Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[tipperdog]

Just got the book. Has the "Hand 3" example on pp 87-88 been discussed anywhere (I searched but didn't find)? I think the authors made an error here. At the very least, they didn't write the example well. Specifically the authors completely lose track of the "aggressive player" with an $800 stack. IMO his presence turns a close fold into a push or call. Here's the hand.

1/2 NL
OOP "Agressive Player" [AP] with $800 stack
MP "tight & straightforward" [TS] player with unknown stack (but "has you covered.")
Hero $180 with 6d 6s

PF: AP raises to $6. TS calls. Hero calls in position.
FLOP: 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. AP bets $20, TS raises to $80 (pot now $118) and action is to you with $174 behind. This flop decision is the point of the exercise.

The authors very reasonably conclude that 1) you are likely behind TS; 2) if you push, your $94 reraise will certainly be called by TS; and 3) calling isn't an attractive option. They also reasonably estimate your odds of winning are about 1.5:1 and correctly calculate your pot odds to about 1.25:1. Therefore, they say it's close, but it's a clear fold.


BUT WTF HAPPENED TO AP? He's still in the hand!

His presence could make the correct play a push. For example, AP could easily have a big overpair (he's played this hand just like AA or KK, hasn't he?) and if he calls, you'd be getting better than 2:1, and your odds of winning the pot would not be significantly diminished.

It's less likely, but also possible, that AP has a hand like AKc and (if TS has a similarly large stack) AP could reraise big as a semibluff, forcing TS to lay down his overpair--a sequence of events that gives you a huge overlay.

I think the presence of AP means you shouldn't fold. Surely, there has to be some reasonable chance he'll play, which will change your pot odds dramatically.

At the very least, I note the irony that just a few pages after the authors write "always consider your opponents and stack sizes before making committment decisions" they completely lose track of one opponent with a monster stack.

I'm confused [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Did I miss something in this hand example?