HOH vol 2 - putting it all together

[jdefoe]

I disagree with Harrington in this section when he discusses the "Negreanu vs Deeb" hand.

He states that on the turn in order to win the pot, Negreanu must bet, because checking shows weakness. I agree with this. But then he says that he's representing the A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]x [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and then he goes though the past betting.

An expert player like Negreanu is much more likely to check the turn with outs to the nut flush draw fearing a check raise. Then when Deep bets on the end, a raise by Negreanu would make more sense for a flush.

What do you think?

[jdefoe]

In the actual hand, Deeb said "you must have flopped a set" and folded, and i know semi bluffing on the turn is for experts, but I really do think that a turn check would have represented the flush better. what do you think?

[ECDub]

You should write a book on poker.

[Red_Diamond]

Im still trying to make sense of his 10 to 1 rule... O_o

Actually, I'm still baffled how 2 + 2 published the book, without bringing to attention that this contradicts numerous past 2+2 magazine publications. Surely there is a proof-reading dept around?

Or maybe some more pages explaining this twist on theory had to be removed from the press due to space issues.

[Red_Diamond]

Come to think of it.. another thing wich has me scratching my head..

Problem #18.. Evaluating a weak hands.

Here, we are suggested to call an all-in bet with a 56o because the person is a bounty.

Pot is 6,300, and the the bounty pushes for his whole stack of 10 G.

But it's worth the call on any two junk cards because if you add in the magical bounty value of 5,000 from the player then...
Tadahh... this really makes it a better than 3-1 deal.

Hmm.

I understand what he is getting at but... I think one needs to watch out, as this strategy may be somewhat flawed if you are truely going for first place in the tournament.

I don't know any bounty tournaments local that allow you to take BOUNTY prizes, and add them to your stack during play.

Suppose a bounty is worth a billion dollars, then that makes it correct to call an all-in for a runner runner for quads to bust up his set of aces due to the ADJUSTED pot-odds?

[Caribbean Steve]

you'd have to see it... freddy was confused from proir hand where he got bit and the bite is still stinging...
if u guys watched it on TV you'd see he was getting beat up a few hands before this one

[Caribbean Steve]

[ QUOTE ]
Im still trying to make sense of his 10 to 1 rule... O_o

Actually, I'm still baffled how 2 + 2 published the book, without bringing to attention that this contradicts numerous past 2+2 magazine publications. Surely there is a proof-reading dept around?

Or maybe some more pages explaining this twist on theory had to be removed from the press due to space issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and No and unless your Opponent has a pair or even more so a Big pair.. Any ramdom hand isn't really a huge dog to the hands he could be holding.. 10X your opponents hand is the stack to apply maximum pressure

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
Im still trying to make sense of his 10 to 1 rule

[/ QUOTE ]It is simple. The FE and table image you get from this move makes it profitable to push in against a random hand. This is the theory he's presenting, anyway. Not everyone agrees with it, I think, but it's not rocket science.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
this strategy may be somewhat flawed if you are truely going for first place in the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, if first place means something to us that is greater than money, then probably a fold is in order. But from a pure money equity standpoint, taking gambles where the combination +cEV +$EV is profitable is generally going to net you more money in long run than passing on these opportunities.