Ciaffone's Middle LHE

[RobertJohn]

Yeah, it is hard to get through that book in long sessions. This is due mainly to the overwhelming amount of hand problems, which is a good thing for sharpening your ability to analyze plays that you make, but it tolls on the readability.

The problem some have had with the book is what you've touched upon. His assumptions about his opponents likely ranges are often too tight and he advocates a lot of folds that are considered highly debateable by some if they occured online at equivalent stakes (or lower).

However, his problem-solving technique and his supporting logic are sound once you acknowledge his assumptions. To enjoy it more, you might see how the recommended strategy would change if you were to be more aggressive with the hand early, or if your opponents had wider ranges for their actions.

[dirty banana2007]

I havent read it yet, but it is on my to read list for the future.

In the archives there is a review by mason that is worth reading. I think he gave it two scores because of the high number of fold recommendations. If i remember rightly, he gave the lower score because if you followed the strategy it would leave you open to bluffs by opponents capable of good reads on your play. The higher score was for players who could identify hands in which Bob's recommended play was too tight.

[Heisenb3rg]

The key is , unless specified, he's assuming all his opponents are straightforward nits (like the average grinder used to be in the old MLHE days).
When you assume that, his analysis is often very sound...
My only complaint was even assuming your opponents are nits, he often underestimated your implied odds and overestimated the effect of reverse implied odds.
But not very much. Most players have the opposite mistakes (overvaluing their odds) so his thought process is very useful.

There are a lot of interesting concepts in the book, and it helped my full ring play immensily.

[Diana Ross Fan]

Thanks for the feedback guys, I am going to finish it off.