Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

Matt Flynn · #1 07-23-2007, 12:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
REM?

[/ QUOTE ]

Range, Equity, Maximize. It describes how to think through no-limit problems.

REM in PNL1 does not include second/third level thinking about ranges. Volume 2 has a lot about impressions of ranges including second/third level thinking and related topics.

smbruin22 · #2 07-23-2007, 12:28 PM

really looking forward to this book, and i believe the #1 basic in no-limit is depth of stack and how to play certain hands (i.e. what stack level are all my chips going in with AA? except i guess for huge callers and amazing flop.... but is that general stack size 15BB, 35BB, 50 BB???)

i enjoy tournaments so looking forward to short-stack and shortish-stack advice. especially the whole relationship between getting paid and commitment to your hand....

basically looking for this stack size and this hand, you should be thinking XXXXXX... and sounds like this book will be excellent. surprisingly not that much stuff like this out there.

dafrk3in · #3 07-23-2007, 12:31 PM

when is volume two coming out?

dthf90210 · #4 07-23-2007, 01:27 PM

Wow. I received my PNL (along with How to Dominate and Sit 'n Go) already (thanks to Mike at ProfessionalPoker.com), and I'm in Boston right now visiting! My review upon skimming is that PNL looks like a damn good book. I would like to see 3 or 4 volumes, not 2, if the authors think they have that much to say. One volume alone could be all problems/examples like Harrington did. Examples like that are very helpful to the learning process. The other volumes could cover various aspects of FR and 6-max live and online. Just a thought. Can't wait for the next volume and for the Harrington cash books. Now I have to decide what order to read these books in . . .

dthf90210 · #5 07-23-2007, 01:32 PM

Oh, for those of you who are still deprived, I would be willing to sell the entire set of three books for $1,000 total. Wait a minute! What is this typo on the fine print in the back! Refund please.

Matt Flynn · #6 07-23-2007, 03:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see 3 or 4 volumes, not 2, if the authors think they have that much to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much appreciated dthf! If we're still game for writing you'll see at least four.

We're trying to stay methodical for volume 2 but also give readers what they most want, like discussion of 6-max vs. full ring.

Let me know what you think of PNL1.

Gonso · #7 07-23-2007, 03:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see 3 or 4 volumes, not 2, if the authors think they have that much to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much appreciated dthf! If we're still game for writing you'll see at least four.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why stop there

There are many colors

Buconero · #8 07-23-2007, 03:58 PM

Matt,

After intending to spend 20-30 mins skimming the book I've just returned to the real world more than 4 hours later!

Most of the focus of the book is on manipulating the SPR to suit you and not your opponents. While I intuitively understood some of the principles of SPR before reading chunks of the book I now realize just how much more thorough I'm going to have to be in implementing it into my game. I shudder when I think of how badly I've been misplaying top pair hands against aggressive opponents. There is no doubt that this book will be of great help to all players up to Mid Stakes. Its refreshing to see a systematic treatment of how stack sizes influence the way a hand is played - a subject that is almost completely ignored by other NLH books.

DeepCroak · #9 07-26-2007, 12:39 PM

There's what appears to be an inconsistency in the book that I haven't seen discussed anywhere (if I missed it, please point me in the right direction).

The authors recommend a default bet size of 2/3 pot. Yes, I know that isn't always a perfect bet size, but since sometimes smaller will be better and sometimes larger will be better, I translate that as recommending "on average" a 2/3 pot bet.

However, in all the justification for why certain SPRs are good for some hands and bad for others, those SPRs are calculated based on full pot-sized bets. Wouldn't it be more consistent to use 2/3 pot-sized bets in all those SPR calculations?

A similar comment could apply to the recommendation to not put more than 1/3 of the stack in without being committed.

I know someone is going to respond "they are not inconsistent. Do you see why?". The answer is "No, I don't see why. Please explain."

Matt Flynn · #10 07-26-2007, 12:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The authors recommend a default bet size of 2/3 pot. Yes, I know that isn't always a perfect bet size, but since sometimes smaller will be better and sometimes larger will be better, I translate that as recommending "on average" a 2/3 pot bet.

However, in all the justification for why certain SPRs are good for some hands and bad for others, those SPRs are calculated based on full pot-sized bets. Wouldn't it be more consistent to use 2/3 pot-sized bets in all those SPR calculations?

[/ QUOTE ]

good eye DeepCroak.

pot-sized bets were used in the SPR section mainly because they're easier to follow. it IS inconsistent with the 2/3 pot recommendation. that inconsistency was a conscious choice on our part.

pot-sized bets aren't important to using SPR. you still have to figure out how much you can extract from opponents with lesser hands when you'd prefer to be committed (target SPRs). if 2/3 pot is the norm bet size for you, you work from that. there's a brief table in Betting to Get All-in that may help.

the commitment threshold is a little different. suppose SPR is 4. pot-pot gets you all-in heads-up. if instead bet is 2/3 pot, the logical move is still all-in. the overall argument still applies with a 2/3 pot bet. once 10% of the smaller stack is in the pot, two big bets gets the money all-in. therefore, you must be very careful about big bets once 10% of the smaller stack goes in (that is, once you are at the commitment threshold).