Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[quadaces9999]

Overall Is PNL better then NLHTAP?

[JROK777]

PNL has raised more questions than answers. I'm sure that I will be spewing chips around for awhile. W/o a lot more information(Vol. 2), I don't think PNL is going to make a big difference in my BB/100. Basically PNL can be boiled down to this: 1) Don't put 1/3 of your chips in the pot w/o commiting to calling a shove. SPR=If you have a TPBK or overpair type hand, it would be best to make the pot big preflop. Then make PSB that would result in being all in on the turn. That's common SNG advise. Good players don't play the river in NL SNG's, they plan on being AI by the turn. I am looking forward to Volume 2. I think the author's have some good stuff in store for us. I think a format like HOH2 would be best for PNL2. I wish there was a little more to work with in Vol.1.

[mshalen]

I have been reading this thread since the begining but wouldn't chirp in until I read the book. I originally pre-ordered through Amazon but when they emailed me that the book would not be shipped until late August I canceled my order and ordered from Mike at Professional. The book arrived quickly and Mike now has a new regular customer.

Reading this book has cleared up a number of issues that I have had concerning NL. Many times I would be observing the action at a table and after the hand was completed I reviewed the action and couldn't figure out why the people played their hands the way they did. I just wrote some players off as fish/morons, but it appears that some were using some form of SPR analysis.

I now am starting to understand Reuben and Ciaffone. I read their books (a few times through) many years ago and couldn't grasp the concepts or why people talked about how great their books were for big stack poker. Now I am starting to get it.

I agree with phydaux's post above where he mentions MTTs. I too have started thinking that the strategies have many applications in MTTs and will spend some time working out some scenarios.

Overall the book is very good. The concepts are explained in an easy to read/understand manner. The one confusing part is that in many places a concept is introduced in not much depth and then we are told that this will be revisted on page x. If this occured once or twice then it would be fine but it appears at numerous places throughout the book. The above posts that are the most off base seem to be written by people who have not read the book or take a sentence out of context and twist the meaning.

Overall the book gets a solid A and I am looking forward to Vol.2. Thanks for writting this book, I feel that this book will make a significant impact on my playing ability (and bankroll).

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]


Matt, so you're saying that hands like KQ play better when effective stacks are around 50bb because when you make TPGK then the commitment decision is easy and getting all the money in is easy once you commit.

[/ QUOTE ]

for that to be true some of your opponents must be willing to routinely get all-in for 50bb with say KJ or KT on a K board. i find live games like that sometimes, but almost never on the internet.

[ QUOTE ]
Hands like KQ go down in value when effective stacks are 100BB+, since it takes more betting rounds to get all the money in and allows your opponent more cards to make his monster before the commitment threshold is crossed. Hands like 87s go up, however, because of the implied odds plus the chance that you'll either make your monster draw on the turn, or not make it and get away from the hand with plenty of stack still left.

[/ QUOTE ]

first part is off. the increased beting rounds required to get all-in do make it ahrder for you and help a drawing opponent, but far more important is whether he'll get all-in with a weaker hand than yours.

the general idea is true: top pair hands favor smaller stacks and draw hands work better with bigger stacks.

SPR is about managing and leveraging commitment. nothing says you can't play a smaller pot if your opponents will let you. e.g., you flop KT7 with KQ and bet 1/2 pot, 1/5 pot, 1/5 pot. some weaker opponents will let you get away with that repeatedly. then you're playing KQ for something like 20-30bb.

[Jzo19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Matt, so you're saying that hands like KQ play better when effective stacks are around 50bb because when you make TPGK then the commitment decision is easy and getting all the money in is easy once you commit.

[/ QUOTE ]

for that to be true some of your opponents must be willing to routinely get all-in for 50bb with say KJ or KT on a K board. i find live games like that sometimes, but almost never on the internet.

[ QUOTE ]
Hands like KQ go down in value when effective stacks are 100BB+, since it takes more betting rounds to get all the money in and allows your opponent more cards to make his monster before the commitment threshold is crossed. Hands like 87s go up, however, because of the implied odds plus the chance that you'll either make your monster draw on the turn, or not make it and get away from the hand with plenty of stack still left.

[/ QUOTE ]

first part is off. the increased beting rounds required to get all-in do make it ahrder for you and help a drawing opponent, but far more important is whether he'll get all-in with a weaker hand than yours.

the general idea is true: top pair hands favor smaller stacks and draw hands work better with bigger stacks.

SPR is about managing and leveraging commitment. nothing says you can't play a smaller pot if your opponents will let you. e.g., you flop KT7 with KQ and bet 1/2 pot, 1/5 pot, 1/5 pot. some weaker opponents will let you get away with that repeatedly. then you're playing KQ for something like 20-30bb.

[/ QUOTE ]

so i'd much rather play 67s than kq in 100bb online games (assuming every1 has a full stack)

so lets say in a 6 handed online game (every1 has a full stack) , utg+1 raises 3.5bb (he's a standard player, range 22+AJ+kq) .. if i were on the button i would much rather call with 67s (if my intent were to steal some pots) than KQO,AQo,AJo

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]


so i'd much rather play 67s than kq in 100bb online games (assuming every1 has a full stack)

[/ QUOTE ]

would need qualifiers on this.


[ QUOTE ]
so lets say in a 6 handed online game (every1 has a full stack) , utg+1 raises 3.5bb (he's a standard player, range 22+AJ+kq) .. if i were on the button i would much rather call with 67s (if my intent were to steal some pots) than KQO,AQo,AJo

[/ QUOTE ]


assuming stealing is part of your plan, then very much so.

[JLD]

Matt, Sunny, and Ed,

I really enjoyed reading the book…felt it raised a number of new interesting concepts that I am still digesting. I particularly liked your approach of stating the key idea/takeaway in the text with the qualifier included in the footnotes. Hopefully you take this as a reflection of the substance of your book but I have a number of questions as a result of reading it the first time. I intend to reread it but hoped you could shed some additional light on the following issues as I continue to think about the text. In the interest of relative brevity I have posted three different topics:
SPR Targets and Commitment
The R in REM
Pre-flop Bet Sizing and Target SPRs

As context, I am a low-limit no-limit player who is winning both live ($1-$2) and online ($0.10-$0.25) by playing relatively tight and mostly aggressive. I have read many of the common books. However, I know that I should be earning more so I am working and thinking about how to get better.

SPR Targets and Commitment
I think the thesis that you have to plan your hand from the beginning to the end is a key idea that I did not consider enough previously…as you said my mistake was that each street was largely its own decision point not an integrated whole from beginning to end.

I think the problem I am having is not a disagreement with the central thesis/idea but more in its implementation. As I read the book, I was uncomfortable with statements like pg. 195 “If you then hit the flop (with your target SPR), commit and get the money in as fast as you reasonably can.” The top of the page suggested that an SPR of 4.5 was good against an average player for TPTK hands. I agree that this is a good SPR for me with TPTK against an average player but only if the money goes in over three streets not all on the flop. If all of the money goes in on the flop (I open push, I raise or check-raise all-in, or he open pushes or raises or check-raises me all-in) I don’t think my TPTK is good there almost ever. Maybe my TPTK is good on a coordinated flop against a loose player who I have seen repeatedly semi-bluff aggressively with draws but not against the “average” player at these stakes.

Towards the back of the book you discuss this on page 262 when you mention conditional commitment across three streets and in other places you mention adjusting to new information and likely opponent ranges. Since I agree that the “Average” player at these stakes typically only check-raises with two pair or better (pg. 159), the only way all the money is getting in prior to river is if he has my TPTK beat. However, I can get the same amount of money in good by value-betting (2/3 pot – ½ pot – ½ pot) each street against the rest of his range.

In summary, the same SPR of 4.2 on the flop is good for my TPTK if I get the money in across all three streets but bad if the money gets in prior to the river against this “average” opponent. I think the importance of how the money gets in holds for the other player types as well at their respective SPRs. Of the three, I am probably the most willing to get the money in quickly with the loose aggressive player.

Do you agree with this statement?
Am I giving my “average” opponents too much credit and they are looser than this?
If you do agree with this statement about the importance of how the money goes in (across all three streets versus all on the flop), I think I am missing something in the earlier section about being committed on the flop and therefore willing to get it in as fast as possible.

[JLD]

The R in REM
As you mention in your book, one of the biggest differences between professionals and amateur poker players is hand reading and I think this is due to the professionals’ greater experience of playing many more hands (as well as thinking about those hands critically). I think there are certain betting patterns which are obviously strong or weak to the experienced poker player that escape the amateur’s attention. While you mention a couple of these in your book (a very passive player significantly overbetting the pot is holding a strong hand, a typical low stakes player (i.e. not very aggressive) checkraising on the turn usually has two pair or better), I think a fuller treatment of this in your next book would be very helpful in improving our ability to accurately estimate an opponent’s range. While I have not seen a very good treatment of this in any book, Ed recently had two articles on his site talking about pre-flop and post-flop betting patterns which indicated the strength of someone’s hand which were the best I had seen in this regard. I think a section on hand reading which discussed common betting patterns and opponent type-specific betting patterns would be very helpful in improving people’s estimation of opponent’s hand ranges.

[gmcarroll33]

I've got a quick question about SPR that if somebody could clarify for me I'd appreciate. I've gotten confused because in a lot of the book it assumes equal stacks so I can understand SPR and all as to how the pot relates to my stack, but where I get confused is when I have somebody covered. What am I supposed to use for the SPR, the shorter stack's remaining stack after the flop or my own stack in relation to the preflop pot. How am I supposed to go in thinking about the pot in terms of my own SPR at that point when I'm not the shortest stack?

Say for example I have $360 with AA in 1-2 NL, and my opponent has $120. If I bet $20 preflop and he calls the preflop pot will be $40 and he will only have 100 left giving him a SPR of about 2.5 Question is do I use 2.5 as the my SPR as well at this point, or is my SPR 340/40, or close to about 8? I'm trying to figure out if in this situation I'm supposed to set the preflop action up as the larger stack to where raises and calls will make an SPR of 4-7 based on what the smaller stack has, or in regards to my own stack.

The reason I got confused is because of the example on pg 260-61 with the 10-9 hand on a J-8-6 board. Where it assumes I have a SPR of 14 against the raiser because he only has $274 left with a pot of $19, and a SPR of about 21 versus the Big Blind because of his stack because I'm now the short stack.

Thanks for any clarification or help.

[JLD]

Pre-flop Bet Sizing and Target SPRs
Following through on your key advice on thinking about the hand from beginning to end at the start of the hand, I put myself on the button in a live $1-$2 game, two limpers from middle position, typical opponents for these stakes (loose/passive), and my cards are AQo. I first thought about what would happen with various raise sizes and what the pre-flop pot would likely look like (sorry about the table but couldn't cut and paste succesfully).

Pre-Flop...................# of........Pre-Flop
Action........My Bet......Callers........Pot
Call..............$2..........4.............$10
Min-Raise......$4..........4.............$20
3x Raise.......$6..........3.............$24
3x + 1 per.....$10.........2.............$30
3x + 1 per.....$10.........1.............$20
7x Raise.......$14.........1.............$28
8x Raise.......$16.........1.............$32
10x Raise......$20.........1.............$40


The first column is my action, the second is how much I bet, the third is how many callers I get, and fourth is the resulting pre-flop pot size. I get the blinds to call as well in the first two bets, only the BB and the original limpers in the third example, and then when I raise to $10 I only get 1 or 2 of the original limpers to call. The final three examples are larger raises where I think I only get 1 caller when I am behind (at these stakes I think I would get reraised by QQ-AA and sometimes AK and only called by a mid pocket pair or AK...making a raise this large a bad play with AQo).

With that information, I then considered what each of these raises and resulting pre-flop pots would mean for me if I had various beginning stack sizes.

STACK SIZE SPRS
Pre-Flop.......$40.....$100.....$200......$300.....$40 0
Action.......(20BB)...(50BB)..(100BB)..(150BB)..(2 00BB)
Call.............3.80.....9.80....19.80.....29.80. ....39.80
Min-Raise.....1.80.....4.80.....9.80.....14.80.....19. 80
3x Raise.......1.42.....3.92.....8.08.....12.25.....1 6.42
3x + 1 per....1.00.....3.00.....6.33......9.67.....13.00
3x + 1 per....1.50.....4.50.....9.50.....14.50.....19.50
7x Raise......0.93.....3.07.....6.64.....10.21.....13 .79
8x Raise......0.75.....2.63.....5.75......8.88.....12 .00
10x Raise.....0.50.....2.00.....4.50......7.00......9. 50

For beginning stack sizes under 100BB, it looks like raising 3x the BB plus 1 for each limper is the preferred pre-flop bet because it achieves the lowest SPR. Even if I only get 1 caller, I would rather face one opponent with a slightly higher SPR than 3 opponents with a lower SPR because my steal equity is better against one opponent.

As mentioned in the book, the difficulty begins when the beginning stack size reaches 100BB ($200) as the only way to get a low SPR is to raise more (and as mentioned above I think this raise amount is bad because I think I only get called by a better hand with limited steal equity). One alternative is to limp and get an SPR of 20. However, I still think the steal equity I have from the button at these stakes is sufficient to make raising the better play at 100BB. Furthermore, because most opponents at these stakes do not raise or check-raise unless they have two pair beat, I am not getting my whole stack in there unless I have a very strong hand as well.

This discussion relates to your hand example number 4 on page 226 where you suggest limping with KJs on the button after two limpers. I think it is close but in late position I think my steal equity is sufficient in low-limit NL games to raise with KJs on the button. In other words, the continuation bet still works in these games against 1 to 2 opponents on the flop. My hand is likely ahead of their range (or only slightly behind Ax or mid-pocket pairs) and they are playing fit or fold so that a continuation bet will win enough to justify the pre-flop raise. By doing this, it also improves the chances that I get action when I really do have a good over-pair.

So I feel like I am missing something, because despite what I learned from the book about the dangers of SPRs of around ten for TPTK type hands, I still think it is the better play to raise with AQo even with a beginning stack of 100BBs. Is this simply due to my estimation of the players at these stakes and my estimated steal equity (as you noted in footnote 61 on pg. 226) or in your opinion am I misestimating my steal equity in live or online games at these stakes ($1-$2 live/$0.10-$0.25 online)?