I just ordered Angel Largay's book, What parts are bad?

[steamboatin]

I used the search function and actually found a thread. The consensus is it is a good book but some parts are not as good. What parts suck?

[Hallett]

I liked the whole thing.

[smbruin22]

formatting wasn't that great... and it makes some difference.

also, angel is a little crazy about straddling, and playing alot of crazy hands just to build his stack. and then he'll make the money he lost back and more.

... and i don't think that's good advice for really anyone. obviously works for angel.... and not totally sure how deep we're talking on the stacks. yes, it's restricted buy-in games, but stacks get pretty big sometimes, which is partially why angel wants to build his so much.

[Hairball]

I just finished reading Angel's book and I thought the whole thing was very worthwhile. There was one bad pun about not going where angels fear to tread...

Lots of poker books include descriptions of the various player types, but I thought Angel did an especially good job of describing them on a practical level. It's good advise made even better by the section at the back of the book where Angel describes how he would play several different hands differently against each of the player types and, more importantly, why. The advise itself is quite worthy, but the biggest benefit comes from getting a first hand account of how a successful player thinks about a hand as it is unfolding.

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this book to anyone looking to better their low-limit no-limit hold'em game. If you play only online then you'll need to take some of the advise with a grain of salt and adjust other advise to the realities of online play. If you play higher stakes than 2/5 live then this book is (by Angel's admission) not for you and you won't likely benefit from it much because it addresses issues, situations, and prevalent player types that are not typically found in higher limit games.

[steamboatin]

I am starting to play $1-2 NL live $100 min $300 max. My regular limit games are drying up. The games still go for the most part the the player pool is greatly diminished so I have to switch to NL.

[Skleice]

I ordered this book after reading posts in this forum and have gotten about 1/2 way through it. So far I like it very much. The focus on these stakes applies directly to my current situation, so it couldn't be more relevant. I liked the quizzes because it forced me to do some of the math that I otherwise have glassed over in the 2+2 books. (Rather than do the calculations, I always just taken Sklanksy's word for it.) I got a deeper insight by performing the calculations myself. I definetly have a deeper understanding of implied odds after doing the math, and have a deeper appreciation for hidden draws.

I have noticed that there are some inaccuracies with the quizzes. Angel tells you to list all draws on Quiz 2 but fails to list many of the gutshots on some questions, but notes them on others. (one of the gutshots is flipped with an OESD in the answers too) Also, on quiz 10 #3 Angel only gives you credit for 4 outs, when you actually have 10 against the A6 he has listed. Anybody else notice these?

Overall I have enjoyed it and look forward to keep reading.

[agoldenbear]

His preflop guidelines are (as he admits) very unconventional. His mantra is to never raise preflop on the strength of his hand ALONE. Other factors may call for a raise, but not exclusively the cards themselves.

Largay is all about deception in the low-limit no limit games, because he views the average player at these stakes as pretty straightforward; for this reason he limps a lot in EP with AA and KK, likes to limp with AK, and at one point says he might just check JJ in the BB even with a bunch of limpers.

I guess the rationale is that when you don't raise preflop, straightforward players trying to put you on a hand on a later street will have to exclude the bigger hands with which they themselves would naturally bring in for a raise. Since the stacks are usually pretty shallow in LLNL, this sort of deception is more likely to double you up than at larger stakes.

[smbruin22]

agoldenbear, good comments... and yes, i do find that if you raise early to mid, even alot of fishy players will notice that you don't play alot of hands and respect you. but they don't seem to react the same way to the early-mid call. and i think quite often you will get the raise behind you.

[agoldenbear]

thanks bruin...i agree that with the looseness you typically find at these stakes, you'll usually get a chance to repop if you limp in EP.

What did you think of Largay's chapter on Expectation? On page 61, in the example where you've flopped broadway and are deciding on how much to bet, Largay factors in the amount of the pot to get the total amount you stand to lose. He says: "Four times you would lose the $10 you bet plus the $10 that was already in the pot and yours for the taking if you had [pushed all in] on the flop, for a total of $20."

Based on everything I've read by Sklansky on EV, this seems flawed. The pot is never "yours for the taking," right? I mean, you're not supposed to add the current pot into the EV calculation as something you stand to lose, are you?

[LocustHorde]

[ QUOTE ]


Largay is all about deception in the low-limit no limit games, because he views the average player at these stakes as pretty straightforward; for this reason he limps a lot in EP with AA and KK, likes to limp with AK, and at one point says he might just check JJ in the BB even with a bunch of limpers.



[/ QUOTE ]

he limps in with these hands because the low limit players are easier to trap and take their whole stack in the proccess