Worst Two Plus Two Poker Book Ever!

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I voted for HoH3 because I think it was a huge letdown compared to 1 and 2.

[/ QUOTE ]I hate to disagree with your agreement, but I really thought it was a great book. The first two were VERY light on post flop play, and this one covered a lot of situations that really got me to think beyond starting hands and into approaches on all streets. So it really completes the series well. But of all the books I read, I guess I feel like I probably could have lived without it since I've gottn a lot of the same information by reading the 2+2 MTT forum and the discussions there.

[/ QUOTE ]


One thing I didn't like about HoH3 was that I had seen many of the hands already on TV. It sort of defeats the purpose of thinking your way through a hand when you know the results. That's why in the strategy forums we always tell posters not to post the results.

The other thing I didn't like was that the hands were chosen from players playing a wide variety of styles. Maybe this is actually a personal problem of mine and I need to "think outside the box" or whatever, but to me it made the book kind of weird and disjointed.

The first two books were completely geared toward teaching a new player the conservative TAG style that Harrington and some others play. He did review other styles and how best to take advantage of them from the perspective of a TAG, but the main focus was playing the conservative TAG style and taking advantage of the image that style creates.

However, in HoH3 I'm suddenly supposed to morph into Phil Ivey for a hand. Preflop from EP I have something silly like 93o and Harrington gives 3 points for folding and 0 points for calling. Now 4 or 5 players see a flop that totally misses my (Ivey’s) hand, and I get 3 points for raising into 4 players and 0 points for checking, which would be the natural and prudent thing to do for a player without Ivey’s reading skills.

Anyway, compared to the majority of other tournament poker books by other publishers it’s not a bad book but compared to Volume 1 and 2 I thought it was a big letdown.

[Jeff76]

I think the idea that Harrington teaches a conservative style is a misconception. He says in Vol1 that you have to be able to shift gears if you want to win, and this means being able to play a wider variety of opening hands. But the fundamentals are the fundamentals no matter how loose your starting hands are, and that's the focus of the books.

The mixing of styles was a good thing, IMHO, because it helps illustrate the different "gears" one must have available in order to be a real threat at the table.

The Phil Ivey hand makes a great point, but I think a lot of people miss it. The point is, if you are going to see a flop with 93o, you aren't doing so because it has showdown value, so you MUST give yourself a chance to win by betting if you think there's a chace you can take down the pot. It isn't prudent at all to see a flop and then check/fold once you miss. Being able to analyze the factors surrounding the hand without even considering our own cards (because obviously we have nothing) is a very useful exercise.

Like I said, I reallly did like the book and thought it filled out the series. Was it as good as vol 2 (which I think is the meat of the series)? No. But I don't regard it as a letdown.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea that Harrington teaches a conservative style is a misconception. He says in Vol1 that you have to be able to shift gears if you want to win, and this means being able to play a wider variety of opening hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the shifting gears, but disagree regarding Harington's style not being predominantly conservative. He describes it himself as conservative, with the goal of making plays that simplify his decision making.



[ QUOTE ]
It isn't prudent at all to see a flop and then check/fold once you miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you can read players like Phil Ivey can, then betting at this flop with 4 players to act behind you sure seems imprudent to me.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the shifting gears, but disagree regarding Harington's style not being predominantly conservative. He describes it himself as conservative, with the goal of making plays that simplify his decision making.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Jbrochu:

I think you may want to reread exactly what Dan says. Volume I which is for early and middle stages of the tournament does describe a conservative style. But Dan makes it very clear in Volume II when you are getting into the later stages of a tournament that playing conservatively is not the way to go.

In fact and page 158 of Volume II Dan and Bill write:

[ QUOTE ]
Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no conservative players at the tail end of tournaments. Someone who’s waiting for premium starting hands with a short stack isn’t playing conservatively, he’s just playing badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best wishes,
Mason

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
But Dan makes it very clear in Volume II when you are getting into the later stages of a tournament that playing conservatively is not the way to go.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason,

I understand that opinion and fully agree with it.


Regards,
John

[debater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker Tournament Strategies FTW

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what I voted for. No contest. Though I have not read Poker Truth And Poker Farce.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had, you'd change your vote I think

[/ QUOTE ]

[Yakuman]

Wasn't there a book on <blech> video poker?

[punter11235]

I accidently voted for NLHTAP which I think is 2nd worst.
I think the worst one is Psychology of Poker by huge margin from what Ive read so far (but I didnt read all of them).

The best is imo HOH2. Also TOP and Gambling theory and other topics are really great imo.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was going to vote for Theory of Poker but then Mason and Mat beat me to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to admit to being surprised by the amount of votes TOP gained. I can only think that people own the earlier versions which perhaps were not as well edited as later editions.

[/ QUOTE ]


Or, perhaps your sarcasm detector is broken beyond all repair...

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to take statements literally. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Though, now you point it out...

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, lot of people probably just wanted to see the results.
I thought it was a silly poll so was just going to vote for TOP.
I can only assume that many of the people voting for TOP were joking or just didn't care but wanted to see the results.

I don't have an opinion on what the worst one is because I haven't read all of them.

If it was a poll about "Which is the worst 2+2 book that YOU have read" then TOP could still get votes from anyone who has ONLY read that book.

[RedGladiator]

i've only read HOH 1 2 TOP GSIHE NLHET&P

so i picked HOH which i thought was great.
the poll is FLAWED and i don't see what you can hope to conclude with it.