Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread - Page 15

Sunny Mehta · #**141** 07-30-2007, 12:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps they were talking about making a commitment decision before any flop betting takes place? (i didn't realize that they were accounting for rake, either.) sunny?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, we were....as for the $16, I'll take a look at it again - that might need to be changed to $19.....

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Page 59: (3rd paragraph) Wouldn't it be 3 potential straights..45, 58, and T8 ?

[/ QUOTE ]

great catch!

[/ QUOTE ]

great catch indeed....you guys rock....

Sunny Mehta · #**142** 07-30-2007, 12:51 AM

Thanks for the kind words MikeyPatriot. I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment, but I wanted to tell you to check out the thread in SSNL (it's linked earlier in this thread) because there's a ton of discussion there about the top pair with 100bb in online games issue.

As for postflop betting lines, we will definitely have a lot more to say about that in Volume Two. In the example you specified, there are a few different options depending on the opponent's specific tendencies, the specific turn card, etc. Check/call all the way, check/call flop and lead turn, check/call flop and check/raise turn, as well as check/call flop and check/call turn and lead river could all be viable options.

thanks...

-S

facepull · #**143** 07-30-2007, 05:10 AM

i think that in your basic 1-2 brick and mortar game that it seems like 5bb pre-flop raises will get action and the spr would be ideal much more often then on-line games.

+EV · #**144** 07-30-2007, 10:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the kind words MikeyPatriot. I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment, but I wanted to tell you to check out the thread in SSNL (it's linked earlier in this thread) because there's a ton of discussion there about the top pair with 100bb in online games issue.

As for postflop betting lines, we will definitely have a lot more to say about that in Volume Two. In the example you specified, there are a few different options depending on the opponent's specific tendencies, the specific turn card, etc. Check/call all the way, check/call flop and lead turn, check/call flop and check/raise turn, as well as check/call flop and check/call turn and lead river could all be viable options.

thanks...

-S

[/ QUOTE ]

What shape is this second volume in? I got the impression from a thread I saw before publication that you guys were still looking for topics for the second book? Is the manuscript or outline done for the second volume already?

+EV

ligastar · #**145** 07-30-2007, 07:01 PM

I'm on page 185 and enjoying the read. Well done Matt, Sunny and Ed!

I do believe, however, that I came across an error. I'll point out this possible error below. But first, is there another post or central repository where recognized errors are being stored or documented?

2nd to last paragraph on page 184, it reads:

...two-thirds of the pot is a reasonable lower bound for the size of a "big" bet because it denies good implied odds to draws.

Shouldn't "implied" read "pot"?

D.L.M. · #**146** 07-30-2007, 07:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm on page 185 and enjoying the read. Well done Matt, Sunny and Ed!

I do believe, however, that I came across an error. I'll point out this possible error below. But first, is there another post or central repository where recognized errors are being stored or documented?

2nd to last paragraph on page 184, it reads:

...two-thirds of the pot is a reasonable lower bound for the size of a "big" bet because it denies good implied odds to draws.

Shouldn't "implied" read "pot"?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bet size cuts both types of odds. you are risking more to win less(for implied odd since the bigger bet takes implied stack money into the pot) and the same for pot odds.

Pov · #**147** 07-30-2007, 11:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i think that in your basic 1-2 brick and mortar game that it seems like 5bb pre-flop raises will get action and the spr would be ideal much more often then on-line games.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, opening raises to less than 5-6 bb in 1/2 B&M are looked upon with suspicion [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

feelixthegreek · #**148** 07-30-2007, 11:39 PM

Here's a hand I played today, my first session after reading PNL (cross-posted in SSNL):

1/2 NL. Table is loose and pretty deep. I am 300BB deep with 99 UTG. I bump it to $10. Normally I limp, but taking SPR into account and expecting several callers I'm able to get the preflop pot to $60.

Flop is Ts9h5h. BB blind leads out for $20. I raise $120, effectviely putting him all-in. Normally I'd raise less, but with loose players behind me I want them to pay to much for whatever hands they may want to make. The button, who has me covered, calls, and BB folds. We are now heads up in a $320 pot.

Turn is a 7d. I lead for $200 and get put all in. I'm not terribly pleased, but with $270 to call for a $990 pot (plus what I knew about the player), the decision was easy.

That hand clarified the logic behind planning bet sizes that PNL discusses. In the past I would have had a much more troubling river decision and/or wouldn't have maximized the value on my set.

It's also interesting to observe how poorly players choose their bet sizes, folding when they've committed over half their stack and there's twice as much (or more) in the pot than they have left.

At the very least, the info in the book kept me focused on hands I wasn't involved in, since it gave me a new criteria for evaluating players I had already formed opinions about.

Sunny Mehta · #**149** 07-30-2007, 11:59 PM

awesome ftg, thanks!....

-S

Oct0puz · #**150** 07-31-2007, 01:21 AM

I have a question about the AQ hand on p.131.

According to SPR min-reraising maximizes your ev postflop when called, so you min-reraise. Given the range assigned to villain do we want him to call? If not how do we know that minraising, which has zero fold equity preflop, is better than for example making a 3x reraise which has some fold equity.