely to act in a straightforward manner. It seems that a tight limit player with a loose image may further that goal.

Your thoughts, as always, are appreciated, especially if my assumptions are incorrect.

[BigBrother]

IMHO, it's an issue of bet size relative to pot size, the frequency that you think you can get calls on your bets with strong hands, and the frequency that you can get folds with your bluffs or weak hands.

In limit play there are often multiple reasons why your opponents can justify calling a bet, so you are going to see the showdown a lot anyway. But if you can occasionally pull off a bluff (due to a Tight image) you can win several times your bet for a nice profit. Likewise, your tight image may force your opponents to 'slow down' when you are in the pot, so if you are drawing you might be able to stay in more cheaply.

Obviously the most profitable Limit game is a table full of Loose-passives, where you can just bet all your good hands for value and be called all the way down. But against decent opposition, just having a loose image and playing tight is not likely to get you there, since you will have to give up significant EV to aquire that loose image.

Also, there is a big difference between having a 'tight' image and having a 'weak-tight' image. Obviously if you are making ridiculous laydowns your thinking opponents are going to abuse you.

[betgo]

I basically disagree with the approach of the OP. A good book should have a lot of application behind its intended function. The problem is trying to apply advice in a formulistic way. This is not effective even for its intended function and more ineffective beyond its intended function.