Chan right about HPFAP?

[skillzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I believe the best "book" for beating the online 0,1/0,2 - 0,5/1 (and sometimes higher) holdem games is Small Stakes Holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]

sshe advice doesnt really work all that well when players get agressiveand the pots get small and heads up

[smbruin22]

[ QUOTE ]
sshe advice doesnt really work all that well when players get agressiveand the pots get small and heads up

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd like to flesh this out further.... seems like alot of low limit games are fairly loose, but quite aggressive these days. i seldom see the classic LP conditions which i think SSHE is predicated on... SSHE does have alot of good general stuff though

[jimpo]

Everyone, including Mason, seems to get stuck on the starting hands part

[ QUOTE ]

"the 'I want to memorize a chart of starting hands and make poker into basic BJ strategy' crowd--Those people are busy reading HPFAP and getting slaughtered in 15/30 games across the internet


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we already know that starting hand charts will always be limited and should not be used mindlessly like a robot. I would be more interested in this part

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who plays as advised in the book is going to miss value bets, miss bluffs and lay down way too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any basis for this in your opinion?

[Shandrax]

I can understand when Mason wants to defend his book and he has every right to do so. Still it cannot be denied that limit Poker has changed a lot, because of online play and tools like Pokertracker and heads-up display. Nowadays you see people trying to figure out optimal hand ranges with Pokerstove against specific opponent hand ranges. You can watch people in the 100/200 (or bigger) games defending their big blind versus a button raiser in the 50+% range and they are correct to do so. You see them defending 60% or more heads-up against the SB and it works. Also I would say that the value of the semi-bluff at the flop has decreased a lot over the years. People are overdoing it and therefore it became fashionable to simply "take one off".

HEFAP was definitely a great book in '99, but when it comes to the game of pure numbers and especially blind defense and shorthanded play, it's obviously outdated. Nevertheless it gains from the fact that nothing better has been published so far, so it's still pretty good.

In my opinion a book on limit these days should concentrate on correct blind defense. Most important of all, it should compare different betting patterns and guide the reader through all the math and not just present the conclusions. In Hold'em you can't win by only playing good cards, I would like to read a book where that aspect gets covered more deeply.

[dragon14]

I agree with Shandrax and feel that the new Stoxtrader book will become the new best book for LHE.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I can understand when Mason wants to defend his book and he has every right to do so. Still it cannot be denied that limit Poker has changed a lot, because of online play and tools like Pokertracker and heads-up display. Nowadays you see people trying to figure out optimal hand ranges with Pokerstove against specific opponent hand ranges. You can watch people in the 100/200 (or bigger) games defending their big blind versus a button raiser in the 50+% range and they are correct to do so. You see them defending 60% or more heads-up against the SB and it works. Also I would say that the value of the semi-bluff at the flop has decreased a lot over the years. People are overdoing it and therefore it became fashionable to simply "take one off".

[/ QUOTE ]

If I remember correctly HPFAP basically states that defending against a steal raise is dependent on the hand ranges of the raiser and how well they play after the flop. Nowhere in that book does it give a "cut and dried" approach to defending against blind steals. Perhaps you're referring to a specific passage in the book that I'm missing. I don't have the book right in front of me but if you could point out the page number(s) you're referring to I'd be happy to retract what I just stated if it's in error.


[ QUOTE ]
HEFAP was definitely a great book in '99, but when it comes to the game of pure numbers and especially blind defense and shorthanded play, it's obviously outdated. Nevertheless it gains from the fact that nothing better has been published so far, so it's still pretty good

In my opinion a book on limit these days should concentrate on correct blind defense. Most important of all, it should compare different betting patterns and guide the reader through all the math and not just present the conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually IMO correct blind defense isn't too hard unless we're talking about almost all of the pots consisting of head's up and 3 way action against players that are aggressive and play well after the flop. Personally these aren't my favorite types of games.

Writing a book to cover the topic in as much detail as you specify would amount to writing a treatise. If memory serves, DS has posted a few times that a more comprehensive book has been considered by 2+2 but the cost would be much higher.

[ QUOTE ]
In Hold'em you can't win by only playing good cards, I would like to read a book where that aspect gets covered more deeply.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm positive that HPFAP never states that only playing good starting hands is enough to win. In fact on the subject of stealing blinds the range of hands is actually quite wide.

As far as Chan's comments are concerned. I have my doubts that he can point to a specific instance where a value bet should be made but HPFAP states that a player should check; I have my doubts that he can point to specific instance where a player should bluff and HPFAP states not to; or can point out a specific instance where HPFAP states to fold when a call should be made. The book is about concepts that apply to limit hold'em. In the book the authors state that applying the concepts is the difficult part of playing the game and sometimes concepts can be contradictory in playing a hand and finding the correct balance between concepts takes study and work. HPFAP is far from a cookbook approach to the game. I think the hand rankings make it appear that way to some and I suppose that reaching that conclusion is understandable. However, a close reading of pre-flop play text indicates that even that chapter does not take a cook book approach.


I'm fairly certain that Chan has impression of the book based on a "foggy" memory and personal takes he has on the authors that is out of line with the reality of what is actually written in the book.

Could a more comprehensive book be written? IMO yes but I don't think that this a basis for stating the book is outdated. Try re-reading the book, go the LHE forums and see if the concepts in the books apply. I think they do.

[scorer]

LOL...stoxtrader book is gonna be the best???? where did this come from, he must be your friend. The book due out mathematics of poker will have potential of being the best on limit and stoxs book is a big question mark and since there are no reviews....

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can understand when Mason wants to defend his book and he has every right to do so. Still it cannot be denied that limit Poker has changed a lot, because of online play and tools like Pokertracker and heads-up display. Nowadays you see people trying to figure out optimal hand ranges with Pokerstove against specific opponent hand ranges. You can watch people in the 100/200 (or bigger) games defending their big blind versus a button raiser in the 50+% range and they are correct to do so. You see them defending 60% or more heads-up against the SB and it works. Also I would say that the value of the semi-bluff at the flop has decreased a lot over the years. People are overdoing it and therefore it became fashionable to simply "take one off".

[/ QUOTE ]

If I remember correctly HPFAP basically states that defending against a steal raise is dependent on the hand ranges of the raiser and how well they play after the flop. Nowhere in that book does it give a "cut and dried" approach to defending against blind steals. Perhaps you're referring to a specific passage in the book that I'm missing. I don't have the book right in front of me but if you could point out the page number(s) you're referring to I'd be happy to retract what I just stated if it's in error.


[ QUOTE ]
HEFAP was definitely a great book in '99, but when it comes to the game of pure numbers and especially blind defense and shorthanded play, it's obviously outdated. Nevertheless it gains from the fact that nothing better has been published so far, so it's still pretty good

In my opinion a book on limit these days should concentrate on correct blind defense. Most important of all, it should compare different betting patterns and guide the reader through all the math and not just present the conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually IMO correct blind defense isn't too hard unless we're talking about almost all of the pots consisting of head's up and 3 way action against players that are aggressive and play well after the flop. Personally these aren't my favorite types of games.

Writing a book to cover the topic in as much detail as you specify would amount to writing a treatise. If memory serves, DS has posted a few times that a more comprehensive book has been considered by 2+2 but the cost would be much higher.

[ QUOTE ]
In Hold'em you can't win by only playing good cards, I would like to read a book where that aspect gets covered more deeply.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm positive that HPFAP never states that only playing good starting hands is enough to win. In fact on the subject of stealing blinds the range of hands is actually quite wide.

As far as Chan's comments are concerned. I have my doubts that he can point to a specific instance where a value bet should be made but HPFAP states that a player should check; I have my doubts that he can point to specific instance where a player should bluff and HPFAP states not to; or can point out a specific instance where HPFAP states to fold when a call should be made. The book is about concepts that apply to limit hold'em. In the book the authors state that applying the concepts is the difficult part of playing the game and sometimes concepts can be contradictory in playing a hand and finding the correct balance between concepts takes study and work. HPFAP is far from a cookbook approach to the game. I think the hand rankings make it appear that way to some and I suppose that reaching that conclusion is understandable. However, a close reading of pre-flop play text indicates that even that chapter does not take a cook book approach.


I'm fairly certain that Chan has impression of the book based on a "foggy" memory and personal takes he has on the authors that is out of line with the reality of what is actually written in the book.

Could a more comprehensive book be written? IMO yes but I don't think that this a basis for stating the book is outdated. Try re-reading the book, go the LHE forums and see if the concepts in the books apply. I think they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the concepts still apply.

Nice post.

b

[dragon14]

Stox has videos of his play and is a documented big winner at the tables. Stox shows exactly how he plays in real time. His videos are not outdated as they are made new every week. His high quality of play is documented on a daily basis as he plays under publicly known screen names.

Mathematics of Poker is clearly not a limit hold em book so it obviously can't become the top work in LHE. Keep dreaming though...

[scorer]

dragon14, the author of Mathematics of poker won 2 wsop bracelets one in limit and one in no limit this year, nobody out there comes remotely close to that. The other author placed very highly in a wsop event. These accomplishments were done after this book was announced, i think they are on to something special. I know of 3 pros who said the work and thinking was quite special in the book. For you to say stoxs book is going to be the best ever without knowing the exact content is in itself a clear example of you being his shill. People on this board have said hes a very good player and some others are better players then he is. I ghuess you believe the hype of 1100 per hour winrate.