Tips for reading NLTP

[ImprovinNewbie]

the book that kinda taught me how to read (better than any other one ive read) was harrington on holdem 3. you must read 1 and 2 to understand 3 but it really walks you through the thought process it takes when reading a hand. it buidling from the beginning of a hand to current action. PF moves will most likely eliminate some hands, and flop action through to the flop. if you are good at logiclaly peicing these peices of info, you can really put an accurate read on some one. some things that you might need to know is if a player bets draws.. will limp with a big or any hand, make suck bets and so on. knowing an opponent or opponent type will make peicing the hand together easier.

the best example i have is i have a friend (a real fish but a great guy) who would call on the flop and river with a draw and make an unusally large bet for him on the river with draws only. pretty much anytime he made a bet like this afer 2 calls it was a missed draw. he knew he must bet to win, but it wasnt a believable bet. based on the draws on the board, one could call out his hand almost (or entirely) exactly.

that is how knowing your man is important. knowing and watching for certain things will tell you how a person bets their hands and will make your read MUCH more accurate.

like i said, do the harrington books.

[SenecaJim]

I think reading players is hardest part, cause there is no substitute for experience. I have been playing low-ml-limit for couple years and switched to nl in Oct. 30 sessions for about 220 hours and it comes slow (for me) but it does come.

And sometimes it takes awhile. No, I cant' give a list of weaknesses in half hour, but you will notice stuff as time goes by. I thought this guy was tough last night and probably a better player than me, but couple hours in I noticed he called some pretty big rasies with poor value, like 5xbb with K6s.(in position against a loose raiser, but still) Filed that in my little pea brain.

I was still playing after he busted out.( still, bad night for moi`). So study , play, play some more, study some more, to infinity and beyond.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it makes sense. Remember the people who wrote that book aren't particularly good NL players. It shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you continue to insert statements like this into every thread regarding this book? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's the key to understanding the book and getting some value out of it.

There's some useful information in the book, but it's no substitute for actual information from an actual NL player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your limited commentary still fails to prove that David/Ed aren't good NL players.

Do you post in the NL forums by chance? Would I be able to search there and find some strategy insight from you above and beyond "the authors of NLHETAP aren't very good NL players"?

There's an abundance of useful information in this book. Disseminating what the experienced players like and dislike is the real information gap it seems.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]


Your limited commentary still fails to prove that David/Ed aren't good NL players.

Do you post in the NL forums by chance? Would I be able to search there and find some strategy insight from you above and beyond "the authors of NLHETAP aren't very good NL players"?

There's an abundance of useful information in this book. Disseminating what the experienced players like and dislike is the real information gap it seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to prove they're not NL experts - that's common knowledge. Even they will admit it.

And no, I don't post the NL forums. It would be such an uphill battle it's not worth my time.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Your limited commentary still fails to prove that David/Ed aren't good NL players.

Do you post in the NL forums by chance? Would I be able to search there and find some strategy insight from you above and beyond "the authors of NLHETAP aren't very good NL players"?

There's an abundance of useful information in this book. Disseminating what the experienced players like and dislike is the real information gap it seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to prove they're not NL experts - that's common knowledge. Even they will admit it.



[/ QUOTE ]

When did they admit this? Where did they admit this? Can you please get them to admit this without posting as if they already have?

Will gladly concede if I am wrong or you show me proof.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Your limited commentary still fails to prove that David/Ed aren't good NL players.

Do you post in the NL forums by chance? Would I be able to search there and find some strategy insight from you above and beyond "the authors of NLHETAP aren't very good NL players"?

There's an abundance of useful information in this book. Disseminating what the experienced players like and dislike is the real information gap it seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to prove they're not NL experts - that's common knowledge. Even they will admit it.



[/ QUOTE ]

When did they admit this? Where did they admit this? Can you please get them to admit this without posting as if they already have?

Will gladly concede if I am wrong or you show me proof.


[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't read the book very carefully, did you? Pay careful attention to the part where Slansky admits all those damn poker artists keep kicking his ass even though he's done all this wonderful algebra.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Your limited commentary still fails to prove that David/Ed aren't good NL players.

Do you post in the NL forums by chance? Would I be able to search there and find some strategy insight from you above and beyond "the authors of NLHETAP aren't very good NL players"?

There's an abundance of useful information in this book. Disseminating what the experienced players like and dislike is the real information gap it seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to prove they're not NL experts - that's common knowledge. Even they will admit it.



[/ QUOTE ]

When did they admit this? Where did they admit this? Can you please get them to admit this without posting as if they already have?

Will gladly concede if I am wrong or you show me proof.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ed has said it a few times. He said that the ideas in NLTP mostly came from David since he was the one with the NLHE experience, and that Ed's role was more of a ghost-writer and editor (although he did contribute some of the ideas as well).

I believe he made this statement here on these forums, so you may find it with a search.

More recently, he said that there were a number of NLHE concepts he didn't really understand until after working with Matt Flynn and Sunny Mehta on the draft of their book. (He makes this statement here: "When Matt and Sunny laid out their ideas to me, it finally allowed me to “get” no limit in a way I never had before.")

That said, I do not believe that David Sklansky has ever "admitted" that he isn't much of a NLHE player.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, I do not believe that David Sklansky has ever "admitted" that he isn't much of a NLHE player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this hard to believe as well.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't read the book very carefully, did you? Pay careful attention to the part where Slansky admits all those damn poker artists keep kicking his ass even though he's done all this wonderful algebra?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're misinterpreting Sklansky's statement. He does say that artists can beat the algebra guys, but he doesn't say that he's not an artist himself. (Although he does say that the art can't be taught very well in a book, so the algebra is mainly what he writes about.)

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Your limited commentary still fails to prove that David/Ed aren't good NL players.

Do you post in the NL forums by chance? Would I be able to search there and find some strategy insight from you above and beyond "the authors of NLHETAP aren't very good NL players"?

There's an abundance of useful information in this book. Disseminating what the experienced players like and dislike is the real information gap it seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to prove they're not NL experts - that's common knowledge. Even they will admit it.



[/ QUOTE ]

When did they admit this? Where did they admit this? Can you please get them to admit this without posting as if they already have?

Will gladly concede if I am wrong or you show me proof.


[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't read the book very carefully, did you? Pay careful attention to the part where Slansky admits all those damn poker artists keep kicking his ass even though he's done all this wonderful algebra.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've actually read it quite well. Care to point me to this particular section/page? I've got my copy and am scanning through it but can't find this.